Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. Nos. 186659-710 October 19, 2011 Z C R! .

C N" O, # S . C N" O N" !SR E$ #. % RON, Petitioners, vs. PEOP$E O& T%E P%!$!PP!NES N" S N"!G N# ' N, Respondents. D (!$$ R M , )R., J.: "ssailed in this petition for revie# on certiorari under Rule $% is the Decision& dated October '(, '))* and Resolution' dated Februar+ '), '))( of the Sandi,anba+an -First Division. findin, the petitioners ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of /alversation of public funds under "rticle '&0 of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended. The Facts On "u,ust %, &((1, !hair/an Pascasio S. 2anaria of the !o//ission on "udit -!O". constituted a tea/ of auditors fro/ the central office to conduct an 3panded Special "udit of the Office of the Re,ional 4overnor, "utono/ous Re,ion for Musli/ Mindanao -OR45"RMM.. State "uditors 6eidi 7. Mendo8a -Tea/ 7eader. and 9ai/e Ro3as -Me/ber. #ere directed to conduct the said audit under the supervision of 9ai/e P. Naran:o -State "uditor V.. Fro/ "u,ust '$ to Septe/ber &, &((1, the e3panded audit #as thus conducted on the financial transactions and operations of OR45"RMM for the period 9ul+ &((' to March &((1. "s stated in Special "udit Office -S"O. Report No. (15'% sub/itted b+ the audit tea/, it #as found that ille,al #ithdra#als #ere /ade fro/ the depositor+ accounts of the a,enc+ throu,h the issuance of chec;s pa+able to the order of petitioner Israel 2. 6aron -Disbursin, Officer II. #ithout the re<uired disburse/ent vouchers. The follo#in, are the details of the ,overn/ent accounts and the fift+5t#o -%'. chec;s1 issued and encashed #ithout proper supportin, docu/ents= PN2 "ccount No. 10)51')* D"T ISS> D Dece/ber '(, &((' Dece/ber '(, &((' Dece/ber '(, &((' 9anuar+ 'A, &((1 9anuar+ 'A, &((1 9anuar+ 'A, &((1 Februar+ ', &((1 $&$$1& $&$$1' $&$$11 $&$$*0 $&$$** $&$$*( $&$$(1 Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao %)),))).)) $1(,%*%.)) '&),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) !6 !? NO. SI4N"TORI S "MO>NT !ISION

Februar+ ', &((1 Februar+ 1, &((1 Februar+ %, &((1 Februar+ %, &((1 Februar+ &*, &((1 Februar+ &*, &((1 Februar+ '', &((1 Februar+ '', &((1 Februar+ '', &((1 Februar+ '', &((1 Februar+ '', &((1 Februar+ '', &((1 Februar+ '$, &((1 March &*, &((1 March &*, &((1 March &(, &((1 March '', &((1 March '', &((1

$&$$($ $&$$(( $&$%)) $A&*)& $A&*)1 $A&*)$ $A&*0A $A&*00 $A&*0* $A&*0( $A&**) $A&**& $A&*** $A&(1' $A&(11 $A&(1$ $A&(1% $A&(1A

Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ Bacaria !andao Israel 6aron @ Bacaria !andao Israel 6aron @ Bacaria !andao Israel 6aron @ Bacaria !andao Israel 6aron @ Bacaria !andao Israel 6aron @ Bacaria !andao Israel 6aron @ Bacaria !andao Israel 6aron @ Bacaria !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao TOT $

%)),))).)) $%),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) &)$,(*%.A$ %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) A$,))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) 1%),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) P&&,&&*,%0).A$ "MO>NT $)),))).)) $)),))).)) $)),))).)) &'),))).)) 1*),))).)) '%),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).))

"ccount No. *$$)A& -Treasurer of the Philippines. D"T ISS> D 9anuar+ &&, &((1 9anuar+ &&, &((1 9anuar+ &&, &((1 9anuar+ &&, &((1 9anuar+ &1, &((1 9anuar+ &*, &((1 March ', &((1 March $, &((1 March $, &((1 March $, &((1 !6 !? NO. (A*01( (A*0$) (A*0$& (A*0%& (A**)$ (0$&(' (0$')* (0$')( (0$'&) SI4N"TORI S Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Pandical Santia,o @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ Bacaria !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao

March $, &((1 March $, &((1 March %, &((1 March %, &((1 March &', &((1 March &*, &((1 March &*, &((1 March &*, &((1 March &*, &((1 March &*, &((1 March &(, &((1 March &(, &((1 March &(, &((1 March '(, &((1 March '(, &((1 March '(, &((1 March '(, &((1 March 1), &((1

(0$'&& (0$'&' (0$''0 (0$''* (0$'$$ (0$1'$ (0$1'% (0$1'A (0$1'0 (0$1'* (0$11( (0$1$) (0$1$& (0(%11 (0(%$1 (0(%$$ (0(%$% (0(%()

Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao Israel 6aron @ "bas !andao TOT"7

%)),))).)) 1),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) &)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) ')),))).)) '%,))).)) &0',))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) %)),))).)) 1)),))).)) &%),))).)) P(,('0,))).)) P'&,)$%,%0).A$

4R"ND TOT"7 C

In a letter dated Septe/ber &), &((1, !hair/an 2anaria de/anded fro/ petitioner 6aron to produce and restitute to the "RMM5Re,ional Treasurer i//ediatel+ the full a/ount of P'&,)$%,%0).A$ and sub/it his e3planation #ithin sevent+5t#o -0'. hours to,ether #ith the official receipt issued b+ the "RMM Re,ional Treasurer in ac;no#led,/ent of such restitution. On "pril &0, &((*, the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the O/buds/an5Mindanao, filed in the Sandi,anba+an cri/inal cases for /alversation of public funds a,ainst the follo#in, OR45"RMM officialsDe/plo+ees= Bacaria ". !andao -Re,ional 4overnor., Israel 2. 6aron -Disbursin, Officer II., "bas ". !andao - 3ecutive Secretar+. and Pandical M. Santia,o -!ashier.. The+ #ere char,ed #ith violation of "rticle '&0 of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended, under the follo#in, infor/ations #ith identical alle,ations e3cept for the var+in, date, nu/ber and a/ount of the chec; involved in each case= !ri/inal !ase Nos. '$%A(5'$%0$, '$%0A5'$%*$, '$%(1, '$%(%5'$A')$ -$' counts involvin, chec;s in the total a/ount of P&0,&(),%*%.)). That on or about '( Dece/ber &((', in !otabato !it+, Philippines, and #ithin the :urisdiction of this 6onorable !ourt, accused Israel 2. 6aron, a lo#5ran;in, public officer bein, the Disbursin, Officer of the Office of the Re,ional 4overnor, and as such is responsible and accountable for the funds of the

