Law on Obligations and Contracts. A Case Digest about G.R. No. 133803, September 16, 2005. A group work during our first semester for the third year in college. BIENVENIDO M. CASIÑO, JR., P…Full description
covers cases of Part 2 of Syllabus of Election law
case digest
Full description
case digest format for polirev.Full description
Full description
examFull description
digestedFull description
Legal Ethics casesFull description
Legal Ethics
mFull description
digested cyber crime case
a compilation of case digest written by the students of dean festin
CASE DIGESTS (Of Landmark Supreme Court Decisions In Constitutional Law) July 201 !dition Prepared by:
ATTY. LARRY D. GACAYAN "rofessor Colle#e of Law UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS $a#uio City (POLITICAL LAW REVIEW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II )
$%& &!'I!!& (Political Law & Constitutional Law )
C.P.R.S. BAR REVIEW CENTER Ca#ayan de Oro City *am+oan#a City Da,ao City O-amis City Iloilo City $a#uio Cityand Cityand .aclo+an aclo+a n City City POWERHAWS BAR REVIEW CENTER $a#uio City City Santia#o City Isa+ela San /ernando City City La nion anila a#a City City .aclo+a .aclo+an n City City Dipolo# City and .a#+ilaran a#+ila ran City COSOPOLITAN REVIEW CENTER (CRC! ni,ersity of t3e Cordilleras $a#uio City E"CELLENT BAR REVIEW CENTER $a#uio City Ce+u City and .aclo+an City HOLY TRINITY COLLEGE PRE#BAR REVIEW CENTER 4eneral Santos City UNIVERSITY O$ PANGASINAN BAR REVIEW CENTER Da#upan City
2
The i!ht to Due Pocess Pocess o" law on the #at o" $a%o $a%o $alisi $alisi was 'iola 'iolate( te( when when he was not noti noti"i "ie( e( o" the the (ate (ates s when when the the CO$E CO$ELE LEC C con(ucte con(ucte( ( the (ec%#tion (ec%#tion an( #intin! #intin! o" the )allot )allot i*a!es i*a!es "o* "o* the CF Ca(s Ca(s )% the Fist Fist Di'ision o" the CO$ELEC in an a##eale( case+
AYOR EANUEL L. ALI%SI VS. COELEC a&d HOER T. SA'UILAYAN, SA'UILAYAN, G.R. N. )*++*), Apr- +, )*+ Durin# t3e 2010 !lections t3e unicipal $oard of Can,assers proclaimed Sa5uilayan t3e winner for t3e position of ayor of Imus Ca,ite6 aliksi t3e candidate w3o #arnered t3e second 3i#3est num+er of ,otes +rou#3t an election protest in t3e &e#ional .rial Court (&.C) in Imus Ca,ite alle#in# t3at t3ere were irre#ularities in t3e countin# of ,otes in 207 clustered precincts6 Su+se5uently t3e &.C 3eld a re,ision of t3e ,otes and +ased on t3e results of t3e re,ision declared aliksi as t3e duly elected ayor of Imus commandin# Sa5uilayan to cease and desist from performin# t3e functions of said office6 Sa5uilayan appealed appealed to t3e CO!L!C6 In t3e meanw3ile t3e &.C #ranted aliksi8s motion for e9ecution pendin# appeal and aliksi was t3en installed as ayor6 In resol,in# t3e appeal t3e CO!L!C CO!L!C /irst Di,ision wit3out #i,in# notice to t3e parties decided to recount t3e +allots t3rou#3 t3e use of t3e printouts of t3e +allot ima#es from t3e C/ cards6 .3us it issued an order dated arc3 2: 2012 re5uirin# Sa5uilayan to deposit t3e amount necessary to defray t3e e9penses for t3e decryption and printin# of t3e +allot ima#es6 Later it issued anot3er order dated %pril 1; 2012 for Sa5uilayan to au#ment 3is cas3 deposit6 On %u#ust 1< 2012 t3e /irst Di,ision issued a resolution nullifyin# t3e &.C8s decision and declarin# Sa5uilayan Sa5uilayan as t3e duly elected ayor 6 aliksi filed a motion for reconsideration reconsideration alle#in# t3at 3e 3ad +een denied 3is ri#3t to due process +ecause 3e 3ad not +een notified of t3e decryption proceedin#s6 =e ar#ued t3at t3e resort to t3e printouts of t3e +allot ima#es w3ic3 were secondary e,idence 3ad +een unwarranted +ecause t3ere was no proof t3at t3e inte#rity of t3e paper +allots 3ad not +een preser,ed6 On Septem+er 1> 2012 t3e CO!L!C En Banc resol,ed to deny aliksi8s motion for reconsideration6aliksi went to t3e Supreme Court reiteratin# 3is o+?ections to t3e decryption printin# and e9amination of t3e +allot ima#es wit3out prior notice to 3im in ,iolation of 3is constitutional ri#3t to due process of law and to t3e use of t3e printouts of t3e +allot ima#es in t3e recount proceedin#s conducted +y t3e /irst Di,ision6 In t3e decision promul#ated on arc3 12 201 t3e Supreme Court +y a ,ote of :@; dismissed aliksi8s aliksi8s petition for certiorari. .3e Court concluded t3at aliksi 3ad not +een denied due process +ecauseA ( a) 3e 3ad recei,ed notices of t3e decryption printin# and e9amination of t3e +allot ima#es +y t3e /irst Di,ision B referrin# to t3e orders of t3e /irst Di,ision directin# Sa5uilayan to post and au#ment t3e cas3 deposits for t3e decryption and printin# of t3e +allot ima#es and (b ( b) 3e 3ad +een a+le to raise 3is o+?ections to t3e decryption in 3is motion for reconsideration6 .3e Court t3en pronounced t3at t3e /irst Di,ision did not a+use its discretion in decidin# to use t3e +allot ima#es instead of t3e paper +allots e9plainin# t3at t3e printouts of t3e +allot ima#es were not secondary ima#es +ut considered ori#inal documents wit3 t3e same e,identiary e,identiary ,alue as t3e official +allots under t3e &ule on !lectronic !,idence and t3at t3e /irst Di,ision Di,ision8s 8s findin# findin# t3at t3e +allots +allots and t3e +allot +allot +o9es +o9es 3ad +een tampere tampered d 3ad +een fully fully esta+lis3ed +y t3e lar#e num+er of cases of dou+le@s3adin# disco,ered durin# t3e re,ision6
2
The i!ht to Due Pocess Pocess o" law on the #at o" $a%o $a%o $alisi $alisi was 'iola 'iolate( te( when when he was not noti noti"i "ie( e( o" the the (ate (ates s when when the the CO$E CO$ELE LEC C con(ucte con(ucte( ( the (ec%#tion (ec%#tion an( #intin! #intin! o" the )allot )allot i*a!es i*a!es "o* "o* the CF Ca(s Ca(s )% the Fist Fist Di'ision o" the CO$ELEC in an a##eale( case+
AYOR EANUEL L. ALI%SI VS. COELEC a&d HOER T. SA'UILAYAN, SA'UILAYAN, G.R. N. )*++*), Apr- +, )*+ Durin# t3e 2010 !lections t3e unicipal $oard of Can,assers proclaimed Sa5uilayan t3e winner for t3e position of ayor of Imus Ca,ite6 aliksi t3e candidate w3o #arnered t3e second 3i#3est num+er of ,otes +rou#3t an election protest in t3e &e#ional .rial Court (&.C) in Imus Ca,ite alle#in# t3at t3ere were irre#ularities in t3e countin# of ,otes in 207 clustered precincts6 Su+se5uently t3e &.C 3eld a re,ision of t3e ,otes and +ased on t3e results of t3e re,ision declared aliksi as t3e duly elected ayor of Imus commandin# Sa5uilayan to cease and desist from performin# t3e functions of said office6 Sa5uilayan appealed appealed to t3e CO!L!C6 In t3e meanw3ile t3e &.C #ranted aliksi8s motion for e9ecution pendin# appeal and aliksi was t3en installed as ayor6 In resol,in# t3e appeal t3e CO!L!C CO!L!C /irst Di,ision wit3out #i,in# notice to t3e parties decided to recount t3e +allots t3rou#3 t3e use of t3e printouts of t3e +allot ima#es from t3e C/ cards6 .3us it issued an order dated arc3 2: 2012 re5uirin# Sa5uilayan to deposit t3e amount necessary to defray t3e e9penses for t3e decryption and printin# of t3e +allot ima#es6 Later it issued anot3er order dated %pril 1; 2012 for Sa5uilayan to au#ment 3is cas3 deposit6 On %u#ust 1< 2012 t3e /irst Di,ision issued a resolution nullifyin# t3e &.C8s decision and declarin# Sa5uilayan Sa5uilayan as t3e duly elected ayor 6 aliksi filed a motion for reconsideration reconsideration alle#in# t3at 3e 3ad +een denied 3is ri#3t to due process +ecause 3e 3ad not +een notified of t3e decryption proceedin#s6 =e ar#ued t3at t3e resort to t3e printouts of t3e +allot ima#es w3ic3 were secondary e,idence 3ad +een unwarranted +ecause t3ere was no proof t3at t3e inte#rity of t3e paper +allots 3ad not +een preser,ed6 On Septem+er 1> 2012 t3e CO!L!C En Banc resol,ed to deny aliksi8s motion for reconsideration6aliksi went to t3e Supreme Court reiteratin# 3is o+?ections to t3e decryption printin# and e9amination of t3e +allot ima#es wit3out prior notice to 3im in ,iolation of 3is constitutional ri#3t to due process of law and to t3e use of t3e printouts of t3e +allot ima#es in t3e recount proceedin#s conducted +y t3e /irst Di,ision6 In t3e decision promul#ated on arc3 12 201 t3e Supreme Court +y a ,ote of :@; dismissed aliksi8s aliksi8s petition for certiorari. .3e Court concluded t3at aliksi 3ad not +een denied due process +ecauseA ( a) 3e 3ad recei,ed notices of t3e decryption printin# and e9amination of t3e +allot ima#es +y t3e /irst Di,ision B referrin# to t3e orders of t3e /irst Di,ision directin# Sa5uilayan to post and au#ment t3e cas3 deposits for t3e decryption and printin# of t3e +allot ima#es and (b ( b) 3e 3ad +een a+le to raise 3is o+?ections to t3e decryption in 3is motion for reconsideration6 .3e Court t3en pronounced t3at t3e /irst Di,ision did not a+use its discretion in decidin# to use t3e +allot ima#es instead of t3e paper +allots e9plainin# t3at t3e printouts of t3e +allot ima#es were not secondary ima#es +ut considered ori#inal documents wit3 t3e same e,identiary e,identiary ,alue as t3e official +allots under t3e &ule on !lectronic !,idence and t3at t3e /irst Di,ision Di,ision8s 8s findin# findin# t3at t3e +allots +allots and t3e +allot +allot +o9es +o9es 3ad +een tampere tampered d 3ad +een fully fully esta+lis3ed +y t3e lar#e num+er of cases of dou+le@s3adin# disco,ered durin# t3e re,ision6
3
In 3is !9tremely r#ent otion for &econsideration aliksi a#ain raised t3e alle#ed ,iolation of 3is ri#3t to due process6 aliksi insistsA (a ( a) t3at 3e 3ad t3e ri#3t to +e notified of e,ery incident of t3e proceedin#s and to +e present at e,ery sta#e t3ereof ( b) t3at 3e was depri,ed of suc3 ri#3ts w3en 3e was not informed of t3e decryption printin# and e9amination of t3e +allot ima#es +y t3e /irst Di,ision (c (c ) t3at t3e arc3 2: 2012 and %pril 1; 2012 orders of t3e /irst Di,ision did not sufficiently #i,e 3im notice inasmuc3 as t3e orders did not state t3e date time and ,enue of t3e decryption and printin# of t3e +allot ima#es and ( d ) t3at 3e was t3us completely depri,ed of t3e opportunity to participate in t3e decryption proceedin#s6 He-d: .3e Supreme Court #ranted aliksi8s !9tremely r#ent otion for &econsideration and re,erses t3e decision promul#ated on arc3 12 201 on t3e #round t3at t3e /irst Di,ision of t3e CO!L!C denied to 3im t3e ri#3t to due process +y failin# to #i,e due notice on t3e decrypti decryption on and printin# printin# of t3e +allot +allot ima#es6 ima#es6 Conse5 Conse5uen uently tly t3e Court Court annuls annuls t3e recount recount proceedin#s conducted +y t3e /irst Di,ision wit3 t3e use of t3e printouts of t3e +allot ima#es6 It +ears stressin# at t3e outset t3at t3e /irst Di,ision s3ould not 3a,e conducted t3e assailed recount proceedin#s +ecause it was t3en e9ercisin# appellate ?urisdiction as to w3ic3 no e9istin# rule of procedure allowed it to conduct a recount in t3e first instance6 .3e recount proceed proceedin#s in#s aut3ori-ed aut3ori-ed under Section Section &ule &ule 1< of CO!L!C CO!L!C &esolution &esolution o6 ::0> ::0> as amend amended ed are are to +e cond conduct ucted ed +y t3e t3e CO!L CO!L!C !C Di,isi Di,ision ons s only only in t3e e9ercis e9ercise e of t3eir t3eir e9clu e9clusi, si,e e ori#in ori#inal al ?urisd ?urisdict iction ion o,er o,er all all electi election on prote protests sts in,ol, in,ol,in# in# electi electi,e ,e re#ion re#ional al (t3e (t3e autonomous re#ions) pro,incial and city officials6 e s3ould not i#nore t3at t3e parties8 participation durin# t3e re,ision and recount proce proceed edin# in#s s woul would d not not +ene +enefit fit only only t3e parti parties es +ut +ut was was as ,ital ,ital and and si#nif si#nifica icant nt for t3e CO!L!C as well for only +y t3eir participation would t3e CO!L!C8s proceedin#s attain credi credi+il +ility ity as to t3e t3e resul result6 t6 .3e .3e parti parties8 es8 presenc presence e would would 3a,e 3a,e ensur ensured ed t3at t3at t3e re5uis re5uisite ite procedures 3a,e +een followed includin# t3e re5uired aut3entication and certification t3at t3e ima#es to +e printed are #enuine6 In t3is re#ard t3e CO!L!C was less t3an candid and was e,en ca,alier in its conduct of t3e decryption and printin# of t3e picture ima#es of t3e +allots and t3e recount proceedin#s6 .3e CO!L!C was merely content wit3 listin# t3e #uidelines t3at t3e /irst Di,ision 3ad followed in t3e appreciation of t3e +allots and t3e results of t3e recount6 In s3ort t3ere was ,a#ueness as to w3at rule 3ad +een followed in t3e decryption and printin# proceedin#6 .3e Supreme Court 3eld t3at t3e &esolution does not intend to ,alidate t3e ,ictory of any of t3e parties in t3e 2010 !lections6 .3at is not t3e concern of t3e Court as yet6 .3e Court simply does not want to countenance a denial of t3e fundamental ri#3t to due process a cornerstone of our le#al system6 Dis* Dis*is issa sall o" a ci* ci*in inal al case case )ase )ase( ( on a De*ue ue to E'i(e i(ence nce es esults lts in (ou (ou)le )le ,eo#a(% an( that no a##eal- $otion "o Reco Reconsi nsi(e (ea atio tion n no #etiti #etition on "o cetio cetioa ai i un(e Rule ./ *a% )e entetaine(- as a !eneal ule+ Pi'ate co*#lainant *a% not- without the #atici#ation #atici#ation o" the Solicito 0eneal0eneal- 1uestion sai( (is*issal )e"oe the Cout o" A##eals o Su#e*e Cout .
.3e petitioners w3o are editor and assistant editor of t3e ta+loid $andera were c3ar#ed of two (2) counts of Li+el +efore t3e &.C of andaluyon# City +ased on t3e complaint of actress S3aron Cuneta@"an#ilinan6 In Criminal Case o6 C02@>:;2 t3e Information dated /e+ruary > 2002 readsA .3at on or a+out t3e 2>t3 day of %pril 2001 in t3e City of andaluyon# "3ilippines and wit3in t3e ?urisdiction of t3is =onora+le Court t3e a+o,e@named accused conspirin# and confederatin# to#et3er wit3 9 9 9 wit3 deli+erate intent to +rin# S=%&O 46 C!.%@"%4ILI% into pu+lic dis3onor s3ame and contempt did t3en and t3ere wilfully unlawfully and feloniously and wit3 malice and ridicule cause to pu+lis3 in Bandera (ta+loid) wit3 circulation in etro anila w3ic3 amon# ot3ers 3a,e t3e followin# insultin# and slanderous remarks to witA MAGTIGIL KA, SHARON! Shaon Cuneta- the *e!a2ta)a sin!e2actess- I3( lie to )elie'e- is eall% )ain2(ea( . Mukhan totoo ata un "ina"abi n kaibian ni #etti$ou Taa na anan "ia. Ma"a%ita ka, Mi""ed &uneta, at "abihin 'on hindi ito totoo. ((( )io" 'io *erdon, +hat "he et" to "ee are tho"e *ur*orted% bitin co''entarie" about her katabaan and ka*%a"tikan but "he ha" "i'*% reu"ed to ackno+%ede the ood re-ie+" +e-e done on her. ( ( ( In Criminal Case o6 C02@>:;< t3e Information dated /e+ruary > 2002 readsA .3at on or a+out t3e 2;t3 day of arc3 2001 in t3e City of andaluyon# "3ilippines and wit3in t3e ?urisdiction of t3is =onora+le Court t3e a+o,e@named accused conspirin# and confederatin# to#et3er wit3 JaneEJo3n Does unknown directorsEofficers of Bandera "u+lis3in# 9 9 9 wit3 deli+erate intent to +rin# S=%&O 46 C!.%@"%4ILI% into pu+lic dis3onor s3ame and contempt did t3en and t3ere wilfully unlawfully and feloniously and wit3 malice and ridicule cause to pu+lis3 in Bandera (ta+loid) wit3 circulation in etro anila w3ic3 amon# ot3ers 3a,e t3e followin# insultin# and slanderous remarks to witA
FShe doe"nt +ant ka"i her hu"band to +in a" a "enator becau"e +hen that ha**en", 'a+a+a%an "ia n ho%d "a kana,/ our ca%%er o*ine". #etti$ou i" rea%% "ad that Sharon i" treatin her hu"band %ike a +i'*.
5
0In *ub%ic,/ our "ource oe" on tart%, 0*a ki""1ki"" "ia. #a e'brace1e'brace *ero kun "i%an da%a+a 2na3 %an *aran kun "inon "a'*id kun i1treat nia "i Kiko./ M God #ete, Har-ard raduate "i Kiko. He" rea%% inte%%ient a" co'*ared to Sharon +ho a**ear" to be brain dead 'o"t o the ti'e. pon arrai#nment petitioners eac3 entered a plea of not #uilty6 .3ereafter a ?oint pre@ trial and trial of t3e cases ensued6 On o,em+er 1> 200 after t3e prosecution rested its case petitioners filed a otion for Lea,e of Court to /ile t3e %ttac3ed Demurrer to !,idence6 In t3eir Demurrer to !,idence w3ic3 was appended to t3e said otion $autista and %lcantara alle#ed t3at t3e prosecutionGs e,idence failed to esta+lis3 t3eir participation as !ditor and %ssociate !ditor respecti,ely of t3e pu+lication Bandera t3at t3at t3e su+?ect articles written +y %mpolo5uio were not li+elous due to a+sence of malice6 On %pril 2< 200: t3e &.C issued an Order1 #rantin# petitioners8 Demurrer to !,idence and dismissed t3e a+o,e criminal cases6 On %u#ust 17 200: respondent S3aron Cuneta@"an#ilinan filed a "etition for &ertiorari wit3 t3e C% seekin# to set aside t3e &.C Order dated %pril 2< 200: w3ic3 #ranted petitionersG Demurrer to !,idence and ordered t3e dismissal of t3e cases a#ainst t3em6 In a Decision dated ay 17 2007 t3e C% #ranted respondentGs petition t3ere+y re,ersin# and settin# aside t3e &.C Order dated %pril 2< 200: and ordered t3at t3e case +e remanded to t3e trial court for reception of petitionersG e,idence6 %##rie,ed petitioners filed a otion for &econsideration dated June ; 2007 w3ic3 3owe,er was denied +y t3e C% in a &esolution dated Septem+er 2: 20076 =ence petitioners filed t3is petition claimin# t3at t3e petition for Certiorari filed +y S3aron Cuneta@"an#ilinan ,iolated t3eir ri#3t a#ainst dou+le ?eopardy6 =eldA .3e petition is impressed wit3 merit6 "etitioners alle#e t3at t3e Order of t3e &.C dated %pril 2< 200: #rantin# t3e Demurrer to !,idence was tantamount to an ac5uittal6 %s suc3 t3e prosecution can no lon#er interpose an appeal to t3e C% as it would place t3em in dou+le ?eopardy6 "etitioners contend t3at respondentGs petition for certiorari wit3 t3e C% s3ould not 3a,e prospered +ecause t3e alle#ations t3erein in effect assailed t3e trial courtGs ?ud#ment not its ?urisdiction6 In ot3er words petitioners posit t3at t3e said Order was in t3e nature of an error of ?ud#ment rendered w3ic3 was not correcti+le +y a petition for certiorari wit3 t3e C%6 %t t3e onset it s3ould +e noted t3at respondent took a procedural misstep and t3e ,iew s3e is ad,ancin# is erroneous6 .3e aut3ority to represent t3e State in appeals of criminal cases +efore t3e Supreme Court and t3e C% is solely ,ested in t3e Office of t3e Solicitor 4eneral (OS4)6 Section < (1) C3apter 12 .itle III $ook I' of t3e 17:; %dministrati,e Code e9plicitly pro,ides t3at t3e OS4 s3all represent t3e 4o,ernment of t3e "3ilippines its a#encies and instrumentalities and its officials and a#ents in any liti#ation proceedin# in,esti#ation or matter re5uirin# t3e ser,ices of lawyers6 It s3all 3a,e specific powers and functions to represent t3e 4o,ernment and its officers in t3e Supreme Court and t3e C% and all ot3er courts or tri+unals
6
in all ci,il actions and special proceedin#s in w3ic3 t3e 4o,ernment or any officer t3ereof in 3is official capacity is a party6 .3e OS4 is t3e law office of t3e 4o,ernment6 .o +e sure in criminal cases t3e ac5uittal of t3e accused or t3e dismissal of t3e case a#ainst 3im can only +e appealed +y t3e Solicitor 4eneral actin# on +e3alf of t3e State6 .3e pri,ate complainant or t3e offended party may 5uestion suc3 ac5uittal or dismissal only insofar as t3e ci,il lia+ility of t3e accused is concerned6 .3us t3e Court 3as definiti,ely ruled t3at in a criminal case in w3ic3 t3e offended party is t3e State t3e interest of t3e pri,ate complainant or t3e pri,ate offended party is limited to t3e ci,il lia+ility arisin# t3erefrom6 If a criminal case is dismissed +y t3e trial court or if t3ere is an ac5uittal an appeal of t3e criminal aspect may +e undertaken w3ene,er le#ally feasi+le only +y t3e State t3rou#3 t3e solicitor #eneral6 %s a rule only t3e Solicitor 4eneral may represent t3e "eople of t3e "3ilippines on appeal6 .3e pri,ate offended party or complainant may not undertake suc3 appeal6 In t3e case at +ar t3e petition filed +y t3e respondent +efore t3e C% essentially 5uestioned t3e criminal aspect of t3e Order of t3e &.C not t3e ci,il aspect of t3e case6 Conse5uently t3e petition s3ould 3a,e +een filed +y t3e State t3rou#3 t3e OS46 Since t3e petition for certiorari filed in t3e C% was not at t3e instance of t3e OS4 t3e same s3ould 3a,e +een outri#3tly dismissed +y t3e C%6 /inally alt3ou#3 t3e conclusion of t3e trial court may +e wron# to re,erse and set aside t3e Order #rantin# t3e demurrer to e,idence would ,iolate petitioners8 constitutionally@ens3rined ri#3t a#ainst dou+le ?eopardy6 =ad it not +een for t3is procedural defect t3e Court could 3a,e seriously considered t3e ar#uments ad,anced +y t3e respondent in seekin# t3e re,ersal of t3e Order of t3e &.C6 .3e #rantin# of a demurrer to e,idence s3ould t3erefore +e e9ercised wit3 caution takin# into consideration not only t3e ri#3ts of t3e accused +ut also t3e ri#3t of t3e pri,ate offended party to +e ,indicated of t3e wron#doin# done a#ainst 3im for if it is #ranted t3e accused is ac5uitted and t3e pri,ate complainant is #enerally left wit3 no more remedy6 In suc3 instances alt3ou#3 t3e decision of t3e court may +e wron# t3e accused can in,oke 3is ri#3t a#ainst dou+le ?eopardy6 .3us ?ud#es are reminded to +e more dili#ent and circumspect in t3e performance of t3eir duties as mem+ers of t3e $enc3 always +earin# in mind t3at t3eir decisions affect t3e li,es of t3e accused and t3e indi,iduals w3o come to t3e courts to seek redress of #rie,ances w3ic3 decision could +e possi+ly used +y t3e a##rie,ed party as +asis for t3e filin# of t3e appropriate actions a#ainst t3em6
$a% an accuse( cha!e( o" 4sellin!5 *ai,uana in the ci*inal in"o*ation )e con'icte( o" 4#ossession5 o" *ai,uana without 'iolatin! his constitutional i!ht to )e in"o*e( o" the natue an( cause o" accusation a!ainst hi*6 PEOPLE O$ THE PHILIPPINES /0. CHAD ANANANSALA, G.R. N. 342+2, Apr- +, )*+ .3e information filed on Octo+er 20 177> a#ainst t3e accused alle#esA 4That on o a)out the nineteenth 789th: (a% o" Octo)e899;- in the Cit% o" Olon!a#o- Phili##ines an( within the
7
,uis(iction o" this Honoa)le Cout- the a)o'e2na*e( accuse(- without )ein! law"ull% authoi !a*s o ? ilo o" *ai,uana (ie( lea'es #lace( in a s*all woo(en )o@ insi(e the ca)inet- which ae #ohi)ite( (u!s- "oun( in his #ossession an( contol+ CONTRARY TO LA+ 4 .o su+stantiate t3e c3ar#e t3e "rosecution s3owed t3at on Octo+er 1: 177> t3e "3ilippine ational "olice in Olon#apo City ("") conducted a test@+uy operation a#ainst anansala a suspected dealer of 'ari4uana6 On t3e same date followin# t3e test@+uy t3e "" applied for and o+tained a searc3 warrant from t3e &.C $ranc3 ;2 Olon#apo City (Searc3 arrant o6 :@7>) to aut3ori-e t3e searc3 for and sei-ure of pro3i+ited dru#s in anansala8s residence located at o6 << Jo3nson !9tension Barana !ast $a?ac $a?ac Olon#apo City6 S"O> /elipe "6 $olina and ot3er elements of t3e "" accompanied +y Barana C3airman &eynaldo analan# of Barana !ast $a?ac $a?ac conducted t3e searc3 of anansala8s 3ouse at around 6 .3e searc3 yielded t3e ;<0 #rams of dried 'ari4uana lea,es su+?ect of t3e information w3ic3 t3e searc3 team reco,ered from a wooden +o9 placed inside a ca+inet6 %lso sei-ed was t3e amount of "<<600 t3at included t3e two marked "<0600 +ills +earin# serial num+ers SHJ:1201: and S>2;>; used durin# t3e test +uy6 %fter trial accused was con,icted of Fpossession of mari?uana only under Section : of &% o6 >2< instead of Section >6 .3e said decision was affirmed +y t3e Court of %ppeals6 I008e: as 3is constitutional ri#3t to +e informed of t3e nature and cause of accusation a#ainst 3im ,iolated w3en 3e was c3ar#ed of Fsale of mari?uana under Section > of &% o6 >2< +ut was con,icted of Fpossession under Section : of t3e same law@@@ w3ic3 entitles 3im to ac5uittal He-d: .3e crime c3ar#ed in t3e information was clearly for ,iolation of Section > of &epu+lic %ct o6 >2< or Fsale of pro3i+ited dru#s as amended +y &epu+lic %ct o6 ;<76 %rrai#ned under suc3 information anansala pleaded not ui%t to it6 $ut instead of findin# 3im #uilty of t3e crime c3ar#ed after trial t3e &.C con,icted 3im for ,iolation of Section : of &epu+lic %ct o6 >2< as amended +y &epu+lic %ct o6 ;<76 .3e accused now 5uestions said con,iction +ased on t3e alle#ed ,iolation of 3is constitutional ri#3t to +e informed of t3e nature and cause of accusation a#ainst 3im6 3ile no con,iction for t3e unlawful sale of pro3i+ited dru#s may +e 3ad under t3e present circumstances t3e esta+lis3ed principle is t3at possession of 'ari4uana is a+sor+ed in t3e sale t3ereof e96ep7 ;ere 7;e 0e--er 0 <8r7;er appre;e&ded & p00e00& < a&7;er =8a&77y < 7;e pr;b7ed dr8>0 &7 6/ered by r &6-8ded & 7;e 0a-e a&d ;6; are prbab-y &7e&ded <r 0?e <878re dea-&>0 r 80e by 7;e 0e--er 6 In t3is case it 3as +een satisfactorily ascertained t3at t3e +ricks of 'ari4uana confiscated from accused@appellant were t3e same pro3i+ited dru#s su+?ect of t3e ori#inal Information6 In t3is li#3t t3e trial court and t3e Court of %ppeals committed no re,ersi+le error in con,ictin# t3e accused@appellant of ille#al
8
possession of dan#erous dru#s under Section : %rticle II of t3e Dan#erous Dru#s %ct of 17;2 as amended6 .o properly resol,e t3e appeal t3erefore it is necessary to determine w3et3er t3e con,iction of anansala for a ,iolation of Section : w3ic3 t3e information did not alle#e instead of for a ,iolation of Section > w3ic3 t3e information alle#ed was not in ,iolation of 3is constitutional ri#3t to +e informed of t3e nature and cause of t3e accusation +rou#3t a#ainst 3im6 .3e rule is t3at w3en t3ere is a ,ariance +etween t3e offense c3ar#ed in t3e complaint or information and t3at pro,ed or esta+lis3ed +y t3e e,idence and t3e offense as c3ar#ed necessarily includes t3e offense pro,ed t3e accused s3all +e con,icted of t3e offense pro,ed included in t3at w3ic3 is c3ar#ed6 %ccordin# to Section < &ule 120 Ru%e" o &ourt (17:<) t3e rule t3en applica+le an offense c3ar#ed necessarily includes t3at w3ic3 is pro,ed w3en some of t3e essential elements or in#redients of t3e former as t3is is alle#ed in t3e complaint or information constitute t3e latter6 Non2co*#liance o" Section B8 o" RA No+ 98./ entitles the accuse( to ac1uittal )ase( on his constitutional #esu*#tion o" innocence+ THE PEOPLE O$ THE PHILIPPINES VS. SAY UIPANG, G.R. N. 2*+), Apr- )4, )*)
%ctin# on a tip from a confidential informant t3at a person named Sam was sellin# dru#s alon# Ca#ayan de Oro Street in a3arlika 'illa#e .a#ui# City a +uy@+ust team from t3e KStation %nti@Ille#al Dru#s Special Operation .ask /orce (S%ID@SO./)M of t3e .a#ui# City "olice was dispatc3ed on %pril 1 200 at around A00 in t3e e,enin#6 K"olice Officer ("O) 2M 4asid was assi#ned to act as poseur +uyer and 3e was #i,en a ₱<00600 marked money6 .3e operation was coordinated wit3 t3e "3ilippine Dru# !nforcement %#ency ("D!%)6 pon arri,al at t3e area "O2 4asid and t3e confidential informant sauntered t3e len#t3 of t3e street w3ile t3e ot3er mem+ers of t3e team strate#ically positioned t3emsel,es6 .3e confidential informant saw t3e man called Sam standin# near a store6 .3e confidential informant and "O2 4asid t3en approac3ed Sam6 Strai#3t off t3e confidential informant said F Sa', *a1 i"kor ka'i 6 Sam replied FMakano an ii"korin no5 .3e confidential informant said F 6i-e hundred *e"o"6 Sam took out t3ree () plastic sac3ets containin# w3ite crystalline su+stance wit3 ,arious price ta#s<00 00 and 1006 %fter makin# a c3oice "O2 4asid 3anded t3e marked ₱<00600 to Sam w3o recei,ed t3e same6 pon receipt +y Sam of t3e marked money "O2 4asid immediately #ra++ed and arrested Sam6 In a few seconds t3e rest of t3e +uy@+ust team ?oined t3em6 "O1 &a#os 3andcuffed Sam6 /i,e (<) more plastic sac3ets containin# t3e same w3ite crystalline su+stance were reco,ered from Sam6 "O2 4asid marked t3e items wit3 t3e initials FS% Kw3ic3 stood for Sammy %6 mipan# t3e complete name includin# t3e middle initial of accused@appellantM6 Sam was fort3wit3 +rou#3t to t3e police station w3ere 3e was +ooked in,esti#ated and identified as accused@appellant Sammy mipan# y %+dul6 "O2 4asid t3en +rou#3t t3e confiscated items to t3e crime la+oratory for testin#6 .3e specimens all tested positi,e for et3ylamp3etamine =ydroc3loride popularly known as Fs3a+u a dan#erous dru#6 .=!&! %S O I'!.O&N O& "=O.O4&%"=S .%H! $!/O&! .=! CO/ISC%.!D I.!S !&! $&O4=. .O .=! C&I! L%$O&%.O&N /O& .!S.I46