said office in the "utono/ous Re,ion in Musli/ Mindanao, in connivance and in conspirac+ #ith E"basF !andao, 3ecutive Secretar+ of the sa/e office, #ho is a hi,h ran;in, officer, #hile in the perfor/ance of their respective official functions, ta;in, advanta,e of their official positions, and co//ittin, the offense in relation to their respective functions, #ith ,ross abuse of confidence, did then and there #ilfull+, unla#full+ and feloniousl+ #ithdra# the a/ount of P%)),))).)) fro/ the depositor+ account of the Office of the Re,ional 4overnor thru the issuance of !hec; No. $&$$1& dated '( Dece/ber &((', pa+able to the order of accused Israel 2. 6aron, #ithout the re<uired disburse/ent voucher and once in possession of the said a/ount #ithdra#n, #ilfull+, unla#full+ and feloniousl+ ta;e, /isappropriate, e/be88le and convert to their o#n personal use and benefit the a/ount of P%)),))).)), to the da/a,e and pre:udice of the ,overn/ent in the aforesaid su/ as abovestated. !ONTR"RG TO 7"H. !ri/inal !ase Nos. '$%*%5 '$%(' and '$%($% -( counts involvin, chec;s in the total a/ount of P1,*%$,(*%.A$. That on or about &* Februar+ &((1, in !otabato !it+, Philippines, and #ithin the :urisdiction of this 6onorable !ourt, accused Israel 2. 6aron, a lo#5ran;in, public officer bein, the Disbursin, Officer of the Office of the Re,ional 4overnor, and as such is responsible and accountable for the funds of the said office in the "utono/ous Re,ion in Musli/ Mindanao, in connivance and in conspirac+ #ith Bacaria !andao, Re,ional 4overnor of the sa/e office, #ho is a hi,h ran;in, officer, #hile in the perfor/ance of their respective official functions, ta;in, advanta,e of their official positions, and co//ittin, the offense in relation to their respective functions, #ith ,ross abuse of confidence, did then and there #ilfull+, unla#full+ and feloniousl+ #ithdra# the a/ount of P%)),))).)) fro/ the depositor+ account of the Office of the Re,ional 4overnor thru the issuance of !hec; No. $A&*)1 dated &* Februar+ &((1, pa+able to the order of accused Israel 2. 6aron, #ithout the re<uired disburse/ent voucher and once in possession of the said a/ount #ithdra#n, #ilfull+, unla#full+ and feloniousl+ ta;e, /isappropriate, e/be88le and convert to their o#n personal use and benefit the a/ount of P%)),))).)), to the da/a,e and pre:udice of the ,overn/ent in the aforesaid su/ as abovestated. !ONTR"RG TO 7"H. !ri/inal !ase No. '$%0%A That on or about &1 9anuar+ &((1, in !otabato !it+, Philippines, and #ithin the :urisdiction of this 6onorable !ourt, accused Israel 2. 6aron, a lo#5ran;in, public officer bein, the Disbursin, Officer of the Office of the Re,ional 4overnor, and as such is responsible and accountable for the funds of the said office in the "utono/ous Re,ion in Musli/ Mindanao, in connivance and in conspirac+ #ith Pandical Santia,o and E"basF !andao, !ashier and 3ecutive Secretar+, respectivel+, of the sa/e office, #hile in the perfor/ance of their respective official functions, ta;in, advanta,e of their official positions, and co//ittin, the offense in relation to their respective functions, #ith ,ross abuse of confidence, did then and there #ilfull+, unla#full+ and feloniousl+ #ithdra# the a/ount of P&'),))).)) fro/ the depositor+ account of the Office of the Re,ional 4overnor thru the issuance of !hec; No. (A*0%& dated &1 9anuar+ &((1, pa+able to the order of accused Israel 2. 6aron, #ithout the re<uired disburse/ent voucher and once in possession of the said a/ount #ithdra#n, #ilfull+, unla#full+ and feloniousl+ ta;e, /isappropriate, e/be88le and convert to their o#n personal use and benefit the a/ount of P&'),))).)), to the da/a,e and pre:udice of the ,overn/ent in the aforesaid su/ as abovestated. !ONTR"RG TO 7"H.