9
Despite t3e a+o,e lapses accused was con,icted +y t3e &.C and t3e Court of %ppeals6 $efore t3e Supreme Court accused mo,es for 3is ac5uittal +ecause said non@ compliance of Section 21 &% o6 71< is fatal and in furt3erance of 3is constitutional presumption of innocence6 .3e Office of t3e Solicitor 4eneral (OS4) prays for t3e affirmation of t3e &.C Joint Decision in all respects +ecause t3ere is no e,idence of improper moti,e on t3e part of t3e prosecution witness to testify falsely a#ainst accused@appellant t3e testimony must +e #i,en full fait3 and credence6 Hel(
%t t3e outset we take note t3at t3e present case stemmed from a +uy@+ust operation conducted +y t3e S%ID@SO./6 %ccordin#ly despite t3e presumption of re#ularity in t3e performance of t3e official duties of law enforcers we stress t3at t3e step@+y@step procedure outlined under &6%6 71< is a matter of su+stanti,e law w3ic3 cannot +e simply +rus3ed aside as a simple procedural tec3nicality6 .3e pro,isions were crafted +y Con#ress as safety precautions to address potential police a+uses especially considerin# t3at t3e penalty imposed may +e life imprisonment6 Strin#ent compliance is ?ustified under t3e rule t3at penal laws s3all +e construed strictly a#ainst t3e #o,ernment and li+erally in fa,or of t3e accused6 Ot3erwise Ft3e procedure set out in t3e law will +e mere lip ser,ice6 .3e conduct of t3e +uy@+ust operations was peppered wit3 defects w3ic3 raises dou+ts on t3e preser,ation of t3e inte#rity and e,identiary ,alue of t3e sei-ed items from accused@appellant6 $r07 t3ere were material inconsistencies in t3e markin# of t3e sei-ed items6 %ccordin# to 3is testimony "O2 4asid used t3e initials of t3e co'*%ete name includin# t3e middle initial of accused@appellant in order to mark t3e confiscated sac3ets6 .3e markin# was done immediately after mipan# was 3andcuffed6 =owe,er a careful perusal of t3e testimony of "O2 4asid would re,eal t3at 3is *rior knowled#e of t3e co'*%ete initials of accused@appellant standin# for t3e latter8s u%% name was not clearly esta+lis3ed6 !,idence on record does not esta+lis3 t3at "O2 4asid 3ad prior knowled#e of t3e co'*%ete name of accused@appellant includin# t3e middle initial w3ic3 ena+led t3e former to mark t3e sei-ed items wit3 t3e latter8s co'*%ete initials6 .3is suspicious material inconsistency in t3e markin# of t3e items raises 5uestions as to ho+ "O2 4asid came to know a+out t3e initials of mipan# prior to t3e latter8s statements at t3e police precinct t3ere+y creatin# a cloud of dou+t on t3e issues of w3ere t3e markin# really took place and w3et3er t3e inte#rity and e,identiary ,alue of t3e sei-ed items were preser,ed6 %ll t3at was esta+lis3ed was t3at it was "O1 Sae- w3o asked accused@ appellant a+out t3e latter8s personal circumstances includin# 3is true identity and t3at t3e 5uestionin# 3appened w3en accused@appellant was already at t3e police station6 Se6&d t3e S%ID@SO./ failed to s3ow #enuine and sufficient effort to seek t3e t3ird@party representati,es enumerated under Section 21(1) of &6%6 71<6 U&der 7;e
10
-a, 7;e &/e&7ry a&d p;7>rap;&> < 0e@ed 7e?0 ?807 be 6&d867ed & 7;e pre0e&6e < a repre0e&7a7/e 2001 filed +efore t3e &.C of anila for ille#al possession of s3a+u6
11
On arc3 17 2001 appellant assisted +y counsel pleaded not #uilty to t3e offense c3ar#ed a#ainst 3im6 .3ereafter trial ensued6 /or t3e prosecution "O anuel 'i#illa testified t3at on o,em+er 27 2000 t3ey recei,ed relia+le information at "olice Station o6 : of t3e estern "olice District ("D) t3at an undetermined amount of s3a+u will +e deli,ered inside t3e Islamic Center in uiapo in t3e early mornin# of t3e followin# day6 On o,em+er 0 2000 at around ;A00 a6m6 3e and "O2 amelito %+ella "O1 Josep3 dela Cru- and S"O1 orman 4amit went to t3e Islamic Center6 3ile walkin# alon# &awatun Street in uiapo t3ey saw two men talkin# to eac3 ot3er6 pon noticin# t3em one ran away6 "O2 %+ella and "O1 Dela Cru- c3ased t3e man +ut failed to appre3end 3im6 eanw3ile t3e man w3o was left +e3ind dropped a maroon +a# on t3e pa,ement6 =e was a+out to run w3en "O 'i#illa 3eld 3im w3ile S"O1 4amit picked up t3e maroon +a#6 .3e man was later identified as appellant *afra araorao y aca+alan#6 .3e police e9amined t3e contents of t3e +a# and saw a transparent plastic +a# containin# w3ite crystalline su+stance w3ic3 t3ey suspected to +e s3a+u6 %t t3e police station t3e in,esti#ator marked t3e plastic sac3et F*@1 in t3e presence of t3e policeofficers6 .3e specimen was t3en forwarded to t3e "" Crime La+oratory for la+oratory c3emical analysis6 3en e9amined +y /orensic C3emist "EInsp6 iladenia O6 .apan t3e 12:060:1 #rams of w3ite crystalline su+stance #a,e a positi,e result to t3e test for met3ylamp3etamine 3ydroc3loride a re#ulated dru#6 =er findin#s are contained in C3emistry &eport o6 D@1121@00 6 In 3is defense appellant testified t3at on o,em+er 0 2000 at around ;A00 a6m6 3e was #oin# to t3e place of 3is uncle %+dul 4ani at t3e Islamic Center to #et a letter from 3is mot3er6 =e went t3ere early +ecause 3e 3ad to report for work at t3e "ort %rea in anila at :A00 a6m6 On 3is way an unidentified man carryin# a +a# asked 3im a+out a 3ouse num+er w3ic3 3e did not know6 =e stopped walkin# to talk to t3e man w3o placed 3is +a# down6 3en t3ey turned around t3ey saw four men in ci,ilian attire walkin# +riskly6 =e only found out t3at t3ey were police officers w3en t3ey c3ased t3e man 3e was talkin# to6 %s t3e man ran away t3e man dropped 3is +a#6 %ppellant a,erred t3at 3e did not run +ecause 3e was not aware of w3at was inside t3e +a# 6 =e was con,icted +y t3e &.C of ille#al possession of s3a+u w3ic3 was affirmed +y t3e Court of %ppeals6 =eldA !,ery circumstance in fa,or of t3e accused s3all +e considered6 .3is is in keepin# wit3 t3e constitutional mandate t3at e,ery accused s3all +e presumed innocent unless 3is #uilt is pro,en +eyond reasona+le dou+t6 ow in order to con,ict appellant for ille#al possession of a dan#erous dru# or t3e s3a+u in t3is case t3e prosecution e,idence must pro,e +eyond reasona+le dou+t t3e followin# elementsA (1) t3e appellant was in possession of an item or o+?ect t3at is identified to +e a pro3i+ited or dan#erous dru# (2) suc3 possession was not aut3ori-ed +y law and () t3e appellant freely and consciously possessed t3e dru#6 In t3is case t3e fact of possession +y appellant of t3e +a# containin# t3e s3a+u was not esta+lis3ed in t3e first place6
12
.3e testimony of "O 'i#illa re,eals a #larin# discrepancy w3ic3 +ot3 t3e trial and t3e appellate courts o,erlooked6 In t3eir Joint %ffida,it arrestin# officers "O 'i#illa "O2 %+ella "O1 dela Cru- and S"O1 4amit stated t3at t3ey spotted two unidentified persons standin# and seemin#ly con,ersin# a few meters a3ead of t3em6 F=owe,er w3en one of t3em noticed our presence 3e 3astily rKaMn away 3eadin# towards t3e uslim Center lea,in# +e3ind t3e ot3er person and a maroon colored +a# wit3 P%didas8 markin# in t3e pa,ement6 In ot3er words t3e maroon +a# was left +e3ind +y t3e man w3o ran away6 $ut at t3e trial "O 'i#illa testified durin# direct e9amination t3at t3ey spotted two persons talkin# to eac3 ot3er and upon noticin# t3em Fone of t3em scampered away and was c3ased +y my companions w3ile t3e ot3er one dropped a +a# sir 6 "resuma+ly under 3is testimony t3e +a# was now 3eld +y t3e one w3o did not run away referrin# to t3e accused@appellant6 Later in anot3er part of 3is testimony 3e a#ain c3an#ed t3is material fact6 3en 3e was asked +y "rosecutor Senados as to w3o +etween t3e two persons t3ey saw talkin# to eac3 ot3er ran away "O 'i#illa cate#orically answered FKtM3e one w3o is 3oldin# a +a# sir 6 Suc3 material inconsistency lea,es muc3 to +e desired a+out t3e credi+ility of t3e prosecution8s principal witness and casts reasona+le dou+t as to appellant8s #uilt for it renders 5uestiona+le w3et3er 3e in fact 3eld t3e +a# wit3 intention to possess it and its contents6 In e,ery criminal prosecution t3e State must pro,e +eyond reasona+le dou+t all t3e elements of t3e crime c3ar#ed and t3e complicity or participation of t3e accused6 3ile a lone witness8 testimony is sufficient to con,ict an accused in certain instances t3e testimony must +e clear consistent and credi+leB5ualities we cannot ascri+e to t3is case6 Jurisprudence is consistent t3at for testimonial e,idence to +e +elie,ed it must +ot3 come from a credi+le witness and +e credi+le in itself tested +y 3uman e9perience o+ser,ation common knowled#e and accepted conduct t3at 3as e,ol,ed t3rou#3 t3e years6 Clearly from t3e fore#oin# t3e prosecution failed to esta+lis3 +y proof +eyond reasona+le dou+t t3at appellant was indeed in possession of s3a+u and t3at 3e freely and consciously possessed t3e same6 .3e presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a +asic constitutional principle fles3ed out +y procedural rules w3ic3 place on t3e prosecution t3e +urden of pro,in# t3at an accused is #uilty of t3e offense c3ar#ed +y proof +eyond reasona+le dou+t6 If t3e e,idence is suscepti+le to two (2) interpretations one pointin# to t3e #uilt of t3e accused and t3e ot3er 3is innocence t3e prosecution8s e,idence failed to o,ercome t3e presumption of innocence and t3us appellant is entitled to an ac5uittal6 Indeed suspicion no matter 3ow stron# must ne,er sway ?ud#ment6 3ere t3ere is reasona+le dou+t t3e accused must +e ac5uitted e,en t3ou#3 t3eir innocence may not 3a,e +een esta+lis3ed6 .3e Constitution presumes a person innocent until pro,en #uilty +y proof +eyond reasona+le dou+t6 3en #uilt is not pro,en wit3 moral certainty it 3as +een our policy of lon# standin# t3at t3e presumption of innocence must +e fa,ored and e9oneration #ranted as a matter of ri#3t 6 Thee is 'iolation o" the i!ht to (ue #ocess i" the cout !ants a liti!ant *oe than the elie" he #a%e( "o in his #lea(in!s222e'en i" the (e"en(ant was (eclae( in (e"ault+ DIONA VS. BALANGUE, G.R. N. I 3+442, January ; 201
13
On arc3 2 1771 respondents o+tained a loan of "><000600 from petitioner paya+le in si9 mont3s and secured +y a &eal !state ort#a#e o,er t3eir 202@s5uare meter property located in arulas 'alen-uela and co,ered +y .ransfer Certificate of .itle (.C.) o6 '@12276; 3en t3e de+t +ecame due respondents failed to pay notwit3standin# demand6 .3us on Septem+er 1; 1777 petitioner filed wit3 t3e &.C a Complaint: prayin# t3at respondents +e orderedA (a) .o pay KpetitionerM t3e principal o+li#ation of "><000600 wit3 interest t3ereon at the ate o" 8B #e annu* from 02 arc3 1771 until t3e full o+li#ation is paid6 (+) .o pay KpetitionerM actual dama#es as may +e pro,en durin# t3e trial +ut s3all in no case +e less t3an "10000600 "2<000600 +y way of attorney8s fee plus "2000600 per 3earin# as appearance fee6 (c) .o issue a decree of foreclosure for t3e sale at pu+lic auction of t3e aforementioned parcel of land and for t3e disposition of t3e proceeds Kt3ereofM in accordance wit3 law upon failure of t3e KrespondentsM to fully pay KpetitionerM wit3in t3e period set +y law t3e sums set fort3 in t3is complaint6 (d) Costs of t3is suit6 &espondents were ser,ed wit3 summons t3ru respondent Sonny %6 $alan#ue (Sonny)6 On Octo+er 1< 1777 wit3 t3e assistance of %tty6 %rt3ur C6 Coro-a (%tty6 Coro-a) of t3e "u+lic %ttorney8s Office t3ey filed a otion to !9tend "eriod to %nswer6 Despite t3e re5uested e9tension 3owe,er respondents failed to file any responsi,e pleadin#s6 .3us upon motion of t3e petitioner t3e &.C declared t3em in default and allowed petitioner to present 3er e,idence e( *arte6 In a Decision11 dated Octo+er 1; 2000 t3e &.C #ranted petitioner8s Complaint6 .3e dispositi,e portion of said Decision readsA =!&!/O&! ?ud#ment is 3ere+y rendered in fa,or of t3e KpetitionerM orderin# t3e KrespondentsM to pay t3e KpetitionerM as followsA a) t3e sum of /O&.N /I'! .=OS%D ("><000600) "!SOS representin# t3e unpaid principal loan o+li#ation #lus inteest at / #e *onth K"ic M reckoned from arc3 2 1771 until t3e same is fully paid +) "20000600 as attorney8s fees plus cost of suit He-d: e a#ree wit3 respondents t3at t3e award of ; of t3e &ules of Court6 I7 0 0e77-ed 7;a7 68r70 6a&&7 >ra&7 a re-e< &7 prayed <r & 7;e p-ead&>0 r & e96e00 < ;a7 0 be&> 08>;7 by 7;e par7y. T;ey 6a&&7 a-0 >ra&7 a re-e< 7;87 <r07 a06er7a&&> 7;e e/de&6e pre0e&7ed & 08ppr7 7;ere<. D8e pr6e00 6&0dera7&0 re=8re 7;a7 8d>?e&70 ?807 6&<r? 7 a&d be 08ppr7ed by 7;e p-ead&>0 a&d e/de&6e pre0e&7ed & 68r76 In )e-e%o*'ent Bank o the #hi%i**ine" -. Te"ton t3is Court e9pounded t3atA Due process considerations ?ustify t3is re5uirement6 It is improper to enter an order w3ic3 e9ceeds t3e scope of relief sou#3t +y t3e pleadin#s a+sent
14
notice w3ic3 affords t3e opposin# party an opportunity to +e 3eard wit3 respect to t3e proposed relief6 .3e fundamental purpose of t3e re5uirement t3at alle#ations of a complaint must pro,ide t3e measure of reco,ery is to pre,ent surprise to t3e defendant6 It is understanda+le for t3e respondents not to contest t3e default order for as alle#ed in t3eir Comment Fit is not t3eir intention to impu#n or run away from t3eir ?ust and ,alid o+li#ation6 onet3eless t3eir wai,er to present e,idence s3ould ne,er +e construed as wai,er to contest patently erroneous award w3ic3 already trans#resses t3eir ri#3t to due process as well as applica+le ?urisprudence6 hat is the econin! #oint in the co*#utation o" ,ust co*#ensation in cases o" e@#o#iation un(e the A!aian Re"o* Law6 At the ti*e the lan( was #lace( un(e the a!aian e"o* #o!a* o at the ti*e ,ust co*#ensation is #ai( )% the !o'en*ent6 DEPARTENT O$ AGRARIAN RE$OR GODUCO, G.R. N. 35**3, 8&e )3, )*)
VS.