"t their arrai,n/ent, all accused pleaded not ,uilt+ to the char,e of /alversation. In the /eanti/e, accused Santia,o died and conse<uentl+ the case a,ainst hi/ in !ri/inal !ase No. '$%0% #as dis/issed. The prosecutionIs lone #itness #as 6eidi 7. Mendo8a, 0 !O" State "uditor IV. She testified that their e3panded audit, conducted fro/ "u,ust '$ to Septe/ber &, &((1, disclosed the ille,al #ithdra#als of funds fro/ the PN2 and Treasur+ accounts of OR45"RMM involvin, %' chec;s issued #ithout the re<uired disburse/ent vouchers. Specificall+, their attention #as cau,ht b+ the fact that the Report of !hec;s Issued b+ the Deputi8ed Disbursin, Officer -R!IDDO. sho#ed that the sub:ect %' chec;s have no assi,ned voucher nu/bers. The audit tea/ de/anded for the ori,inal of said R!IDDO for the /onths of Dece/ber &((', Februar+ and March &((1, #hich #ere supposed to be prepared and sub/itted b+ the disbursin, officer, but the OR45"RMM did not sub/it the sa/e. In a letter dated "u,ust '$, &((1, the !O" li;e#ise /ade a de/and fro/ the Re,ional 4overnor throu,h the resident auditor for the production of the ori,inal disburse/ent vouchers and co/plete supportin, docu/ents of the sub:ect chec;s.* In response, the Finance and 2ud,et Mana,e/ent Services of OR45"RMM infor/ed the audit tea/ that the vouchers #ere alread+ sub/itted to !O" Resident "uditor, Supervisin, State "uditor IV Rosalinda 4a,#is, purportedl+ under trans/ittal letters dated March $ and March 1), &((1. Mendo8a then personall+ verified fro/ 4a,#is #ho denied havin, received the sub:ect vouchers and issued a certification to that effect. In a letter dated Septe/ber &), &((1, !hair/an 2anaria finall+ de/anded for the restitution of the funds ille,all+ #ithdra#n throu,h the issued %' chec;s and to co/pl+ #ith such de/and #ithin 0' hours fro/ receipt of said letter. "s to the absence of her si,nature in the audit report, she e3plained that she #as alread+ on /aternit+ leave #hen the interi/ report -S"O Report No. (15'%. #as sub/itted. 6o#ever, she, to,ether #ith audit tea/ /e/ber 9ai/e 2. Ro3as e3ecuted a 9oint "ffidavit dated Ma+ &0, &((A re,ardin, their conduct of the e3panded audit and their findin,s and reco//endation. "lthou,h 6aron sub/itted copies of disburse/ent vouchers to the !O" receivin, cler;, this #as /ade be+ond the 0'5hour deadline ,iven to the/.( On cross5e3a/ination, #itness Mendo8a #as as;ed if the audit tea/ had infor/ed the office or parties concerned that the+ are ,oin, to be audited -entr+ conference.. She replied that this #as a sensitive assi,n/ent, recallin, that the+ #ere threatened after their identities #ere established durin, the earlier audit of the sa/e office such that she had to be brou,ht bac; to Manila. "t that ti/e, the Re,ional 4overnor #as accused !andao. 6ence, durin, the e3panded audit, the tea/ #as unable to proceed as in ordinar+ situations. Hhile the+ did an entr+ conference durin, the previous /ain audit, the+ #ere unable to do so at the ti/e of the e3panded audit. ",ain for securit+ reasons, the tea/ also did not conduct an e3it conference after field #or;J the+ #ould be ris;in, their lives if the+ discuss there and then their findin,s. Due to threat to her life, it #as her tea/ supervisor -Naran:o. and /e/ber -Ro3as. #ho personall+ retrieved the docu/ents in !otabato !it+. She ad/itted the belated sub/ission of ori,inal vouchers -October '(, &((1. to the !O" central office but these are #ithout supportin, docu/ents.&) For the accused, the first #itness #as Nic; 7u8 "duana #ho #as the Director of Finance of OR45 "RMM fro/ 9ul+ &((& until his resi,nation in March &((1. 6e testified that his functions then include the supervision and overseein, of the three divisions= 2ud,et, "ccountin, and Mana,e/ent. Hhen report of the audit tea/ ca/e out, he #as surprised because the+ #ere not infor/ed of the audit. 6e #as fa/iliar #ith the %' chec;s because the disburse/ent vouchers passed throu,h his office. 6e e3plained the procedure #ith respect to the processin, of cash advances as follo#s= ,enerall+, there #ere cash advances /ade in "RMM #hich cover travels, salaries, etc. but particularl+ for Kpeace and order ca/pai,n,K it e/anates fro/ the OR4 #hen the Re,ional 4overnor issues an authorit+ for cash advance, and then the+ process the voucher -Finance and 2ud,et Mana,e/ent Services.J once their

division have perfor/ed their accountin, functions relative to the vouchers, the sa/e are for#arded to the Re,ional 4overnor for approval or in his absence to his 3ecutive Secretar+J after the approval of the voucher, it #ill be for#arded to the !ash Division for the issuance of chec;J the person #ho #ill li<uidate the cash advance is usuall+ the e/plo+ee /entioned in the voucherJ and after the+ have prepared all the li<uidation papers, these are sub/itted to the 2ud,et and Mana,e/ent Division before for#ardin, the/ to the !O" "uditor. 6e /aintained that the ori,inal disburse/ent vouchers have alread+ been sub/itted to the !O" Special "udit Office. Since &((&, the+ have never received an+ notice of disallo#ance of their disburse/ents, includin, those intended for Kpeace and order ca/pai,n.K 2ein, the first "RMM set of officials, the+ had sou,ht the advice of their "uditor as to proper accountin, proceduresJ the+ follo#ed the advice of "uditor 4a,#is #ho said that there should be authorit+ to cash advance co/in, fro/ the Re,ional 4overnor #hich should be ,iven to the Disbursin, Officer. 6e identified the vouchers presented b+ the defense as the ones processed b+ their division #ith the correspondin, a/ounts reflected therein. Insofar as the e3panded audit is concerned, the+ #ere not ,iven the opportunit+ to defend the case as the+ #ere not ,iven the so5called e3it conference.&& On cross5e3a/ination, #itness "duana hinted on political reasons #h+ an e3panded audit #as conducted #hen Re,ional 4overnor Pa,dan,anan assu/ed office despite the fact that an earlier audit #as alread+ /ade durin, the ad/inistration of 4overnor !andao. 6e clai/ed that he did not receive an+ cop+ of the de/and letter dated "u,ust '$, &((1J he #as no lon,er connected #ith "RMM at the ti/e. 6e also /aintained that the disburse/ent vouchers #ere processed b+ their office and entered into their boo;s of account. 6o#ever, #hen as;ed #hat happened to these boo;s of account, "duana said these are #ith the Office of the Re,ional 4overnor. 6e ad/itted that the onl+ supportin, docu/ent for the chec;s and vouchers #ere the authorit+ to cash advanceJ the Kpeace and order ca/pai,nK disburse/ent is peculiar to "RMM and hence the+ did not ;no# #hat supportin, docu/ents to attach. Hhen <ueried about the particular activities covered b+ this Kpeace and order ca/pai,nK disburse/ent, "duana ad/itted that he reall+ does not ;no# the brea;do#n of e3penses or for #hat ite/s in particular #ere the disbursed a/ounts spent. Their division /erel+ processed the disburse/ent vouchers that #ere prepared b+ the OR4, and #hile his si,nature appears in said vouchers his role #as li/ited to certif+in, the availabilit+ of funds.&' The ne3t #itness, Rosalinda 4. 4a,#is, for/er !O" Resident "uditor of OR45"RMM, testified that in &((& she #as the !hief of the Operation and Revie# Division -ORD., !O" Re,ion LII #hich at the ti/e has :urisdiction over OR45"RMMJ she #as "uditor5in5!har,e of OR45"RMM onl+ up to March *, &((1 #hen the separation of !O" Re,ion LII personnel and !O"5"RMM #as i/ple/ented. "/on, her duties as such "uditor5in5!har,e #as to conduct a post5audit of the financial transactions of OR45"RMM. In the course of the e3panded audit of OR45"RMM, she #as re<uested to issue the !ertification dated "u,ust '0, &((1 statin, that she has not received the 9anuar+ to March &((1 vouchers as stated in the letter of 6aron. Subse<uentl+, on 9ul+ '', &((* she e3ecuted a t#o5pa,e "ffidavit because she has been hearin, that her previous !ertification #as /isinterpreted to /ean that the sub:ect vouchers #ere Knot e3istin,.K She then clarified that actuall+, OR45"RMM tried to sub/it bundles of vouchers to her office but she refused to accept the/ because she #as no lon,er "uditor5in5 !har,e of that office as there #as alread+ an order separatin, !O"5Re,ional Office LII fro/ the !O"5"RMM. She confir/ed that #hen "RMM #as a ne#l+ created a,enc+, its officers -"duana, 2ri,ida Fontanilla and 2artolo/e !orpus. sou,ht her advice re,ardin, accountin, procedures. Prior to sub/ission to her office for post5audit, the accountable officers li;e the !ashier and Disburse/ent Officer prepares and sub/its a Monthl+ Report of Disburse/ents to the "ccountin, Division #hich, #ithin ten da+s fro/ receipt and recordin, in the 2oo;s of "ccounts, shall sub/it the sa/e to the auditor for post5audit custod+. 2ased on her e3perience, ho#ever, this deadline #as not strictl+ observed as '%M to %)M of the national a,encies are dela+ed in the sub/ission of such reports. The

usual reasons ,iven #ere the ,eo,raphical locations of the offices in Re,ion LII and "RMM, lac; of /anpo#er due to bud,etar+ constraints and lac; of ;no#5ho# of personnel re,ardin, accountin, and auditin, procedures, especiall+ if there is a chan,e in ad/inistration. "s far as she can recall, their office had not issued a notice of disallo#ance to OR45"RMM althou,h notices of suspension have been issued for /inor deficiencies noted durin, post5auditJ these notices of suspension #ere usuall+ co/plied #ith b+ the a,enc+.&1 On cross5e3a/ination, #itness 4a,#is said that upon seein, the bundles of vouchers bein, sub/itted to her office, she i//ediatel+ refused to accept, and sort of K#ashed her handsK b+ tellin, her staff that the+ #ere no lon,er inchar,e of OR45"RMM. She did not actuall+ scan those docu/ents and e3a/ine their contents. She also did not receive the Monthl+ Report of Disburse/ents fro/ said office. "s to the e3ecution of the 9ul+ '', &((* "ffidavit, she insisted that she did it voluntaril+ five +ears later in order to clarif+ herself after hearin, about the case filed in the Sandi,anba+an and her na/e #as bein, dra,,ed because of the !ertification she /ade in "u,ust &((1. "s to the earlier !ertification, she /aintained that she did not receive the sub:ect vouchers and she does not ;no# #here these docu/ents are at present.&$ "nother #itness, 2ri,ida !. Fontanilla, !hief "ccountant, OR45"RMM, testified that her duties and responsibilities include the processin,, updatin, and recordin, of transactions of OR45"RMM in the boo;s of accounts #hile vouchers are recorded in the 9ournal of "nal+sis and Obli,ations -9"O.. The+ also prepared financial reports. "s to cash advances, she e3plained that the procedure starts #ith the preparation of the voucher at OR4 #hich also issues the authorit+ to #ithdra# cash advance #hich is attached to the disburse/ent voucher and supportin, docu/ents, after#hich it is for#arded to the Finance and 2ud,et Mana,e/ent Services for processin,= there, it is first sub/itted to the 2ud,et Division for the re<uest for allot/ent of obli,ation, and ne3t for#arded to the "ccountin, Division for the :ournal entr+ of obli,ation and recordin, in the boo;s of account, and then the docu/ents are for#arded to the Office of the Finance Director for his approval, and thereafter returned bac; to the OR4 for final approval for the issuance of the chec;. Presentl+, their office is /ore s+ste/atic and or,ani8ed than it #as durin, the ad/inistration of 4overnor !andao. So/eti/e in &(($ durin, the investi,ation b+ the Office of the O/buds/an relative to the sub:ect ille,al #ithdra#als, she #as su//oned to produce the !ash Receipts 2oo; and !ash Disburse/ent 2oo; of the &((& "RMM seed /one+ for re,ional, provincial and district I/pact Infrastructure Pro:ects. 6o#ever, she #as not able to co/pl+ #ith the said directive because such boo;s are not a/on, those re<uired b+ the !O" for their officeJ #hat the !O" directed the/ to /aintain #as the 9"O, a boo; of ori,inal entr+ for allot/ents received and disburse/ents for the transactions of OR45"RMM. She #rote a letter5repl+ to the O/buds/an Investi,ator and trans/itted the ori,inal &((' 9"O #hich #as never returned to their office.&% 3plainin, the contents of the 9"O, #itness Fontanilla said that the entries in the voucher are recorded therein= an obli,ation nu/ber is placed in the re<uest of allot/ent -RO". #hich also appears in the voucher. 2efore such recordin, in the 9"O, the disburse/ent vouchers are presented to their office. "ctuall+, she does not ;no# #hether the &((' 9"O still e3ists or #ith the O/buds/an Investi,ator because at the ti/e, the+ #ere holdin, office te/poraril+ at the office of OR4 "uditor #hich unfortunatel+ ,ot burned so/eti/e in &((A.&A "s for #itness 2artolo/e M. !orpus, his deposition upon oral e3a/ination #as ta;en on "u,ust '0, '))$ before "tt+. dipolo Sarabia, !ler; of !ourt, Re,ional Trial !ourt of Davao !it+. 6e testified that in &((& he #as appointed !hief of the Mana,e/ent Division of the Finance and 2ud,et Mana,e/ent Services -F2MS., OR45"RMM. 6e #as placed on floatin, status for three +ears b+ the ne# !hief of Staff of OR45"RMM -Nasser Pan,anda/an. upon the election of a ne# Re,ional 4overnor, 7inindin, Pan,anda/an #ho defeated 4overnor !andao. "s Finance Director, it #as his responsibilit+ to revie#