ANOLO
anolo 4oduco (4oduco) is t3e only 3eir of Illuminada 'illanue,a 'da6 De 4oduco t3e re#istered owner of se,eral parcels of land located at "am+uan 4apan City ue,a !ci?a co,ered +y .C. os6 .@1171>0 and .@1171> issued +y t3e &e#istry of Deeds of t3e pro,ince6 L$" is t3e financial intermediary for t3e Compre3ensi,e %#rarian &eform "ro#ram (C%&") as desi#nated under Section > of &6%6 <;6 D%& is t3e lead implementin# a#ency of t3e C%&"6 It undertakes land tenure impro,ement and de,elopment of pro#ram +eneficiaries6 "ursuant to t3e Operation Land .ransfer "ro#ram of t3e #o,ernment under "residential Decree ("6D6) o6 2; t3e mentioned parcels of land were placed under t3e pro#ram and were distri+uted +y D%& to t3e 5ualified farmer@+eneficiaries upon issuance of t3eir respecti,e !mancipation "atents on 27 Decem+er 177> and 1 June 177 6 /armer !dil+erto &6 endo-a was issued .C. o6 !6"6 ;7>>0 wit3 an area of 1;:70 s5uare meters and .C. o6 !6"6;7>>2 wit3 an area of :<:: s5uare meters w3ile farmer !rnesto Carria#a was issued wit3 .C. o6 !6"6 :>20 wit3 an area of 10 7< s5uare meters .C. o6 !6"6 :<; wit3 an area of 2:>> s5uare meters and .C. o6 !6"6 :<: wit3 an area of 7 s5uare meters6 .3ereafter L$" fi9ed t3e ,alue of t3e land as payment of ?ust compensation as followsA /or .C. o6 !" ;7>>0 @ "1>:;160 /or .C. o6 !6"6;7>>2 @ " ;1:6;; /or .C. o6 !6"6 :>20 @ " >;076 /or .C. o6 !6"6 :<; @ "7026 /or .C. o6 !6"6 :<: @ " >1600 Dissatisfied wit3 t3e ,aluation 4oduco filed a "etition for Determination of Just Compensation of t3e su+?ect lands +efore t3e &.C of Ca+anatuan City actin# as Special %#rarian Court on ; arc3 2000 In 3is petition +efore t3e court 3e alle#ed t3at L$" fi9ed t3e ,aluation of t3e parcels of land wit3out 3is or 3is mot3er8s knowled#e6 =e contended t3at t3e ,aluation amountin# to a measely a##re#ate of ">;<>6:2 is 3i#3ly inade5uate and is confiscatory of t3eir properties for t3e fair market ,alue of t3e land can +e pe##ed at
15
least ">00000600 per 3ectare6 /inally 3e added t3at t3e sellin# price of a#ricultural lands is at "1000000600 per 3ectare6 L$" in its %nswer ?ustified its ,aluation of t3e land +y assertin# t3at it was in strict ad3erence wit3 "6D6 o6 2; and !9ecuti,e Order (!6O6) o6 22: and maintained t3at t3ese pro,isions continue to +e ,alid and constitutional6 .3e special a#rarian court did not follow t3e price assessment of D%&6 .3e dispositi,e portion of its 12 January 200< decision readsA =!&!/O&! all premises considered ?ud#ment is 3ere+y rendered orderin# t3e defendant Department of %#rarian &eform t3rou#3 t3e defendant Land $ank of t3e "3ilippines to pay petitioner anolo 4oduco t3e total amount of /our =undred inety Si9 .3ousand One =undred /orty (">71>0600) "3ilippine Currency representin# t3e ?ust compensation of t3e property wit3 a total area of >671> 3ectares situated in "am+uan 4apan ue,a !ci?a co,ered +y .C. o6 .@1171>0 and .C. o6 .@1171> wit3 Q le#al interest per annum from t3e date of takin# on ay 2> 177< until fully paid6 .3e trial court e9plained t3at t3e "100000600 per 3ectare ,aluation of t3e land followed t3e pro,isions of Section 1; of &6%6 <;6 It also considered t3e condition and t3e location of t3e land w3ic3 is irri#ated and accessi+le to t3e municipal road6 .3e notari-ed documents indicatin# t3e sellin# price of t3e nei#3+orin# parcels were also #i,en wei#3t +y t3e court6 !,en if not put in issue +efore it t3e trial court imposed interest computed from t3e date of takin# of t3e land6 $ot3 t3e D%& and t3e L$" filed appeals +efore t3e C%6 D%& in its "etition for &e,iew +efore t3e .ent3 Di,ision of t3e C% raised as its sole assi#nment of error t3at t3e a#rarian court erred w3en it ruled t3at t3e date of takin# of su+?ect property was 2> ay 177<6 Similarly t3e ar#uments of L$" +efore t3e .3ird Di,ision pertain to t3e alle#ed error of t3e lower court in fi9in# t3e ,alue of t3e land +ased on t3e factors under &6%6 <; e,en if t3e land was ac5uired under "6D6 o6 2;6 It likewise ar#ued t3at it was an error to #rant Q le#al interest from t3e date of takin# until full payment of t3e ?ust compensation6 In C%@46&6 S" o6 :7<>2 t3e .ent3 Di,ision of t3e C% ruled t3at t3e lands were ac5uired under &6%6 <;6 =ence t3e ,aluation factors under t3is law determine t3e ?ust compensation6 In C%@46&6 S" o6 :7>27 t3e .3ird Di,ision of t3e C% affirmed t3e trial court6 .3e appellate court reasoned out t3at w3ile t3e ?ust compensation remains undetermined and unpaid t3e a#rarian process is not yet complete6 .3erefore w3at will apply in determinin# ?ust compensation is &6%6 <; not "6D6 o6 2; or !6O6 o6 22:6 It ruled 3owe,er t3at t3e trial court erred in t3e imposition of Q interest w3ic3 as pro,ided +y %dministrati,e o6 1 is #ranted only under "6D6 o6 2;6 In its petition +efore t3is Court D%& repeats t3e ar#uments t3at t3e applica+le law is "6D6 o6 2; and not &6%6 <; and t3at t3e date of takin# of t3e land was on 21 Octo+er 17;2 and not in 177<6 .3e D%& insists t3at t3e lands were co,ered +y t3e Operation Land .ransfer "ro#ram under "6D6 o6 2; t3erefore t3e date of t3e takin# of t3e land must +e 21 Octo+er 17;26
16
L$" in its petition also insists t3at t3e formula t3at s3ould apply is t3e one prescri+ed under "6D6 o6 2; and !6O6 o6 22:6 It ar#ues a#ainst t3e application of &6%6 <; on properties ac5uired under t3e Operation Land .ransfer "ro#ram of "6D6 o6 2;6 L$" and D%& raise as issues t3e followin#A 6ir"t, w3ic3 law will #o,ern t3e ,aluation of land co,ered +y t3e emancipation patents "6D6 o6 2; and !6O6 o6 22: or &6%6 <; Second, ;a7 0 7;e re6&&> da7e <r de7er?&&> 807 6?pe&0a7&F Third and %a"t s3ould interest +e imposed from t3e date of takin# HELD $ot3 t3e L$" and D%& are adamant in t3eir contention t3at t3e a#rarian reform process is complete e,en if t3ere is no payment yet of ?ust compensation6 It is furt3er posited t3at to apply &6%6 <; to t3e "6D6 o6 2;@ac5uired properties is improper for it will result in t3e retroacti,e application of &6%6 <;6 e disa#ree6 .3e C%&" statute of 10 June 177:6 &6%6 <; K2:M pro,idesA Section 1;6 )eter'ination o 7u"t &o'*en"ation6 B I& de7er?&&> 807 6?pe&0a7&, 7;e 607 < a6=807& < 7;e -a&d, 7;e 68rre&7 /a-8e < 7;e -e prper7e0, its nature actual use and income t3e sworn ,aluation +y t3e owner t3e ta9 declarations and t3e assessment made +y #o,ernment assessors s3all +e considered6 .3e social and economic +enefits contri+uted +y t3e farmers and t3e farmworkers and +y t3e 4o,ernment to t3e property as well as t3e non@ payment of ta9es or loans secured from any #o,ernment financin# institution on t3e said land s3all +e considered as additional factors to determine its ,aluation6 .3e determination of ?ust compensation for land co,ered +y t3e &eform "ro#ram w3ic3 spawned t3e issues a+out t3e co,erin# law and t3e process of co,era#e 3as +een discussed amply enou#3 for present #uidance6 I& Lan( an o" the Phili##ines '+ Nati'i(a( 7 a0 r8-ed 7;a7 7;e a>rara& re<r? pr6e00 0 07-- &6?p-e7e < 7;e 807 6?pe&0a7& 7 be pad ;a0 ye7 7 be 0e77-ed. I& 7;a7 6a0e, La&d Ba& ar>8ed 7;a7 7;e prper7y a0 a6=8red <r p8rp0e0 < a>rara& re<r? & ) O67ber 23), 7;e 7?e < 7;e e<rara& re<r? pr6e00 0 07-- &6?p-e7e a0 7;e 807 6?pe&0a7& 7 be pad pr/a7e re0p&de&70 ;a0 ye7 7 be 0e77-ed. .3is rulin# on t3e completion of t3e reform process was reiterated in t3e case of Land Bank o the #hi%i**ine" -. 6errer ;ere 7;e C8r7 8p;e-d 7;e p07& < 7;e appe--a7 e 68r7 7;a7 7;e -a&d 0;a-- be 6&0dered 7ae& &-y 8p& pay?e&7 < 807 6?pe&0a7& be6a80e 7 8-d 6?p-e7e 7;e a>rara& re<r? pr6e00.
17
!,idently in t3is case w3ere t3e conflict is e9actly on ?ust compensation t3e a#rarian reform process 3as yet to +e completed6 Clearly +y law and ?urisprudence &6%6 <; upon its effecti,ity +ecame t3e primary law in a#rarian reform co,erin# all t3e t3en pendin# and uncompleted processes and "6D6 o6 2; and !6O6 o6 22: are only suppletory to t3e said law6 /inally t3e issue re#ardin# interest is also ?urisprudentially settled6 In Land Bank o the #hi%i**ine" -. &hico, t3e Court ruled t3at w3en ?ust compensation is determined under &6%6 <; no incremental compounded interest of si9 percent (Q) per annu' s3all +e assessed6 .3e interest applies only to lands taken under "6D6 o6 2; and !6O6 o6 22: pursuant to %dministrati,e Order o6 1 Series of 177> (%6O6 o6 1) Kas amended +y %6O6 o6 0 Series of 177:M and not Sec6 2 of &6%6 <;6 .3ere are Decisions w3ere t3e SC #ranted interest at 12Q on t3e award6 .o clarify t3is incremental interest is not #ranted on t3e computed ?ust compensation6 &at3er it is a penalty imposed for dama#es incurred +y t3e landowner due to t3e delay in payment of ?ust compensation6 .3us did t3e Court sayA In some e9propriation cases t3e Court allowed t3e imposition of said interest K12QM t3e same was in t3e nature of dama#es for delay in payment w3ic3 in effect makes t3e o+li#ation on t3e part of t3e #o,ernment one of for+earance6 In the co*#utation o" the ,ust co*#ensation in the e@#o#iation o" Hacien(a Luisita 7HLI:- what (ate is the econin! #oint6 No'e*)e B8- 899 when Pesi(ential A!aian Re"o* Council a##o'e( HLI3s stoc o#tion #lan o Ganua% B- B>>. when the De#at*ent o" A!aian Re"o* issue( a 4Notice o" Co'ea!e5 o" sai( Hacien(a Luisita to the a!aian e"o* #o!a* o" the !o'en*ent6 HACIENDA LUISITA, INC. VS. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN RE$OR COUNCIL, G.R. N. 3*, Apr- )5, )*) .3is resol,es t3e otion for &econsideration of =acienda Luisita of t3e earlier Decision of t3e Supreme Court on ?ust compensation6 .3e fact t3at =acienda Luisita is su+?ect to a#rarian reform is no lon#er a 5uestion6 .3e main issue now isA =!.=!& O& O. .=! S"&!! CO&. !&&!D I I.S !%&LI!& D!CISIO .=%. I D!.!&II4 .=! JS. CO"!S%.IO .=! D%.! O/ F.%HI4 IS O'!$!& 21 17:7 =! "%&C %""&O'!D =LI8s SD" KS.OCH DIS".&I$.IO "L%M FI 'I! O/ .=! /%C. .=%. .=IS IS .=! .I! .=%. .=! (/$8s /arm orker $eneficiaries) !&! COSID!&!D .O O %D "OSS!SS .=! %4&ICL.&%L L%DS I =%CI!D% LISI.% O& J%%&N 2 200 =! .=! O.IC! O/ CO'!&%4! %S ISS!D $N .=! D!"%&.!. O/ %4&%&I% &!/O&6 HEL)8
18
=LI contends t3at since t3e SD" is a modality w3ic3 t3e a#rarian reform law #i,es t3e landowner as alternati,e to compulsory co,era#e t3en t3e /$s cannot +e considered as owners and possessors of t3e a#ricultural lands of =acienda Luisita at t3e time t3e SD" was appro,ed +y "%&C6 It furt3er claims t3at t3e appro,al of t3e SD" is not akin to a otice of Co,era#e in compulsory co,era#e situations +ecause stock distri+ution option and compulsory ac5uisition are two (2) different modalities wit3 independent and separate rules and mec3anisms6 Concomitantly =LI maintains t3at t3e otice of Co,era#e issued on January 2 200 may at t3e ,ery least +e considered as t3e date of Ftakin# as t3is was t3e only time t3at t3e a#ricultural lands of =acienda Luisita were placed under compulsory ac5uisition in ,iew of its failure to perform certain o+li#ations under t3e SD"6 Just compensation 3as +een defined as Ft3e full and fair e5ui,alent of t3e property taken from its owner +y t3e e9propriator6 .3e measure is not t3e taker8s #ain +ut t3e owner8s loss 6 In determinin# ?ust compensation t3e price or ,alue of t3e property at t3e time it was taken from t3e owner and appropriated +y t3e #o,ernment s3all +e t3e +asis6 If t3e #o,ernment takes possession of t3e land +efore t3e institution of e9propriation proceedin#s t3e ,alue s3ould +e fi9ed as of t3e time of t3e takin# of said possession not of t3e filin# of t3e complaint6 In Land Bank o the #hi%i**ine" -. Li-ioco t3e Court 3eld t3at 7;e 7?e < 7a&> 0 7;e 7?e ;e& 7;e -a&d&er a0 depr/ed < 7;e 80e a&d be&e<7 < ;0 prper7y, 086; a0 ;e& 77-e 0 7ra&0
PEOPLE VS. HUBERT WEBB ET AL, G.R. N. 315, a&8ary 1, )* a&d LEANO VS. PEOPLE, G. R. N. 3+12, a&8ary 1, )*
19
On Decem+er 1> 2010 t3e Supreme Court re,ersed t3e ?ud#ment of t3e Court of %ppeals (C%) and &.C of "arana5ue and ac5uitted t3e accused =u+ert Jeffrey "6 e++ %ntonio Le?ano ic3ael %6 4atc3alian =ospicio /ernande- i#uel &odri#ue- "eter !strada and 4erardo $ion# of t3e c3ar#es a#ainst t3em on t3e #round of lack of proof of t3eir #uilt +eyond reasona+le dou+t6 On Decem+er 2: 2010 complainant Lauro 46 'i-conde an immediate relati,e of t3e ,ictims asked t3e Court to reconsider its decision claimin# t3at it Fdenied t3e prosecution due process of law seriously misappreciated t3e facts unreasona+ly re#arded %lfaro as lackin# credi+ility issued a tainted and erroneous decision decided t3e case in a manner t3at resulted in t3e miscarria#e of ?ustice or committed #ra,e a+use in its treatment of t3e e,idence and prosecution witnesses6 $ut as a rule a ?ud#ment of ac5uittal cannot +e reconsidered +ecause it places t3e accused under dou+le ?eopardy6 .3e Constitution pro,ides in Section 21 %rticle III t3atA Se67& ). N per0& 0;a-- be 76e p87 & epardy < p8&0;?e&7 <r 7;e 0a?e < 7;e 0/ere>& ?e&7 <r 7;e 0a?e </er&?e&7 7; a p7e&7 &07r8?e&7 < ppre00&. T;e pr/0& 7;ere<re >8ara&7ee0 7;a7 7;e S7a7e 0;a-- &7 be per?77ed 7 ?ae repea7ed a77e?p70 7 6&/67 a& &d/d8a- <r a& a--e>ed < ;? 7 e?barra00?e&7, e9pe&0e, a&d rdea- a&d 6?pe--&> ;? 7 -/e & a 6&7&8&> 07a7e < a&9e7y a&d &0e68r7y, a0 e-- a0 e&;a&6&> 7;e p00b-7y 7;a7 e/e& 7;8>; &&6e&7 ;e ?ay be <8&d >8-7y. S6e7y0 aare&e00 < 7;e ;ea/y per0&a- 07ra& ;6; a 6r?&a- 7ra- repre0e&70 <r 7;e &d/d8a- de&e00 7 -?7 7;e >/er&?e&7 7 a 0&>-e 6r?&a- pr6eed&> 7 /&d6a7e 70 /ery /7a- &7ere07 & 7;e e&<r6e?e&7 < 6r?&a- -a0.
Of course on occasions a motion for reconsideration after an ac5uittal is possi+le6 $ut t3e #rounds are e9ceptional and narrow as w3en t3e court t3at a+sol,ed t3e accused #ra,ely a+used its discretion resultin# in loss of ?urisdiction or w3en a mistrial 3as occurred6 In any of suc3 cases t3e State may assail t3e decision +y special ci,il action of certiorari under &ule <6 =e ascri+es #ra,e error on t3e Court8s findin# t3at %lfaro was not a credi+le witness and assails t3e ,alue assi#ned +y t3e Court to t3e e,idence of t3e defense6 In ot3er words pri,ate complainant wants t3e Court to re,iew t3e e,idence anew and render anot3er ?ud#ment +ased on suc3 a re@e,aluation6 .3is is not constitutionally allowed as it is merely a repeated attempt to
20
secure e++ et a% 8s con,iction6 .3e ?ud#ment ac5uittin# e++ et a% is final and can no lon#er +e distur+ed6 Dou+le ?eopardy 3as set in6
State3s i!ht to (ue #ocess o" law when the State *a% 'ali(l% 1uestion )% Cetioai un(e Rule ./ a (ecision ac1uittin! an( accuse( o to incease the #enalt% without 'iolatin! the ule a!ainst Dou)le ,eo#a(% PEOPLE O$ THE PHILIPPINES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, IELDA ARCOS, OSE CONRADO BENITE a&d GILBERT DULAY, G.R. N. 4++*5#*4, $ebr8ary 3, )*)
.3e pri,ate respondents were t3e accused in two criminal informations filed +efore t3e Sandi#an+ayan c3ar#in# t3em wit3 t3e crime of mal,ersation of pu+lic funds defined and penali-ed under %rticle 21; para#rap3 > of t3e &e,ised "enal Code as amended . .3e c3ar#es arose from t3e transactions t3at t3e respondents participated in in t3eir official capacities as inister and Deputy inister of t3e inistry of =uman Settlements ( MHS) under t3e =S8 Ha+isi# "ro#ram6 %fter t3e pre@trial conference a ?oint trial of t3e criminal cases ensued6 .3e prosecution8s c3ief e,idence was +ased on t3e lone testimony of Commission of %udit ( &OA) %uditor Iluminada Corte- and t3e documentary e,idence used in t3e audit e9amination of t3e su+?ect funds6 CO% %uditor Corte- admitted t3at t3e audit team did not conduct a p3ysical in,entory of t3ese motor ,e3icles it +ased its report on t3e information #i,en +y t3e "residential .ask /orce6 S3e emp3asi-ed t3at t3e audit team found it 3i#3ly irre#ular t3at t3e motor ,e3icles were re#istered in t3e name of ni,ersity of Life ( 9L) and not in t3e name of =S and for t3is reason s3e +elie,ed t3at no proper li5uidation was made of t3ese ,e3icles +y =S6 %fter CO% %uditor Corte-8 testimony t3e prosecution su+mitted its formal offer of e,idence and rested its case6 Su+se5uently separate motions to dismiss t3e criminal cases +y way of demurrers to e,idence were filed +y *a#ala and t3e respondents on o,em+er 1< 177; January < 177: and January 2: 177: on January 2; 177: 7;e pr0e687& <-ed a a& 7;a7 7 a0 &7 pp0&> 7;e de?8rrer0 7 e/de&6e 6 .3e Sandi#an+ayan #ranted t3e demurrers to e/de&6e a&d a6=877ed 7;e re0p&de&70 & 70 a00a-ed de60& da7ed ar6; )), )**) 6 In dismissin# t3ese criminal cases t3e Sandi#an+ayan found no e,idence of misappropriation of t3e su+?ect funds in t3e two criminal cases considerin# t3e unrelia+ility and incompleteness of t3e audit report6 T;e I008e0 16
3et3er t3e prosecutor8s actions andEor omissions (of not presentin# ot3er witnesses and for not opposin# t3e Demurrer to !,idence of t3e accused) in t3ese cases effecti,ely depri,ed t3e State of its ri#3t to due process and
21
26
3et3er t3e Sandi#an+ayan #ra,ely a+used its discretion in #rantin# t3e demurrers to e,idence of t3e respondents Kand as suc3 dou+le ?eopardy 3as not set inM for a re,iew +y t3e Supreme Court of t3e #uilt or innocence of t3e pri,ate respondents6
He-d: .3e petitioner claims t3at t3e State was denied due process +ecause of t3e nonfeasance committed +y t3e special prosecutor in failin# to present sufficient e,idence to pro,e its case6 It claims t3at t3e prosecutor failed to protect t3e State8s interest in t3e proceedin#s +efore t3e Sandi#an+ayan6 .o support its position petitioner cites t3e case of $eciales '+ Cout o" A##eals- =9 SCRA ;/- w3ere t3e Court nullified t3e dismissal of t3e criminal cases due to t3e serious nonfeasance committed +y t3e pu+lic prosecutor6 .3e petitioner ar#ues t3at t3e Sandi#an+ayan committed #ra,e a+use of discretion amountin# to lack or e9cess of ?urisdiction t3at resulted in a miscarria#e of ?ustice pre?udicial to t3e State8s interest w3en it took t3e demurrers to e,idence at face ,alue instead of re5uirin# t3e presentation of additional e,idence takin# into consideration t3e 3u#e amounts of pu+lic funds in,ol,ed and t3e special prosecutor8s failure to oppose t3e demurrers to e,idence6 %s a rule &6e 7;e 68r7 >ra&70 7;e de?8rrer, 7;e >ra&7 a?8&70 7 a& a6=877a-M a&y <8r7;er pr0e687& < 7;e a6680ed 8-d /-a7e 7;e 6&07787&a- pr06rp7& & d8b-e epardy (PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 442 SCRA 552!. ota+ly t3e proscription a#ainst dou+le ?eopardy only en,isa#es appeals +ased on errors of ?ud#ment +ut not errors of ?urisdiction6 Jurisprudence reco#ni-es two #rounds w3ere dou+le ?eopardy will not attac3 t3ese areA (i ! & 7;e >r8&d < >ra/e ab80e < d06re7& a?8&7&> 7 -a6 r e96e00 < 8r0d67&, PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 52 SCRA 14, 8&e , )***M a&dr (! ;ere 7;ere 0 a de&a- < a par7y0 d8e pr6e00 r>;70, PEOPLE VS. VELASCO, +5* SCRA )*3, SEPTEBER +, )***. % ?ud#ment of ac5uittal sou#3t to +e re,iewed on t3e +asis of #ra,e a+use of discretion amountin# to lack or e9cess of ?urisdiction or on t3e #round of denial of due process implies an in,alid or ot3erwise ,oid ?ud#ment6 If eit3er or +ot3 #rounds are esta+lis3ed t3e ?ud#ment of ac5uittal is considered ,oid as a ,oid ?ud#ment it is le#ally ine9istent and does not 3a,e t3e effect of an ac5uittal6 .3us t3e defense of dou+le ?eopardy will not lie in suc3 a case6 %ccordin#ly a re,iew of a dismissal order of t3e Sandi#an+ayan #rantin# an accused8s demurrer to e,idence may +e done -ia t3e special ci,il action of certiorari under &ule < +ased on t3e narrow #round of #ra,e a+use of discretion amountin# to lack or e9cess of ?urisdiction6 In t3e present case t3e petitioner particularly imputes #ra,e a+use of discretion on t3e Sandi#an+ayan for its #rant of t3e demurrer to e,idence wit3out re5uirin# t3e presentation of additional e,idence and despite t3e lack of +asis for t3e #rant tracea+le to t3e special prosecutor8s conduct. .3e special prosecutor8s conduct alle#edly also ,iolated t3e State8s due process ri#3ts6 .3e petitioner claims t3at t3e special prosecutor failed in 3er duty to #i,e effecti,e le#al representation to ena+le t3e State to fully present its case a#ainst t3e respondents citin# Mercia%e" -. &ourt o A**ea%" w3ere we considered t3e followin# factual circumstances @ :;< the *ub%ic *ro"ecutor re"ted the ca"e kno+in u%% +e%% that the e-idence adduced +a" in"uicient= :>< the reu"a% o the *ub%ic *ro"ecutor to *re"ent other +itne""e" a-ai%ab%e to take the "tand= :?< the kno+%ede o the tria% court o the in"uicienc o the *ro"ecution" e-idence +hen the de'urrer to e-idence +a" i%ed beore it= and :@< the tria% court" ai%ure to reuire the *re"entation o additiona% e-idence beore it acted on the de'urrer to e-idence 6 %ll t3ese
22
circumstances effecti,ely resulted in t3e denial of t3e State8s ri#3t to due process attri+uta+le to t3e inaction of t3e pu+lic prosecutor andEor t3e trial court . In t3e present case we find t3at t3e State was not denied due process in t3e proceedin#s +efore t3e Sandi#an+ayan6 .3ere was no indication t3at t3e special prosecutor deli+erately and willfully failed to present a,aila+le e,idence or t3at ot3er e,idence could +e secured6 e take t3is opportunity to remind t3e prosecution t3at t3is Court is as muc3 a ?ud#e in +e3alf of an accused@defendant w3ose li+erty is in ?eopardy as it is t3e ?ud#e in +e3alf of t3e State for t3e purpose of safe#uardin# t3e interests of society6 .3erefore unless t3e petitioner demonstrates t3rou#3 e,idence and records t3at its case falls wit3in t3e narrow e9ceptions from t3e criminal protection of dou+le ?eopardy t3e Court 3as no recourse +ut to apply t3e finality@of@ac5uittal rule6 Dou)le ,eo#a(% when not a##lica)le in a #etition un(e Rule ./ to incease the #enalt% as a esult o" !a'e a)use o" (iscetion )% the tial cout+ ARTEIO VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE O$ THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. N. 4)41, $ebr8ary , )*) AND pep-e < 7;e P;-pp&e0 /0. THE HOORABLE COURT O$ APPEALS, e7 a-., G.R. N. 45245, $ebr8ary , )*) KTHE LENNY VILLA HAING CASE
$ACTS In /e+ruary 1771 se,en fres3men law students of t3e %teneo de anila ni,ersity Sc3ool of Law si#nified t3eir intention to ?oin t3e %5uila Le#is Juris /raternity (%5uila /raternity)6 .3ey were Caesar F$o#s %suncion Samuel FSam $elle-a $ien,enido F$ien ar5ue- III &o+erto /rancis F$ert a,era 4eronimo F&andy &ecinto /eli9 Sy Jr6 and Leonardo FLenny 'illa (neop3ytes)6 On t3e ni#3t of : /e+ruary 1771 t3e neop3ytes were met +y some mem+ers of t3e %5uila /raternity (%5uilans) at t3e lo++y of t3e %teneo Law Sc3ool6 .3ey all proceeded to &ufo8s &estaurant to 3a,e dinner6 %fterwards t3ey went to t3e 3ouse of ic3ael usn#i also an %5uilan w3o +riefed t3e neop3ytes on w3at to e9pect durin# t3e initiation rites6 .3e latter were informed t3at t3ere would +e p3ysical +eatin#s and t3at t3ey could 5uit at any time6 .3eir initiation rites were sc3eduled to last for t3ree days6 %fter t3eir F+riefin# t3ey were +rou#3t to t3e %lmeda Compound in Caloocan City for t3e commencement of t3eir initiation6 .3e neop3ytes were t3en su+?ected to traditional forms of %5uilan Finitiation rites6 .3ese rites included t3e FIndian &un w3ic3 re5uired t3e neop3ytes to run a #auntlet of two parallel rows of %5uilans eac3 row deli,erin# +lows to t3e neop3ytes t3e F$icol !9press w3ic3 o+li#ed t3e neop3ytes to sit on t3e floor wit3 t3eir +acks a#ainst t3e wall and t3eir le#s outstretc3ed w3ile t3e %5uilans walked ?umped or ran o,er t3eir le#s t3e F&ounds in w3ic3 t3e neop3ytes were 3eld at t3e +ack of t3eir pants +y t3e Fau9iliaries (t3e %5uilans c3ar#ed wit3 t3e duty of lendin# assistance to neop3ytes durin# initiation rites) w3ile t3e latter were +ein# 3it wit3 fist +lows on t3eir arms or wit3 knee +lows on t3eir t3i#3s +y two %5uilans and t3e F%u9ies8 "ri,ile#e &ound in w3ic3 t3e au9iliaries were #i,en t3e opportunity to inflict p3ysical pain on
23
t3e neop3ytes6 Durin# t3is time t3e neop3ytes were also indoctrinated wit3 t3e fraternity principles6 %fter a w3ile accused non@resident or alumni fraternity mem+ers /idelito Di-on (Di-on) and %rtemio 'illareal ('illareal) arri,ed and demanded t3at t3e rites +e reopened6 .3e 3ead of initiation rites elson 'ictorino ('ictorino) initially refused6 pon t3e insistence of Di-on and 'illareal 3owe,er 3e reopened t3e initiation rites6 .3e fraternity mem+ers includin# Di-on and 'illareal t3en su+?ected t3e neop3ytes to Fpaddlin# and to additional rounds of p3ysical pain6 Lenny recei,ed se,eral paddle +lows one of w3ic3 was so stron# it sent 3im sprawlin# to t3e #round6 .3e neop3ytes 3eard 3im complainin# of intense pain and difficulty in +reat3in#6 %fter t3eir last session of p3ysical +eatin#s Lenny could no lon#er walk6 %fter an 3our of sleep t3e neop3ytes were suddenly roused +y Lenny8s s3i,erin# and inco3erent mum+lin#s6 3en 3is condition worsened t3e %5uilans rus3ed 3im to t3e 3ospital6 Lenny was pronounced dead on arri,al6 Conse5uently a criminal case for 3omicide was filed a#ainst t3e followin# < %5uilans %fter trial t3e court 3eld t3atA 16
N&e7ee& < 7;e a6680ed#appe--a&70 'ictorino Sa++an Lledo 4uerrero usn#i "ere- De 4u-man Santos 4eneral /lores Lim ontecillo &anada endo-a 'erdadero "urisima /ernande- %+as and $ri#ola ( V67r& et al+) were a6=877ed, as t3eir indi,idual #uilt was not esta+lis3ed +y proof +eyond reasona+le dou+t6
26 $8r < 7;e a6680ed#appe--a&70 'incent .ecson Junel %nt3ony %ma %ntonio ariano %lmeda and &enato $antu# Jr6 ( Te60& et al+) were found #uilty of t3e crime of 0->;7 p;y06a- &8re0 and sentenced to 20 days of arre"to 'enor 6 6
T < 7;e a6680ed#appe--a&70 $de-7 D@& and Ar7e? V--area- were found #uilty +eyond reasona+le dou+t of t3e crime of ;?6de under %rticle 2>7 of t3e &e,ised "enal Code6
.3e "eople of t3e "3ilippines filed a "etition under &ule < 5uestionin# t3e ac5uittal and t3e lower penalty on t3e four (>) accused and also ar#ues t3at t3e rule on dou+le ?eopardy is inapplica+le6 %ccordin# to t3e Solicitor 4eneral t3e C% acted wit3 #ra,e a+use of discretion amountin# to lack or e9cess of ?urisdiction in settin# aside t3e trial court8s findin# of conspiracy and in rulin# t3at t3e criminal lia+ility of all t3e accused must +e +ased on t3eir indi,idual participation in t3e commission of t3e crime6 =eldA .3e rule on dou+le ?eopardy is one of t3e pillars of our criminal ?ustice system6 It dictates t3at w3en a person is c3ar#ed wit3 an offense and t3e case is terminated eit3er +y ac5uittal or con,iction or in any ot3er manner wit3out t3e consent of t3e accused t3e accused cannot a#ain +e c3ar#ed wit3 t3e same or an identical offense6 .3is principle is founded upon t3e law of reason ?ustice and conscience6 It is em+odied in t3e ci,il law ma9im non )is in i(e* found in t3e common law of !n#land and undou+tedly in e,ery system of ?urisprudence6 T;e r8-e & d8b-e epardy 7;80 pr;b70 7;e S7a7e 7;e 8d>?e&7 & rder 7 re/er0e 7;e a6=877a- r 7 &6rea0e 7;e pe&a-7y ?p0ed e7;er 7;r8>; a