all transactions of the OR45"RMM and see to it that !O" re,ulations are in place and supportin, docu/ents are co/plete. "fter revie#in, docu/ents, #hich include disburse/ent vouchers, his office sub/its the sa/e to the !O" Re,ional Officer or to the !O" Resident "uditor. 2ein, the internal control unit of OR45"RMM, all transactions and supportin, docu/ents /ust pass throu,h his office. "s to the transactions covered b+ the sub:ect %' chec;s, he confir/ed that these passed throu,h his office, includin, the disburse/ent vouchers, after#hich these #ere for#arded to the "ccountin, Office and then to the !ash Division for issuance of chec;s. 6e clai/ed that his subordinates tried to sub/it the disburse/ent vouchers to the Resident "uditor, as sho#n b+ the trans/ittal letters dated March $ and March 1), &((1. 6o#ever, Ms. 4a,#is refused to accept the vouchers because she #as no lon,er the Resident "uditor at the ti/e. Durin, the ti/e of 4overnor !andao, he does not recall havin, received an+ notice of disallo#ance fro/ the !O" althou,h there #ere ti/es the+ received a notice of suspension #hich had been settled. Durin, the ti/e he #as on floatin, status, he discovered that so/e vouchers includin, those ori,inal vouchers covered b+ the sub:ect %' chec;s #ere still in his filin, cabinet. 6e then handed the/ over to 6aron. In &((A, he #as reinstated b+ 4overnor Nur Misuari.&0 On cross5e3a/ination, #itness !orpus said that the+ tried to sub/it the vouchers to 4a,#is so/eti/e in late March or earl+ "pril &((1. 6e #as not a#are of the "u,ust '0, &((1 !ertification issued b+ 4a,#is. Hhen as;ed about the stated purpose Kpeace and order ca/pai,nK in the cash advance vouchers, he confir/ed that this #as the practice at that ti/e and it #as onl+ durin, li<uidation that OR4 #ill have the list of e3pensesJ the supportin, docu/ents #ill co/e onl+ after the issuance of the chec;.&* On re5direct e3a/ination, he /aintained that there #ere previous si/ilar vouchers for Kpeace and order ca/pai,nK #hich have not been disallo#ed but onl+ suspended b+ the !O".&( Sandi,anba+an Rulin, 2+ Decision dated October '(, '))*, the Sandi,anba+an found petitioner 6aron ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of /alversation of public funds under "rticle '&0 of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended, co//itted in conspirac+ #ith petitioners Bacaria ". !andao and "bas ". !andao #ho #ere li;e#ise sentenced to i/prison/ent and ordered to pa+ a fine e<uivalent to the a/ount of the chec; in each case, as follo#s= !ri/inal '$%(1, '$%(%5'$A') !ase Nos. '$%A(5'$%*$,

Israel 2. 6aron and "bas ". !andao 5 convicted of $1 counts of Malversation of Public Funds and each #as sentenced to indeter/inate prison ter/ in each case of ten -&). +ears and one -&. da+ of prision /a+or, as /ini/u/, to ei,hteen -&*. +ears, ei,ht -*. /onths and one -&. da+ of reclusion te/poral, as /a3i/u/, and ordered to pa+ a fine in each case e<uivalent to the particular chec; involved, #ithout subsidiar+ i/prison/ent in case of insolvenc+ and the penalt+ of perpetual special dis<ualification to hold public office and other accessor+ penalties provided b+ la#. In the service of their respective sentences, the+ shall be entitled to the benefit of the three5fold rule as provided in "rt. 0) of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended. !ri/inal !ase Nos. '$%*%5'$%(' @ '$%($ Israel 2. 6aron and Bacaria ". !andao N convicted of ( counts of Malversation of Public Funds and each #as sentenced to indeter/inate prison ter/ in each case of ten -&). +ears and one -&. da+ of prision /a+or as /ini/u/, to ei,hteen -&*. +ears, ei,ht -*. /onths and one -&. da+ of reclusion te/poral, as /a3i/u/, and ordered to pa+ a fine in each case e<uivalent to the particular chec; involved, #ithout subsidiar+ i/prison/ent in case of insolvenc+ and the penalt+ of perpetual special dis<ualification to hold public office and other accessor+ penalties provided b+ la#. In the service of their respective sentences, the+ shall be entitled to the benefit of the three5fold rule as provided in "rt.