24
re>8-ar appea- 8&der R8-e 5 < 7;e R8-e0 < C8r7 r 7;r8>; a& appea- by 6er7rar & p8re =8e07&0 < -a 8&der R8-e 54 < 7;e 0a?e R8-e0 6 .3e re5uisites for in,okin# dou+le ?eopardy are t3e followin#A (a) t3ere is a ,alid complaint or information (+) it is filed +efore a competent court (c) t3e defendant pleaded to t3e c3ar#e and (d) t3e defendant was ac5uitted or con,icted or t3e case a#ainst 3im or 3er was dismissed or ot3erwise terminated wit3out t3e defendant8s e9press consent6 .3is pro3i+ition 3owe,er is not a+solute6 .3e state may c3allen#e t3e lower court8s ac5uittal of t3e accused or t3e imposition of a lower penalty on t3e latter in t3e followin# reco#ni-ed e9ceptionsA (! ;ere 7;e pr0e687& 0 depr/ed < a < ?07ra-, Pep-e /0. COURT O$ APPEALS GALICIA, 4 SCRA +1+ r (+! ;ere 7;ere ;a0 bee& a >ra/e ab80e < d06re7& 6 .3e t3ird instance refers to t3is Court8s ?udicial power under &ule < to determine w3et3er or not t3ere 3as +een a #ra,e a+use of discretion amountin# to lack or e9cess of ?urisdiction on t3e part of any +ranc3 or instrumentality of t3e #o,ernment6 =ere t3e party askin# for t3e re,iew must s3ow t3e presence of a w3imsical or capricious e9ercise of ?ud#ment e5ui,alent to lack of ?urisdiction a patent and #ross a+use of discretion amountin# to an e,asion of a positi,e duty or to a ,irtual refusal to perform a duty imposed +y law or to act in contemplation of law an e9ercise of power in an ar+itrary and despotic manner +y reason of passion and 3ostility or a +latant a+use of aut3ority to a point so #ra,e and so se,ere as to depri,e t3e court of its ,ery power to dispense ?ustice6 In suc3 an e,ent t3e accused cannot +e considered to +e at risk of dou+le ?eopardy6 .3e Solicitor 4eneral filed a &ule < "etition for &ertiorari w3ic3 seeks t3e re,ersal of (1) t3e ac5uittal of 'ictorino et a%. and (2) t3e con,iction of .ecson et a%. for t3e lesser crime of sli#3t p3ysical in?uries +ot3 on t3e +asis of a misappreciation of facts and e,idence6 .3e Solicitor 4eneral also assails t3e findin# t3at t3e p3ysical +lows were inflicted only +y Di-on and 'illareal as well as t3e appreciation of Lenny 'illa8s consent to 3a-in#6 In our ,iew w3at t3e "etition seeks is t3at we ree9amine reassess and rewei#3 t3e pro+ati,e ,alue of t3e e,idence presented +y t3e parties6 In #eo*%e -. Maui%in we 3eld t3at #ra,e a+use of discretion cannot +e attri+uted to a court simply +ecause it alle#edly misappreciated t3e facts and t3e e,idence6 ere errors of ?ud#ment are correcti+le +y an appeal or a petition for re,iew under &ule >< of t3e &ules of Court and not +y an application for a writ of certiorari 6 .3erefore pursuant to t3e rule on dou+le ?eopardy we are constrained to deny t3e "etition contra 'ictorino et a%. t3e 17 ac5uitted fraternity mem+ers. .3e a00a-ed 8d>?e&7 a0 re>ard0 Te60&, A?a, A-?eda, a&d Ba&78> 7;e <8r ;7 p;y06a- &8re0 ;a0 7 be ?d<ed. In imposin# t3e penalty of sli#3t p3ysical in?uries on .ecson %ma %lmeda and $antu# t3e C% reasoned t3usA $ased on t3e medical findin#s it would appear t3at 7; 7;e e96-80& < 7;e ;7 p;y06a&8re0. %ttri+utin# criminal lia+ility solely to 'illareal and Di-on as if only t3eir acts in and of t3emsel,es caused t3e deat3 of Lenny 'illa is contrary to t3e C%8s own findin#s6 /rom proof t3at t3e deat3 of t3e ,ictim was t3e cumulati,e effect of t3e multiple in?uries 3e suffered t3e only
25
lo#ical conclusion is t3at criminal responsi+ility s3ould redound to all t3ose w3o 3a,e +een pro,en to 3a,e directly participated in t3e infliction of p3ysical in?uries on Lenny6 .3e accumulation of +ruisin# on 3is +ody caused 3im to suffer cardiac arrest6 .3e C% Decision was t3erefore ODI/I!D and S!. %SID! I "%&.6 Instead /idelito Di-on %ntonio ariano %lmeda Junel %nt3ony %ma &enato $antu# Jr6 and 'incent .ecson were found GUILTY +eyond reasona+le dou+t of reckless imprudence resultin# in 3omicide defined and penali-ed under %rticle < in relation to %rticle 2>7 of t3e &e,ised "enal Code and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four (>) mont3s and one (1) day of arre"to 'aor as minimum to four (>) years and two (2) mont3s of *ri"ion correcciona% as ma9imum6 .3e Decision of ac5uittal could not +e re,iewed for it would ,iolate t3e accused8s ri#3t a#ainst dou+le ?eopardy since it was not done wit3 #ra,e a+used of discretion nor ,iolated t3e State8s ri#3t to due process of law6
Dou)le ,eo#a(% a"te ac1uittal on the *eits e@ce#tions when no (ou)le ,eo#a(% has set in an( that the Decision o" ac1uittal *a% )e 1uestione( un(e Rule ./+ ARNOLD AES . YSIDORO /0. HON. TERESITA DE CASTRO, e7 a-, G.R. N. 34+, $ebr8ary , )*), a&d PEOPLE O$ THE PHILIPPINES VS. $IRST DIVISION O$ THE SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. N. 2*2+, $ebr8ary , )*) 6 The 6act"8 Nsidoro as unicipal ayor of Leyte Leyte was c3ar#ed +efore t3e Sandi#an+ayan for ,iolation of &% o6 017 for and failin# to #i,e to ierna S6 Doller unicipal Social elfare and De,elopment Officer (SDO) of Leyte Leyte wit3out any le#al +asis 3er &%.% for t3e mont3s of %u#ust Septem+er Octo+er o,em+er and Decem+er all in t3e year 2000R6 and 3er "roducti,ity "ay in t3e year 2000 and despite demands made uponR In a decision dated Octo+er 1 2007 t3e Sandi#an+ayan ac5uitted Nsidoro and 3eld t3at t3e second element of t3e offense t3at t3ere +e malice ill@moti,e or +ad fait3 was not present6 .3e Sandi#an+ayan pronouncedA .3is Court acknowled#es t3e fact t3at Doller was entitled to &%.%6 =owe,er t3e antecedent facts and circumstances did not s3ow any indicia of +ad fait3 on t3e part of KNsidoroM in wit33oldin# t3e release of Doller8s &%.%6 In fact t3is Court +elie,es t3at KNsidoroM acted in #ood fait3 and in 3onest +elief t3at Doller was not entitled to 3er &%.% +ased on t3e opinion of t3e CO% resident %uditor and Section 1; of t3e 4o,ernment %ccountin# and %uditin# anual6 It may +e an erroneous interpretation of t3e law nonet3eless KNsidoro8sM reliance to t3e same was a clear +asis of #ood fait3 on 3is part in wit33oldin# Doller8s &%.%6
26
.3e "eople filed a "etition under &ule < to re,erse t3e decision of ac5uittal insistin# t3at Nsidoro was in +ad fait3 and t3erefore t3e second element of t3e offense was present6 .3e "eople ar#ues t3at t3e Sandi#an+ayan #ra,ely a+used its discretion and e9ceeded its or acted wit3out ?urisdiction in not findin# Nsidoro in +ad fait3 w3en 3e wit33eld Doller8s &%.% and depri,ed 3er of 3er producti,ity +onus6 In 3is Comment Nsidoro prays for t3e dismissal of t3e petition for procedural and su+stanti,e infirmities6 He insists t3at 3e can no lon#er +e prosecuted for t3e same criminal c3ar#e wit3out ,iolatin# t3e rule a#ainst dou+le ?eopardy6 He%d8 4enerally t3e &ules pro,ides t3ree () procedural remedies in order for a party to appeal a decision of a trial court in a criminal case +efore t3e Supreme Court6 .3e first is +y ordinary appeal under Section &ule 122 of t3e 2000 &e,ised &ules on Criminal "rocedure6 .3e second is +y a petition for re,iew on certiorari under &ule >< of t3e &ules6 %nd t3e t3ird is +y filin# a special ci,il action for certiorari under &ule <6 !ac3 procedural remedy is uni5ue and pro,ides for a different mode of re,iew6 In addition eac3 procedural remedy may only +e a,ailed of dependin# on t3e nature of t3e ?ud#ment sou#3t to +e re,iewed6 % re,iew +y ordinary appeal resol,es factual and le#al issues6 Issues w3ic3 3a,e not +een properly raised +y t3e parties +ut are ne,ert3eless material in t3e resolution of t3e case are also resol,ed in t3is mode of re,iew6 In contrast a re,iew on certiorari under a &ule >< petition is #enerally limited to t3e re,iew of le#al issues t3e Court only resol,es 5uestions of law w3ic3 3a,e +een properly raised +y t3e parties durin# t3e appeal and in t3e petition6 nder t3is mode t3e Court determines w3et3er a proper application of t3e law was made in a #i,en set of facts6 A Ru%e C re-ie+, on the other hand, i" "trict% conined to the deter'ination o the *ro*riet o the tria% court" 4uri"diction D +hether it ha" 4uri"diction o-er the ca"e and i "o, +hether the e(erci"e o it" 4uri"diction ha" or ha" not been attended b ra-e abu"e o di"cretion a'ountin to %ack or e(ce"" o 4uri"diction. 3ile an assailed ?ud#ment ele,ated +y way of ordinary appeal or a &ule >< petition is considered an intrinsically ,alid al+eit erroneous ?ud#ment a 8d>?e&7 a00a-ed 8&der R8-e 4 0 6;ara67er@ed a0 a& &/a-d 8d>?e&7 be6a80e < de< petition tackle errors committed +y t3e trial court in t3e appreciation of t3e e,idence andEor t3e application of law6 In contrast a &ule < petition resol,es ?urisdictional errors committed in t3e proceedin#s in t3e principal case6 In ot3er words errors of ?ud#ment are t3e proper su+?ects of an ordinary appeal and in a &ule >< petition errors of ?urisdiction are addressed in a &ule < petition6 %s applied to ?ud#ments rendered in criminal cases unlike a re,iew -ia a &ule < petition &-y 8d>?e&70 < 6&/67& 6a& be re/eed & a& rd&ary appea- r a R8-e 54 pe77&. %s we e9plained in #eo*%e -. Na$areno t3e constitutional ri#3t of t3e accused a#ainst dou+le ?eopardy proscri+es appeals of ?ud#ments of ac5uittal t3rou#3 t3e remedies of ordinary appeal and a &ule >< petition6 =owe,er 7;e r8-e a>a&07 d8b-e epardy 6a&&7 be prper-y &/ed & a R8-e 4 pe77&, pred6a7ed & 7 ()! e96ep7&a- >r8&d0, &a?e-y: & a 8d>?e&7 < a6=877are&dered 7; >ra/e ab80e < d06re7& by 7;e 68r7M a&d ;ere 7;e pr0e687& ;ad bee& depr/ed < d8e pr6e00. .3e rule a#ainst dou+le ?eopardy does not apply in t3ese instances +ecause a &ule < petition does not in,ol,e a re,iew of facts and law on t3e merits in t3e manner done in an appeal6 In certiorari proceedin#s ?udicial re,iew does not e9amine and assess t3e e,idence of t3e parties nor wei#3 t3e pro+ati,e ,alue of t3e e,idence6 It does not
27
include an in5uiry on t3e correctness of t3e e,aluation of t3e e,idence6 % re,iew under &ule < only asks t3e 5uestion of w3et3er t3ere 3as +een a ,alidly rendered decision not t3e 5uestion of w3et3er t3e decision is le#ally correct6 In ot3er words t3e focus of t3e re,iew is to determine w3et3er t3e ?ud#ment is *er "e ,oid on ?urisdictional #rounds6 %pplyin# t3ese le#al concepts to t3is case we find t3at w3ile t3e "eople was In t3e case at +ar t3e imputed errors fails to esta+lis3 #ra,e a+use of discretion amountin# to lack or e9cess of ?urisdiction committed +y t3e Sandi#an+ayan6 %s a rule misapplication of facts and e,idence and erroneous conclusions +ased on e,idence do not +y t3e mere fact t3at errors were committed rise to t3e le,el of #ra,e a+use of discretion6 .3e Court cannot re,iew a ,erdict of ac5uittal w3ic3 does not impute or s3ow any ?urisdictional error committed +y t3e Sandi#an+ayan6 Dou+le ?eopardy 3as set in6
A case "o ecless i*#u(ence esultin! to ho*ici(e- sli!ht #h%sical in,uies an( (a*a!e to #o#et% *a% not )e the su),ect o" *oe than one in"o*ation+ Ac1uittal Ac1uittal o con'iction in eithe )as #osecution in the othe )ase( on the i!ht a!ainst (ou)le ,eo#a(%+ GASON IVLER % A0UILAR 's+ HON+ $ARIA ROWENA ODESTOSAN PEDRO, 8d>e < 7;e e7rp-7a& Tra- C8r7 Bra&6; 3, Pa0> C7y, a&d EVANGELINE PONCE, G.R. N. 3)3, N/e?ber 3, )**
/ollowin# a ,e3icular collision in %u#ust 200> petitioner Jason I,ler (petitioner) was c3ar#ed +efore t3e etropolitan .rial Court of "asi# City $ranc3 ;1 (e.C) wit3 two separate offensesA (1) &eckless Imprudence &esultin# in Sli#3t "3ysical In?uries (Criminal Case o6 :2;) for in?uries sustained +y respondent !,an#eline L6 "once (respondent "once) and (2) &eckless Imprudence &esultin# in =omicide and Dama#e to "roperty (Criminal Case o6 :2) for t3e deat3 of respondent "once8s 3us+and Deputy !9ecuti,e Secretary estor C6 "once and dama#e to t3e spouses "once8s ,e3icle6 "etitioner posted +ail for 3is temporary release in +ot3 cases6 On ; Septem+er 200> petitioner pleaded #uilty to t3e c3ar#e in Criminal Case o6 :2; and was meted out t3e penalty of pu+lic censure6 In,okin# t3is con,iction petitioner mo,ed to 5uas3 t3e Information in Criminal Case o6 :2 for placin# 3im in ?eopardy of second punis3ment for t3e same offense of reckless imprudence6 .3e e.C refused 5uas3al findin# no identity of offenses in t3e two cases6 IssueA Is t3e ri#3t a#ainst dou+le ?eopardy ,iolated =eldA Petitione3s Con'iction in Ci*inal Case No+ B.= as his Posecution in Ci*inal Case No+ B.. . D8b-e epardy ;a0 0e7 &.