0) of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended.') The Sandi,anba+an found no /erit in petitionersI clai/ that the sub:ect chec;s #ere covered b+ e3istin, disburse/ent vouchers #hich #ere belatedl+ sub/itted and received b+ the !O" !entral Office on October '(, &((1. It said that had those vouchers reall+ e3isted at the ti/e of the %' #ithdra#als petitioners /ade fro/ Dece/ber '(, &((' to March 1), &((1, petitioner 6aron could have readil+ produced the/ #hen re<uired to do so b+ the special audit tea/ on "u,ust '$, &((1. Said court li;e#ise did not ,ive credence to the testi/on+ of !orpus in vie# of the "u,ust '0, &((1 !ertification issued b+ then !O" "uditor 4a,#is that she has not received the vouchers /entioned in the trans/ittal letters. 4a,#isI e3planation, on the other hand, contradicted the testi/on+ of !orpus that #hen he returned to his office so/eti/e in Ma+ &((1, he found the ori,inal vouchers to,ether #ith the trans/ittal letters still there in his filin, cabinet and have not been sub/itted to the !O" Resident "uditor. The Sandi,anba+an noted that petitioners presented no proof that the cash advances intended for Kpeace and order ca/pai,nK #ere spent for public purposes, as in fact the alle,ed disburse/ent vouchers did not indicate an+ detail as to the nature of the e3penseDs such as purchase of e<uip/ent, services, /eals, travel, etc. and there #ere no supportin, docu/ents such as the Re<uest for Issuance of Voucher, Purchase Re<uest and Inspection Report of the ite/s supposedl+ purchased. More i/portantl+, the vouchers #ere not acco/plished in accordance #ith e3istin, !O" circulars because the+ are unnu/bered and undated. 6ence, the belatedl+ sub/itted vouchers are of doubtful veracit+ or ori,in, na+, a fabricated evidence or, as pointed out b+ the prosecution, Kself5servin, or an afterthou,ht, belatedl+ prepared to ,ive the ille,al disburse/ents a/ountin, to the a,,re,ate a/ount of /ore than P'&M, a se/blance of re,ularit+.K'& "s to the 9"O and !ertification dated "u,ust &*, &((* issued b+ !hief "ccountant Fontanilla, the Sandi,anba+an found there is nothin, therein to indicate the particular disburse/ent voucher that corresponds to each of the sub:ect %' chec;s #hich #ere neither reflected in the 9"O. Hith respect to petitionersI assertion that the audit conducted b+ the !O" special audit tea/ #as inco/plete and tainted as it did not follo# procedures because the person audited #ere not notified thereof, the Sandi,anba+an found these alle,ations unsubstantiated as in fact at the start of the audit on "u,ust '$, &((1, the audit tea/ thru their tea/ leader State "uditor Naran:o, infor/ed the /ana,e/ent of OR45"RMM thru the !O" Resident "uditor of the e3panded special audit to be conducted as the+ even re<uested for the ori,inal copies of the disburse/ent vouchers to,ether #ith their co/plete supportin, docu/ents coverin, the %' chec;s. 2ut despite said letter, the OR45"RMM failed to heed the audit tea/Is re<uest. For the failure of petitioner 6aron to account for the funds involved in the ille,al #ithdra#als #hen as;ed to do so, the presu/ption arose that he /isappropriated the sa/e, #hich presu/ption #as not overco/e b+ defense evidence. On the respective liabilities of petitioners Bacaria ". !andao and "bas ". !andao, the Sandi,anba+an held that b+ their act of co5si,nin, the sub:ect chec;s, petitioner 6aron #as able to consu//ate the ille,al #ithdra#als #ithout the re<uired disburse/ent vouchers of the a/ounts covered b+ the $1 chec;s -for "bas. and ( chec;s -for Bacaria.. Thus, b+ their collective acts, said court concluded that petitioners conspired to effect the ille,al #ithdra#als of public funds #hich, #hen re<uired b+ the !O" to be properl+ accounted for, petitioners failed to do so. In its Resolution dated Februar+ '), '))(, the Sandi,anba+an denied the prosecutionIs /otion to cancel bail bonds and petitionersI /otion for reconsideration. The Petition Petitioners raised the follo#in, ,rounds for their ac<uittal=

&. OT6 S"NDI4"N2"G"N...!OMMITT D " R V RSI27 RROR IN !ONVI!TIN4 T6 "!!>S D P TITION RS FOR T6 !RIM OF M"7V RS"TION OF P>27I! F>NDS D SPIT PROOF POSITIV T6"T, !ONTR"RG TO H6"T T6 INFORM"TIONS !6"R4 D, T6 R H R DIS2>RS M NT VO>!6 RS L! PT T6"T T6 !O" R F>S D TO "!! PT M>!6 7 SS L"MIN T6 S"M . P TITION RS H R T6>S D NI D D> PRO! SS OF 7"H H6 N T6 G H R !ONVI!T D FOR OFF NS S NOT !OV R D 2G T6 INFORM"TIONS "4"INST T6 M. '. O.T6 S"NDI4"N2"G"N !OMMITT D " R V RSI27 RROR IN NOT "PP7GIN4 T6 K P>IPOIS R>7 K H6I!6 IF "PP7I D HO>7D 6"V R S>7T D IN T6 "!P>ITT"7 OF T6 "!!>S D5P TITION RS. 1. O T6 S"NDI4"N2"G"N !OMMITT D " R V RSI27 RROR IN !ONVI!TIN4 "!!>S D P TITION RS B"!"RI" ". !"ND"O "ND "2"S ". !"ND"O D SPIT T6 F"!T T6"T T6 !6"R4 OF !ONSPIR"!G H6I!6 IS T6 IR ON7G 7IN? TO T6 OFF NS S 6 R IN 6"S NOT 2 N PROV N 2 GOND R "SON"27 DO>2T. '' Our Rulin, The petition has no /erit. "rticle '&0 of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended, provides= "rt. '&0. Malversation of public funds or property Presumption of malversation. 5 "n+ public officer #ho, b+ reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or propert+, shall appropriate the sa/e, or shall ta;e or /isappropriate or shall consent, or throu,h abandon/ent or ne,li,ence, shall per/it an+ other person to ta;e such public funds or propert+, #holl+ or partiall+, or shall other#ise be ,uilt+ of the /isappropriation or /alversation of such funds or propert+, shall suffer= &. The penalt+ of prision correccional in its /ediu/ and /a3i/u/ periods, if the a/ount involved in the /isappropriation or /alversation does not e3ceed t#o hundred pesos. '. The penalt+ of prision mayor in its /ini/u/ and /ediu/ periods, if the a/ount involved is /ore than t#o hundred pesos but does not e3ceed si3 thousand pesos. 1. The penalt+ of prision mayor in its /a3i/u/ period to reclusion temporal in its /ini/u/ period, if the a/ount involved is /ore than si3 thousand pesos but is less than t#elve thousand pesos. $. The penalt+ of reclusion temporal in its /ediu/ and /a3i/u/ periods, if the a/ount involved is /ore than t#elve thousand pesos but is less than t#ent+5t#o thousand pesos. If the a/ount e3ceeds the latter, the penalt+ shall be reclusion temporal in its /a3i/u/ period to reclusion perpetua. In all cases, persons ,uilt+ of /alversation shall also suffer the penalt+ of perpetual special dis<ualification and a fine e<ual to the a/ount of the funds /alversed or e<ual to the total value of the propert+ e/be88led. The failure of a public officer to have dul+ forthco/in, an+ public fund or propert+ #ith #hich he is char,eable, upon de/and b+ an+ dul+ authori8ed officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such /issin, funds or propert+ to personal uses. - /phasis supplied.. The follo#in, ele/ents are essential for conviction in /alversation cases= &. That the offender is a public officerJ