28
.3e accused8s ne#ati,e constitutional ri#3t not to +e Ftwice put in ?eopardy of punis3ment for t3e same offense protects 3im from amon# ot3ers post@con,iction prosecution for t3e same offense wit3 t3e prior ,erdict rendered +y a court of competent ?urisdiction upon a ,alid information6 It is not disputed t3at petitioner8s con,iction in Criminal Case o6 :2; was rendered +y a court of competent ?urisdiction upon a ,alid c3ar#e6 .3us t3e case turns on t3e 5uestion w3et3er Criminal Case o6 :2 and Criminal Case o6 :2; in,ol,e t3e Fsame offense6 "etitioner adopts t3e affirmati,e ,iew su+mittin# t3at t3e two cases concern t3e same offense of reckless imprudence6 .3e e.C ruled ot3erwise findin# t3at &eckless Imprudence &esultin# in Sli#3t "3ysical In?uries is an entirely separate offense from &eckless Imprudence &esultin# in =omicide and Dama#e to "roperty Fas t3e KlatterM re5uires proof of an additional fact w3ic3 t3e ot3er does not6 Recless I*#u(ence is a Sin!le Ci*e- its Conse1uences on Pesons an( Po#et% ae $ateial Onl% to Dete*ine the Penalt% .3e two c3ar#es a#ainst petitioner arisin# from t3e same facts were prosecuted under t3e same pro,ision of t3e &e,ised "enal Code as amended namely %rticle < definin# and penali-in# 5uasi@offenses6 %s 3eld +y r6 Justice J6$6L6 &eyes in Buan w3ere in +arrin# a su+se5uent prosecution for Fserious p3ysical in?uries and dama#e to property t3ru reckless imprudence +ecause of t3e accused8s prior ac5uittal of Fsli#3t p3ysical in?uries t3ru reckless imprudence wit3 +ot3 c3ar#es #rounded on t3e same act t3e Court e9plainedA &eason and precedent +ot3 coincide in t3at once con,icted or ac5uitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence t3e accused may not +e prosecuted a#ain for t3at same act6 6or the e""ence o the ua"i oen"e o cri'ina% ne%ience under artic%e ?C o the Re-i"ed #ena% &ode %ie" in the e(ecution o an i'*rudent or ne%ient act that, i intentiona%% done, +ou%d be *uni"hab%e a" a e%on. The %a+ *ena%i$e" thu" the ne%ient or care%e"" act, not the re"u%t thereo. The ra-it o the con"euence i" on% taken into account to deter'ine the *ena%t, it doe" not ua%i the "ub"tance o the oen"e. And, a" the care%e"" act i" "in%e, +hether the in4uriou" re"u%t "hou%d aect one *er"on or "e-era% *er"on", the oen"e :cri'ina% ne%ience< re'ain" one and the "a'e, and can not be "*%it into dierent cri'e" and *ro"ecution" 6 9 9 9 (!mp3asis supplied) Aticle ; Does not A##l% to Acts Penali: is a procedural de,ice allowin# sin#le prosecution of multiple felonies fallin# under eit3er of two cate#oriesA (1) w3en a sin#le act constitutes two or more #ra,e or less #ra,e felonies (t3us e9cludin# from its operation li#3t felonies) and (2) w3en an offense is a necessary means for committin# t3e ot3er6 .3e le#islature crafted t3is procedural tool to +enefit t3e accused w3o in lieu of ser,in# multiple penalties will only ser,e t3e ma9imum of t3e penalty for t3e most serious crime6 In contrast %rticle < is a su+stanti,e rule penali-in# not an act defined as a felony +ut Ft3e mental attitude 9 9 9 +e3ind t3e act t3e dan#erous recklessness lack of care or foresi#3t 9 9 9 a sin#le mental attitude re#ardless of t3e resultin# conse5uences6 .3us %rticle < was crafted as one 5uasi@crime resultin# in one or more conse5uences6
29
E1ual #otection clause was 'iolate( when the Phili##ine Tuth Co**ission o" B>8> sin!le( out onl% the o""icials an( e*#lo%ees o" the 4#e'ious a(*inistation5 to )e in'esti!ate( "o !a"t an( cou#tion an( othe ci*es co**itte( )% #u)lic o""ices+ LOUIS BARO%J C. BIRAOGO /0. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COISSION O$ )** G.R. N. 2)2+4 : De6e?ber 3, )** "resident $eni#no Simeon %5uino III on July 0 2010 si#ned !9ecuti,e Order o6 1 esta+lis3in# t3e Phili##ine Tuth Co**ission o" B>8> (.rut3 Commission)6 "ertinent pro,isions of said e9ecuti,e order readA !!C.I'! O&D!& O6 1 C&!%.I4 .=! "=ILI""I! .&.= COISSIO O/ 2010 S!C.IO 16 Creation of a Commission6 .3ere is 3ere+y created t3e "=ILI""I! .&.= COISSIO 3ereinafter referred to as t3e FCOISSIO w3ic3 s3all primarily seek and find t3e trut3 on and toward t3is end in,esti#ate reports of #raft and corruption of suc3 scale and ma#nitude t3at s3ock and offend t3e moral and et3ical sensi+ilities of t3e people committed +y pu+lic officers and employees t3eir co@principals accomplices and accessories from t3e pri,ate sector if any durin# t3e pre,ious administration and t3ereafter recommend t3e appropriate action or measure to +e taken t3ereon to ensure t3at t3e full measure of ?ustice s3all +e ser,ed wit3out fear or fa,or6 .3e "3ilippine .rut3 Commission8s (".C) primary task to in,esti#ate reports of #raft and corruption committed +y t3ird@le,el pu+lic officers and employees t3eir co@principals accomplices and accessories durin# t3e "&!'IOS %DIIS.&%.IO and t3ereafter to su+mit its findin# and recommendations to t3e "resident Con#ress and t3e Om+udsman6 .3e petitioner claims t3at !9ecuti,e Order o6 1 is unconstitutional for ,iolati,e of t3e e5ual protection clause as it discriminates t3e pu+lic officials under t3e administration of former "resident 4loria %rroyo e,en t3ou#3 t3ere are reports of corruptions also in t3e administrations +efore t3at of "res6 %rroyo6 =eldA E9e687/e Order N. /-a7e0 7;e E=8a- Pr7e67& C-a80e. %lt3ou#3 t3e purpose of t3e .rut3 Commission falls wit3in t3e in,esti#ati,e power of t3e "resident t3e Court finds difficulty in up3oldin# t3e constitutionality of !9ecuti,e Order o6 1 in ,iew of its apparent trans#ression of t3e e5ual protection clause ens3rined in Section 1 %rticle III ($ill of &i#3ts) of t3e 17:; Constitution6 One of t3e +asic principles on w3ic3 t3is #o,ernment was founded is t3at of t3e e5uality of ri#3t w3ic3 is em+odied in Section 1 %rticle III of t3e 17:; Constitution6 .3e e5ual protection of t3e laws is em+raced in t3e concept of due process as e,ery unfair discrimination offends
30
t3e re5uirements of ?ustice and fair play6 It 3as +een em+odied in a separate clause 3owe,er to pro,ide for a more specific #uaranty a#ainst any form of undue fa,oritism or 3ostility from t3e #o,ernment6 %pplyin# t3ese precepts to t3is case !9ecuti,e Order o6 1 s3ould +e struck down as ,iolati,e of t3e e5ual protection clause6 .3e clear mandate of t3e en,isioned trut3 commission is to in,esti#ate and find out t3e trut3 Fconcernin# t3e reported cases of #raft and corruption durin# t3e pre,ious administration only6 .3e intent to sin#le out t3e pre,ious administration of former "resident 4loria %rroyo is plain patent and manifest6 .3at t3e pre,ious administration was picked out was deli+erate and intentional as can +e #leaned from t3e fact t3at it was underscored at least t3ree times in t3e assailed e9ecuti,e order6 It must +e noted t3at !9ecuti,e Order o6 1 does not e,en mention any particular act e,ent or report to +e focused on unlike t3e in,esti#ati,e commissions created in t3e past6 F.3e e5ual protection clause is ,iolated +y purposeful and intentional discrimination6 hethe the !ant o" COLA to *ilita% an( #olice #esonnel to the e@clusion o" othe !o'en*ent e*#lo%ees 'iolates the e1ual #otection clause. VICTORIA C. GUTIERRE, e7 a- /0. DEPARTENT O$ BUDGET AND ANAGEENT, G.R. N. 4+), ar6; 1, )** Con#ress enacted in 17:7 &epu+lic %ct (&6%6) ;<: called t3e Compensation and "osition Classification %ct of 17:7 to rationali-e t3e compensation of #o,ernment employees6 Its Section 12 directed t3e consolidation of allowances and additional compensation already +ein# en?oyed +y employees into t3eir standardi-ed salary rates6 $ut it e9empted certain additional compensations t3at t3e employees may +e recei,in# from suc3 consolidation particularly t3ose in t3e %rmed /orces and t3e "3ilippine ational "olice6 I008e: W;e7;er r &7 7;e >ra&7 < COLA 7 ?-7ary a&d p-6e per0&&e- 7 7;e e96-80& < 7;er >/er&?e&7 e?p-yee0 /-a7e0 7;e e=8a- pr7e67& 6-a80e. He-d: "etitioners contend t3at t3e continued #rant of COL% to military and police to t3e e9clusion of ot3er #o,ernment employees ,iolates t3e e5ual protection clause of t3e Constitution6 .3e continued #rant of COL% to t3e uniformed personnel to t3e e9clusion of ot3er national #o,ernment officials does run afoul t3e e5ual protection clause of t3e Constitution6 .3e fundamental ri#3t of e5ual protection of t3e laws is not a+solute +ut is su+?ect to reasona+le classification6 If t3e #roupin#s are c3aracteri-ed +y su+stantial distinctions t3at make real differences one class may +e treated and re#ulated differently from anot3er6 .3e classification must also +e #ermane to t3e purpose of t3e law and must apply to all t3ose +elon#in# to t3e same class6
31
.o +e ,alid and reasona+le t3e classification must satisfy t3e followin# re5uirementsA (1) it must rest on su+stantial distinctions (2) it must +e #ermane to t3e purpose of t3e law () it must not +e limited to e9istin# conditions only and (>) it must apply e5ually to all mem+ers of t3e same class6 Certainly t3ere are ,alid reasons to treat t3e uniformed personnel differently from ot3er national #o,ernment officials6 $ein# in c3ar#ed of t3e actual defense of t3e State and t3e maintenance of internal peace and order t3ey are e9pected to +e stationed ,irtually anyw3ere in t3e country6 .3ey are likely to +e assi#ned to a ,ariety of low moderate and 3i#3@cost areas6 Since t3eir +asic pay does not ,ary +ased on location t3e continued #rant of COL% is intended to 3elp t3em offset t3e effects of li,in# in 3i#3er cost areas6 Is the #o'ision o" the O*ni)us Election Co(e (eclain! a##ointi'e o""icials (ee*e( esi!ne( "o* thei #ositions u#on the "ilin! o" thei ceti"icates o" can(i(ac% while electe( o""icials ae not 'iolati'e o" the e1ual #otection clause6 ELEAAR P. 'UINTO a&d GERINO TOLENTINO, R. VS. COELEC, G.R. N. 1221, $ebr8ary )), )** .3e main issue in t3is case is w3et3er or not t3e second pro,iso in t3e t3ird para#rap3 of Section 1 of &epu+lic %ct o6 77 Section of t3e Omni+us !lection Code and Section >(a) of CO!L!C &esolution o6 :;: pro,idin# t3at appointi,e officials are deemed automatically resi#ned from t3eir ?o+s upon t3e filin# of t3eir certificates of candidacy (w3ile t3e elected officials are not) ,iolate t3e e5ual protection clause of t3e Constitution6 On Decem+er 1 2007 t3e Supreme Court t3rou#3 Justice %ntonio ac3ura 3eld t3at t3e 5uestioned pro,isions of t3e a+o,e@mentioned laws are unconstitutional for +ein# ,iolati,e of t3e e5ual protection clause6 .3e CO!L!C mo,ed for a reconsideration of t3e said Decision6 =eldA .3e e5ual protection of t3e law clause in t3e Constitution is not a+solute +ut is su+?ect to reasona+le classification6 If t3e #roupin#s are c3aracteri-ed +y su+stantial distinctions t3at make real differences one class may +e treated and re#ulated differently from t3e ot3er6 S8b07a&7a- d07&67&0 6-ear-y e907 be7ee& e-e67/e <<6a-0 a&d app&7/e <<6a-0. T;e <r?er 668py 7;er <<6e by /r78e < 7;e ?a&da7e < 7;e e-e67ra7e. T;ey are e-e67ed 7 a& <<6e <r a de<&7e 7er? a&d ?ay be re?/ed 7;eree&7 6&d7&06 On t3e ot3er 3and appointi,e officials 3old t3eir office +y ,irtue of t3eir desi#nation t3ereto +y an appointin# aut3ority6 Some appointi,e officials 3old t3eir office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure w3ile ot3ers ser,e at t3e pleasure of t3e appointin# aut3ority6
Accuse( ae entitle( to ac1uittal (es#ite the #ositi'e i(enti"ication o" a witness who is not ce(i)le an( whose testi*on% is "ull o" inconsistencies an( conta% to co**on hu*an e@#eience
32
PEOPLE VS. HUBERT WEBB ET AL, G.R. N. 315, De6e?ber 5, )** a&d LEANO VS. PEOPLE, G. R. N. 3+12, De6e?ber 5, )**
On June 0 1771 !strellita 'i-conde and 3er dau#3ters Carmela nineteen years old and Jennifer se,en were +rutally slain at t3eir 3ome in "araTa5ue City6 /ollowin# an intense in,esti#ation t3e police arrested a #roup of suspects some of w3om #a,e detailed confessions6 $ut t3e trial court smelled a frame@up and e,entually ordered t3em disc3ar#ed6 /our years later in 177< t3e ational $ureau of In,esti#ation or $I announced t3at it 3ad sol,ed t3e crime6 It presented star@witness Jessica 6 %lfaro one of its informers w3o claimed t3at s3e witnessed t3e crime6 S3e pointed to accused =u+ert Jeffrey "6 e++ %ntonio F.ony $oy Le?ano %rtemio FDon# 'entura ic3ael %6 4atc3alian =ospicio F"yke /ernande- "eter !strada i#uel F4in# &odri#ue- and Joey /ilart as t3e culprits6 S3e also ta##ed accused police officer 4erardo $ion# as an accessory after t3e fact6 .3e &e#ional .rial Court of "araTa5ue City $ranc3 2;> presided o,er +y Jud#e %melita 46 .olentino tried only se,en of t3e accused since %rtemio 'entura and Joey /ilart remained at lar#e6 .3e prosecution presented %lfaro as its main witness wit3 t3e ot3ers corro+oratin# 3er testimony6 /or t3eir part some of t3e accused testified denyin# any part in t3e crime and sayin# t3ey were elsew3ere w3en it took place6 e++8s ali+i appeared t3e stron#est since 3e claimed t3at 3e was t3en across t3e ocean in t3e nited States of %merica6 =e presented t3e testimonies of witnesses as well as documentary and o+?ect e,idence to pro,e t3is6 In addition t3e defense presented witnesses to s3ow %lfaroGs +ad reputation for trut3 and t3e incredi+le nature of 3er testimony6 $ut impressed +y %lfaro8s detailed narration of t3e crime and t3e e,ents surroundin# it t3e trial court found a credi+le witness in 3er6 It noted 3er cate#orical strai#3tforward spontaneous and frank testimony undama#ed +y #ruelin# cross@e9aminations6 .3e trial court remained unfa-ed +y si#nificant discrepancies +etween %lfaro8s %pril 2: and ay 22 177< affida,its acceptin# 3er e9planation t3at s3e at first wanted to protect 3er former +oyfriend accused !strada and con,icted all t3e accused66 =eldA Since Jessica %lfaro8s testimony is contrary to common 3uman e9perience and full of inconsistencies 3er positi,e identification could not pre,ail o,er t3e documented ali+is of =u+ert e++6 "ositi,e identification to +e superior o,er denial and ali+i it s3ould come from a credi+le witness6 Inconsistent testi*onies o" #osecution3s witnesses on *ateial #oints entitles the accuse( o" ac1uittal )ase( on his constitutional i!ht to )e #esu*e( innocent+ ELY AGUSTIN VS. PEOPLE O$ THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. N. 41311, Apr- +*, )**1 On Octo+er 1 177< at ;A20 in t3e e,enin# armed men ro++ed t3e 3ouse of spouses 4eor#e and &osemarie 4ante in $aran#ay "u#@os Ca+u#ao Ilocos Sur forci+ly takin# wit3 t3em se,eral
33
,alua+les includin# cas3 amountin# to "00000600 6 .3e Ca+u#ao "olice applied for a searc3 warrant w3ic3 was #ranted +y t3e .C One of t3e tar#et premises was t3e residence of petitioner named as one of t3e se,eral suspects in t3e crime6 On Octo+er 177< armed wit3 t3e warrant policemen searc3ed t3e premises of petitionerGs 3ouse located in Sitio "adual $aran#ay "u#@os Ca+u#ao Ilocos Sur6 .3e searc3 resulted in t3e reco,ery of a firearm and ammunitions w3ic3 3ad no license nor aut3ority to possess suc3 weapon and conse5uently t3e filin# of a criminal case docketed as Criminal Case o6 1<1@H for ,iolation of "6D6 o6 1: or Ille#al "ossession of /irearms a#ainst petitioner +efore t3e &.C6 .3e prosecutionGs case centered mainly on e,idence t3at durin# t3e enforcement of t3e searc3 warrant a#ainst petitioner a 6: cali+er re,ol,er firearm was found in t3e latterGs 3ouse6 In particular S"O1 Ca+aya testified t3at w3ile pokin# at a closed rattan ca+inet near t3e door 3e saw a firearm on t3e lower s3elf6 .3e #un is a 6: cali+er re,ol,er wit3 fi,e li,e ammunitions w3ic3 3e immediately turned o,er to 3is superior "EInsp6 $aldo,ino6 "etitioner anc3ored 3is defense on denial and frame@up6 .3e petitioner and 3is wife Lorna assert t3at petitioner does not own a #un Lorna testified t3at s3e saw a Fmilitary man plantin# t3e #un6 %fter trial t3e &.C rendered its Decision dated July ; 1777 findin# petitioner #uilty +eyond reasona+le dou+t6 "etitioner insists t3at t3e trial court and t3e C% committed re,ersi+le error in #i,in# little credence to 3is defense t3at t3e firearm found in 3is residence was planted +y t3e policemen6 =e also alle#es material inconsistencies in t3e testimonies of t3e policemen as witnesses for t3e prosecution w3ic3 amounted to failure +y t3e prosecution to pro,e 3is #uilt +eyond reasona+le dou+t and t3erefore entitled to ac5uittal +ased on 3is constitutional presumption of innocence6 HELD: .3e accused s3ould +e ac5uitted6 In con,ictin# petitioner t3e &.C relied 3ea,ily on t3e testimony of S"O1 Ca+aya w3o testified t3at 3e disco,ered t3e su+?ect firearm in a closed ca+inet inside t3e formerGs 3ouse6 .3e trial court +rus3ed aside petitionerGs defense of denial and protestations of frame@up6 .3e &.C ?ustified #i,in# full credence to Ca+ayaGs testimony on t3e principles t3at t3e latter is presumed to 3a,e performed 3is official duties re#ularly t3at 3e 3ad no ill moti,e to frame@up petitioner and t3at 3is affirmati,e testimony is stron#er t3an petitionerGs ne#ati,e testimony6 .3e conflictin# testimonies of t3e prosecution witnesses as to w3o actually entered t3e 3ouse and conducted t3e searc3 w3o Fdisco,ered t3e #un and w3o witnessed t3e Fdisco,ery are material matters +ecause t3ey relate directly to a fact in issue in t3e present case w3et3er a #un 3as +een found in t3e 3ouse of petitioner or to a fact to w3ic3 +y t3e process of lo#ic an inference may +e made as to t3e e9istence or non@e9istence of a fact in issue6 .3e e,idence of prosecution is se,erely weakened +y se,eral contradictions in t3e testimonies of its witnesses6 !specially dama#ed is t3e credi+ility of S"O1 Ca+aya none of w3ose declarations on material points ?i+es wit3 t3ose of t3e ot3er prosecution witnesses6 .3e inconsistencies are material as t3ey del,e into t3e ,ery +ottom of t3e 5uestion of w3et3er or not S"O1 Ca+aya really found a firearm in t3e 3ouse of petitioner6 S"O1 Ca+aya testified t3at 3e entered t3e 3ouse wit3 four ot3er policemen amon# w3om were S"O1 Jara S"O> "eneyra S"O $erna+e Ocado (S"O Ocado) and anot3er one w3ose name 3e does not remem+er6 3ile searc3in# 3e disco,ered t3e firearm in t3e kitc3en inside a closed ca+inet near
34
t3e door6 =e said t3at S"O1 Jara was standin# ri#3t +e3ind 3im at a distance of ?ust one meter w3en 3e (Ca+aya) saw t3e firearm and t3at 3e picked up t3e #un 3eld it and s3owed it to S"O1 Jara6 =e asserted t3at S"O2 &enon was not one of t3ose w3o went inside t3e 3ouse6 =owe,er S"O1 Jara t3e +est witness w3o could 3a,e corro+orated S"O1 Ca+ayaGs testimony related a different story as to t3e circumstances of t3e firearmGs disco,ery6 S"O1 Jara testified t3at 3e merely conducted perimeter security durin# t3e searc3 and did not enter or participate in searc3in# t3e 3ouse6 S"O1 Jara testified t3at 3e remained outside t3e 3ouse t3rou#3out t3e searc3 and w3en S"O1 Ca+aya s3outed and s3owed a #un 3e was se,en to ei#3t meters away from 3im6 =e could not see t3e inside of t3e 3ouse and could see Ca+aya only from 3is c3est up6 =e did not see t3e firearm at t3e place w3ere it was found +ut saw it only w3en Ca+aya raised 3is arm to s3ow t3e #un w3ic3 was a re,ol,er6 He 0 6er7a& 7;a7 ;e a0 &7 7; Cabaya a7 7;e 7?e 7;e -a77er d06/ered 7;e <rear?. =e furt3er testified t3at S"O Ocado w3o accordin# to S"O1 Ca+aya was one of t3ose near 3im w3en 3e (Ca+aya) disco,ered t3e firearm stayed outside and did not enter or searc3 t3e 3ouse6 3ile t3e lone defense of t3e accused t3at 3e was t3e ,ictim of a frame@up is easily fa+ricated t3is claim assumes importance w3en faced wit3 t3e rat3er s3aky nature of t3e prosecution e,idence6 It is well to remem+er t3at t3e prosecution must rely not on t3e weakness of t3e defense e,idence +ut rat3er on its own proof w3ic3 must +e stron# enou#3 to con,ince t3is Court t3at t3e prisoner in t3e dock deser,es to +e punis3ed6 T;e 6&07787&a- pre08?p7& 0 7;a7 7;e a6680ed 0 &&6e&7 e/e& < ;0 de a0 7;e pr0e687& 0 &7 07r&> e&8>; 7 6&/67 ;?. In #eo*%e o the #hi%i**ine" -. Gon$a%e", the Su*re'e Court 3eld t3at w3ere t3ere was material and une9plained inconsistency +etween t3e testimonies of two principal prosecution witnesses relatin# not to inconse5uential details +ut to t3e alle#ed transaction itself w3ic3 is su+?ect of t3e case t3e in3erent impro+a+le c3aracter of t3e testimony #i,en +y one of t3e two principal prosecution witnesses 3ad t3e effect of ,itiatin# t3e testimony #i,en +y t3e ot3er principal prosecution witness6 .3e Court ruled t3at it cannot ?ust discard t3e impro+a+le testimony of one officer and adopt t3e testimony of t3e ot3er t3at is more plausi+le6 In suc3 a situation +ot3 testimonies lose t3eir pro+ati,e ,alue6 3y s3ould two (2) police officers #i,e two (2) contradictory descriptions of t3e same sale transaction w3ic3 alle#edly took place +efore t3eir ,ery eyes on t3e same p3ysical location and on t3e same occasion In t3e present case to repeat t3e #larin# contradictory testimonies of t3e prosecution witnesses #enerate serious dou+t as to w3et3er a firearm was really found in t3e 3ouse of petitioner6 .3e prosecution utterly failed to disc3ar#e its +urden of pro,in# t3at petitioner is #uilty of ille#al possession of firearms +eyond reasona+le dou+t6 .3e constitutional presumption of innocence of petitioner 3as not +een demolis3ed and t3erefore petitioner s3ould +e ac5uitted of t3e crime 3e was wit36 Accuse( in a a#e case is entitle( to ac1uittal )ase( on his constitutional #esu*#tion o" innocence when the a#e 'icti* "aile( to i**e(iatel% o s#ontaneousl% i(enti"% the alle!e( attace when #esente( to he+
PEOPLE O$ THE PHILIPPINES /0. ENNY TUABING, G.R. N. 2), ar6; ), )* .=! /%C.SA
35
.3e city prosecutor c3ar#ed t3e accused Jenny .umam+in# (.umam+in#) wit3 rape in Criminal Case 0>@22;:7; of t3e &e#ional .rial Court (&.C) of anila6 DH t3e complainant testified t3at at around 2A00 a6m6 on June 2 200> s3e went to sleep lea,in# t3e li#3ts on at 3er cousin8s rented room6 S3e was startled w3en some+ody entered t3e room after s3e 3ad turned off t3e li#3ts6 .3e intruder a man poked a knife at DH and t3reatened to kill 3er if s3e made any noise6 =e remo,ed DH8s clot3es and undressed 3imself6 =e t3en succeeded in ra,is3in# 3er6 3en t3e man was a+out to lea,e DH turned t3e li#3t on and s3e saw 3is face6 Later s3e identified t3e accused Jenny .umam+in# as 3er rapist6 On June 2; 200> t3e doctor w3o e9amined DH found no +ruises 3ematoma or any si#n of resistance on 3er +ody +ut found se,eral fres3 lacerations on 3er #enitals6 .umam+in# denied committin# t3e crime6 =e claimed t3at on June 2 200> 3e slept at t3e 3ouse of 3is employer estor Ledesma6 =e went to +ed at a+out 7A00 p6m6 and woke up at A00 a6m6 .umam+in# swore t3at 3e ne,er left 3is employer8s 3ouse t3at ni#3t6 Ledesma corro+orated 3is story6 Barana officials summoned .umam+in# and 3e went t3inkin# t3at it 3ad somet3in# to do wit3 a +loodlettin# campai#n6 =e was s3ocked 3owe,er w3en 3e learned t3at 3e 3ad +een suspected of 3a,in# committed rape6 3en t3e accused was summoned +y t3e $aran#ay Captain t3e complainant did not spontaneously identify t3e former6 HELD: % successful prosecution of a criminal action lar#ely depends on proof of two t3in#sA t3e identification of t3e aut3or of t3e crime and 3is actual commission of t3e same6 %n ample proof t3at a crime 3as +een committed 3as no use if t3e prosecution is una+le to con,incin#ly pro,e t3e offender8s identity6 .3e constitutional presumption of innocence t3at an accused en?oys is not demolis3ed +y an identification t3at is full of uncertainties6 DH8s identification of accused .umam+in# as 3er rapist is far from cate#orical6 % readin# of 3er testimony s3ows t3at s3e was 5uite reluctant at t3e +e#innin# +ut e,entually pointed to 3im w3en it was su##ested t3at it 'iht +e 3im after all6 Se,eral witnesses attested to DH8s uncertainties re#ardin# t3e rapist8s identity w3en t3e barana c3airman arran#ed for 3er to meet .umam+in#6 DH8s a+o,e +e3a,ior durin# 3er initial confrontation wit3 accused .umam+in# #i,es t3e Court no confidence t3at as s3e claimed in 3er testimony s3e was familiar wit3 t3e looks of 3er rapist +ecause s3e saw 3im on t3e pre,ious day as 3e passed +y 3er cousin8s rented room many times6 If t3is were t3e case 3er natural reaction on seein# .umam+in# would 3a,e +een one of outri#3t fury or some re,ealin# emotion not reluctance in pointin# to 3im despite t3e barana c3airman8s assurance t3at 3e would protect 3er if s3e identified 3im6 In assessin# t3e testimony of a wron#ed woman e,idence of 3er conduct immediately after t3e alle#ed assault is of critical ,alue6 .3ere is one t3in# t3at DH appeared sure of6 =er rapist wore a yellow s3irt6 $ut t3is is inconsistent wit3 3er testimony t3at after t3e stran#er in 3er room was done rapin# 3er F bi%a na %an *o "ian %u'aba" 9 9 9 "inundan ko "ia n tinin. Since DH did not say t3at t3e man put 3is clot3es +ack on it seems a certainty t3at 3e collected 3is clot3es and carried t3is out w3en 3e left t3e room6 Since DH t3en turned on t3e li#3t for t3e first time s3e 3ad a c3ance to
36
see 3im clearly6 $ut if t3is were so and 3e walked out naked w3y was s3e so certain t3at 3e wore a yellow s3irt it3 suc3 serious dou+ts re#ardin# t3e true identity of DH8s rapist t3e Court cannot affirm t3e con,iction of accused .umam+in# as a result of t3e accused8s constitutional presumption of innocence6
Dela% in co*#lainin! o" the alle!e( a#e cou#le( with the "act that the alle!e( a#e 'icti* 'isite( the accuse( in ,ail si@ 7.: ti*es entitles the accuse( to an ac1uittal )ase( on the constitutional #esu*#tion o" innocence+ THE PEOPLE O$ THE PHILIPPINES VS. ERWIN 'UINTAL y BEO, VICENTE BONGAT y TARIAN, $ELIPE 'UINTAL y ABAR'UE a&d LARRY PANTI y IENE, G.R. N. 153*, $ebr8ary ), )* PERE, G .: On 2 ay 2001 appellant 'icente to#et3er wit3 1<@year old Jerwin uintal y $eo (Jerwin) 1@year old /elipe uintal y %+ar5ue- (/elipe) and Larry "anti y Jimene- (Larry) were c3ar#ed in an Information for &ape alle#edly committed as followsA
.3at on or a+out %u#ust 27 2002 at around 7A0 o8clock in t3e e,enin# in +aran#ay KM municipality of 'irac pro,ince of Catanduanes "3ilippines ?urisdiction of t3e =onora+le Court t3e a+o,e@named accused conspirin# confederatin# and mutually 3elpin# one anot3er for a common purpose wit3 force and intimidation did t3en and t3ere willfully unlawfully and feloniously lie and succeeded in 3a,in# carnal knowled#e of K%%%M a minor 1 years of a#e a#ainst 3er will and wit3out 3er consent6 .3at t3e crime of rape was committed wit3 an a##ra,atin# circumstance of minority t3e fact t3at K%%%M is a minor 1 years of a#e w3en s3e was raped +y t3e 3erein@named four (>) accused6 On %ppeal t3e Supreme Court +ased on t3e accused8s constitutional presumption of innocence +rou#3t a+out +y dou+ts as to t3e credi+ility of t3e testimony of t3e alle#ed rape ,ictim t3e accused are ac5uitted6 .3is Court cannot disre#ard t3is na##in# dou+t wit3 respect to t3e credi+ility of %%%8s testimony t3e inconsistencies in t3e testimonies of t3e barana tanod and barana kaa+ad t3e purported confession put into writin# and si#ned +y all t3e accused and t3e su+se5uent incidents relatin# to t3e case6 6ir"t %%% testified t3at s3e does not personally know Jerwin and /elipe6 =owe,er w3en t3e two alle#edly in,ited 3er to #o wit3 t3em to a party s3e readily accepted t3e in,itation and in fact went wit3 t3em6 oreo,er %%% was seen playin# cards wit3 Jerwin and 3is #roup in t3e wake as testified +y aria /elipe Jerwin and /ederico6
37
Second %%% recounted t3at t3e ni*a 3ut w3ere s3e was +rou#3t +y t3e accused was ,ery dark6 %nd yet %%% readily identified 'icente and Larry inside t3e 3ut as two of t3ose w3o raped 3er6 Third t3e medical certificate only contained one findin# t3at t3ere was a Fround@ t3e@clock a+rasion in t3e %abia 'inora./ .3is is not at all conclusi,e nor corro+orati,e to support t3e c3ar#e of rape6 %t most t3is indicates t3at %%% 3ad se9ual intercourse not raped6 6ourth %%%8s +elated reportin# of t3e rape incident 3as rele,ance in t3is case especially w3en it appears t3at s3e really 3ad no intention at all to inform 3er mot3er not until t3e latter actually asked 3er w3y s3e was walkin# in an unusual manner6 999 Se'enth, & a& 8&808a- 707, re6rd0 0; 7;a7 AAA a0 0ee& /07&> er& & a- <r a7 -ea07 09 (! 7?e0. T;e0e &6de&70 are d68?e&7ed & a ->b pre0e&7ed & 68r7 by 7;e det3 Di,ision is not ,alid since no written copy of t3e order si#ned +y t3e ot3er ?ustices6 .=! D!.!&I%.IO O/ =!.=!& .=! D!L%NS %&! O/ S%ID %.&! IS &!L%.I'! %D CANNOT BE BASED ON ERE ATHEATICAL REC%ONING O$ TIE. PARTICULAR REGARD TO $ACTS AND CIRCUSTANCES SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED T;e de-ay ?807 be VE"ATIOUS, CAPRICIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE a&d 7;0 0 0 < 7;e <--&> are 0a70<edA a6 Len!th o" the (ela% )+ Reasons "o the (ela% c+ Assetion o "ailue to asset such i!ht )% the accuse( an( (+ Pe,u(ice( cause( )% the (ela%+ Ri!ht to asse*)l% an( #owe o" the Cit% $a%o to chan!e the 'enue o" the all% e1uisites+ INTEGRATED BAR O$ THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANILA AYOR OSE LITOJ ATIENA, G.R. N. 34)5, $ebr8ary )5, )** CARPIO ORALES, G+:
38
"etitioners Inte#rated $ar of t3e "3ilippines (I$") and lawyers =6 =arry L6 &o5ue and Joel &6 $utuyan appeal t3e June 2: 200 Decision and t3e Octo+er 2 200 &esolution of t3e Court of %ppeals t3at found no #ra,e a+use of discretion on t3e part of respondent Jose FLito %tien-a t3e t3en mayor of anila in #rantin# a permit to rally in a ,enue ot3er t3an t3e one applied for +y t3e I$"6 On June 1< 200 t3e I$" t3rou#3 its t3en ational "resident Jose %nselmo Cadi(Cadi-) filed wit3 t3e Office of t3e City ayor of anila a letter application for a permit to rally at t3e foot of endiola $rid#e on June 22 200 from 2A0 p6m6 to
In modifyin# t3e permit outri#3t re0p&de&7 >ra/e-y ab80ed ;0 d06re7& ;e& ;e dd &7 ??eda7e-y &<r? 7;e IBP ; 0;8-d ;a/e bee& ;eard <r07 & 7;e ?a77er < ;0