'. That he had custod+ or control of funds or propert+ b+ reason of the duties of his officeJ 1. That those funds or propert+ #ere public funds or propert+ for #hich he #as accountableJ and $. That he appropriated, too;, /isappropriated or consented or, throu,h abandon/ent or ne,li,ence, per/itted another person to ta;e the/.'1 "ll the fore,oin, ele/ents #ere satisfactoril+ established b+ the prosecution in this case. Petitioners have not rebutted the le,al presu/ption that #ith the Disbursin, OfficerIs -6aron. failure to account for the ille,all+ #ithdra#n a/ounts covered b+ the sub:ect chec;s #hen de/anded b+ the !O", the+ /isappropriated and used the said funds for their personal benefit. Petitioners ho#ever assert that their convictions #ere based solel+ on the Sandi,anba+anIs conclusion that the vouchers sub/itted b+ the defense #ere ille,al or irre,ular, #hereas the infor/ations si/pl+ alle,ed their absence or non5e3istence. The+ contend that said court could not have validl+ assessed the disburse/ent vouchers as to their le,alit+ because that dut+ pertains to the !O" #hich refused and failed to e3a/ine the sa/e. 6ad the court allo#ed the !O" to evaluate and /a;e a rulin, on the validit+ of the vouchers, the result #ould have been different and /ost probabl+ the+ #ould have been ac<uitted of the cri/e char,ed. He are not persuaded b+ petitionersI asseveration. The Sandi,anba+an cate,oricall+ ruled that the disburse/ent vouchers #ere ine3istent at the ti/e of the issuance of the sub:ect chec;s and e3panded special audit based on its findin,s that= -&. petitioner 6aron could not produce the vouchers upon de/and b+ the !O" in "u,ust &((1J -'. Resident "uditor 4a,#is certified at about the sa/e ti/e that to date she has not received the vouchers /entioned in the supposed trans/ittal letters of March $ and March 1), &((1J -1. the entries in the dul+ certified Report of !hec;s Issued b+ Deputi8ed Disbursin, Officer -R!IDDO. of the late Pandical M. Santia,o, !ashier of OR45"RMM, sho#ed that for the /onths of 9anuar+, Februar+ and March &((1, there #ere indeed entries of chec;s issued #ith 6aron as pa+ee but no disburse/ent voucher nu/bers as these #ere either lac;in,, detached or /issin,, and #hich #ere verified b+ the audit tea/ as correspondin, to the sub:ect %' chec;s issued and si,ned b+ petitioners and encashed b+ petitioner 6aron #ho received the /one+ #ithdra#n fro/ the ,overn/ent depositar+ accountsJ -$. F2MS !hief !orpus testified that he discovered the supposed vouchers still there at his office filin, cabinet in Ma+ &((1 #hen these supposedl+ have alread+ been sub/itted to the !O" Resident "uditor as reflected in the March $ and March 1), &((1 trans/ittal lettersJ and -%. the supposed ori,inal disburse/ent vouchers belatedl+ sub/itted to the !O" central office last #ee; of October &((1, #ere undated and unnu/bered #ith no supportin, docu/ents as re<uired b+ !O" !ircular No. 0*50( -"pril %, &(0*.. !ontrar+ to petitionersI clai/, the special audit tea/ could not have e3a/ined the vouchers presented b+ the defense - 3hibits K&K to K&5"5$1K. because the onl+ indication of its actual receipt b+ the !O" as ad/itted b+ the prosecution, #as on October '1, &((1 lon, after the e3panded audit #as co/pleted and be+ond the 0'5hour deadline specified in the Septe/ber &), &((1 de/and letter addressed to 6aron for the restitution of the total a/ount of ille,al #ithdra#als. In addition, such disburse/ent vouchers have no supportin, docu/ents as re<uired b+ !O" !ircular No. ('51*( dated Nove/ber 1, &(('. On the other hand, the !ertification dated "u,ust &*, &((* issued b+ "RMM !hief "ccountant Fontanilla statin, that the vouchers #ere re,ular because these #ere properl+ recorded in the 9"O, #as not ,iven credence b+ the Sandi,anba+an. >pon scrutin+ of the 9"O coverin, the period 9anuar+ to March &((1, said court found that it failed to indicate the particular disburse/ent voucher that corresponds to each of the %' chec;s, aside fro/ the fact that it #as prepared b+ the "RMM !hief "ccountant #ho is under the control and supervision of the OR4. Notabl+, the 9"O is used to su//ari8e obli,ations incurred and to /onitor the balance of unobli,ated allot/ents, #hich is prepared b+ function, and pro:ect for

each fund and allot/ent class.'$ The 9"O is thus separate and distinct fro/ the Report of !hec;s Issued -R!I. #hich is prepared b+ the Disbursin, Officer to report chec;s issued for pa+/ent of e3penditures andDor prior accounts pa+able. Hhat is clear is that the disburse/ent of funds covered b+ the %' chec;s issued b+ the petitioners are sub:ect to the rule that disburse/ent voucher Kshall be used b+ all ,overn/ent entities for all /one+ clai/sK and that the Kvoucher nu/ber shall be indicated on the voucher and on ever+ supportin, docu/ent.K '% Inas/uch as the 9"O for the /onths of 9anuar+, Februar+ and March &((1 do not at all reflect or indicate the nu/ber of each of the disburse/ent vouchers supposedl+ attached to the %' chec;s, it cannot serve as evidence of the recordin, of the ori,inal vouchers, /uch less the e3istence of those disburse/ent vouchers at the ti/e of the issuance of the %' chec;s and the conduct of the e3panded audit. Petitioners further raise issue on the re,ularit+, co/pleteness and ob:ectivit+ of the e3panded audit conducted b+ the !O". 6o#ever, records sho#ed that the OR45"RMM #ere dul+ notified of the e3panded audit at its co//ence/ent and #as even re<uested thru the !O" Resident "uditor to sub/it the needed disburse/ent vouchers. It /ust be noted that at an earlier date, a /ain audit had alread+ been conducted for the financial transactions of OR45"RMM durin, #hich State "uditor Mendo8a e3perienced threats a,ainst her o#n securit+ that she had to be i//ediatel+ recalled fro/ her assi,n/ent. Thus, b+ the ti/e the e3panded audit #as conducted in "u,ust &((1 upon the directive of the !O" !hair/an, petitioners, especiall+ 6aron, should have seen to it that the records of disburse/ents and financial transactions includin, the period 9anuar+ to March &((1, #ere in order and available for further audit e3a/ination. In an+ case, even if there #as no so5called entr+ conference held, there is absolutel+ no sho#in, that petitioners #ere denied due process in the conduct of the e3panded audit as the+ si/pl+ refused or failed to heed !O"Is re<uest for the production of disburse/ent vouchers and li;e#ise i,nored the for/al de/and /ade b+ !O" !hair/an 2anaria for the restitution of the ille,all+ #ithdra#n public funds, sub/ittin, their co/pliance onl+ after the special audit tea/ had sub/itted their report. In fine, the Sandi,anba+an co//itted no reversible error in holdin, that the testi/onial and docu/entar+ evidence presented b+ the petitioners failed to overco/e the pri/a facie evidence of /isappropriation arisin, fro/ 6aronIs failure to ,ive a satisfactor+ e3planation for the ille,al #ithdra#als fro/ the "RMM funds under his custod+ and control. Petitioners li;e#ise did not acco/plish the proper li<uidation of the entire a/ount #ithdra#n, durin, the e3panded audit or an+ ti/e thereafter. There is therefore no /erit in petitionersI ar,u/ent that the Sandi,anba+an erred in not appl+in, the e<uipoise rule. >nder the e<uipoise rule, #here the evidence on an issue of fact is in e<uipoise or there is doubt on #hich side the evidence preponderates, the part+ havin, the burden of proof loses. The e<uipoise rule finds application if the inculpator+ facts and circu/stances are capable of t#o or /ore e3planations, one of #hich is consistent #ith the innocence of the accused and the other consistent #ith his ,uilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of /oral certaint+, and does not suffice to produce a conviction.'A Such is not the situation in this case because the prosecution #as able to prove b+ ade<uate evidence that Disbursin, Officer 6aron failed to account for funds under his custod+ and control upon de/and, specificall+ for the P'&,)$%,%0).A$ ille,all+ #ithdra#n fro/ the said funds. In the cri/e of /alversation, all that is necessar+ for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have the/ in his possession #hen de/and therefor #as /ade, and that he could not satisfactoril+ e3plain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal /isappropriation b+ the accused is hardl+ necessar+ in /alversation cases.'0 "s to the liabilit+ of petitioners Bacaria ". !andao and "bas ". !andao, the Sandi,anba+an correctl+ ruled that the+ acted in conspirac+ #ith petitioner 6aron to effect the ille,al #ithdra#als and /isappropriation of OR45"RMM funds.

!onspirac+ e3ists #hen t#o or /ore persons co/e to an a,ree/ent concernin, the co//ission of a felon+ and decide to co//it it. !onspirac+ need not be proved b+ direct evidence and /a+ be inferred fro/ the conduct of the accused before, durin, and after the co//ission of the cri/e, #hich are indicative of a :oint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of senti/ents. In conspirac+, the act of one is the act of all. !onspirac+ is present #hen one concurs #ith the cri/inal desi,n of another, indicated b+ the perfor/ance of an overt act leadin, to the cri/e co//itted. It /a+ be deduced fro/ the /ode and /anner in #hich the offense #as perpetrated.'* In this case, petitioners Bacaria ". !andao and "bas ". !andao #ere co5si,natories in the sub:ect chec;s issued #ithout the re<uired disburse/ent vouchers. Their si,natures in the chec;s, as authori8ed officials for the purpose, /ade possible the ille,al #ithdra#als and e/be88le/ent of public funds in the sta,,erin, a,,re,ate a/ount of P'&,)$%,%0).A$.1avvphil Petitioners Bacaria ". !andao and "bas ". !andao assail their conviction as co5conspirators in the cri/e of /alversation contendin, that their onl+ participation #as in the /inisterial act of si,nin, the chec;s. The chec;s havin, passed throu,h processin, b+ finance and accountin, personnel of OR45 "RMM, petitioners said the+ had to rel+ on the presu/ption of re,ularit+ in the perfor/ance of their subordinatesI acts. Further/ore, the+ assert that since conspirac+ re<uires ;no#led,e of the purpose for #hich the cri/e #as co//itted, the+ could not have been conspirators in the desi,n to defraud the ,overn/ent. He disa,ree #ith such postulation. "s the Re,ional 4overnor of "RMM, petitioner Bacaria ". !andao cannot e3onerate hi/self fro/ liabilit+ for the ille,all+ #ithdra#n funds of OR45"RMM. >nder Section &)' -&. of the 4overn/ent "uditin, !ode of the Philippines, he is responsible for all ,overn/ent funds pertainin, to the a,enc+ he heads= Section &)'. Primary and secondary responsibility. -&. The head of an+ a,enc+ of the ,overn/ent is *++e,*-te./ -0, 1r*+-r*./ res1o0s*b.e 2or -.. 3o4er0+e0t 250,s -0, 1ro1ert/ 1ert-*0*03 to 6*s -3e0c/. 3 3 3 3 - /phasis supplied.. Petitioners Bacaria ". !andao and his 3ecutive Secretar+ "bas ". !andao are both accountable public officers #ithin the /eanin, of "rticle '&0 of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended. No chec;s can be prepared and no pa+/ent can be effected #ithout their si,natures on a disburse/ent voucher and the correspondin, chec;. In other #ords, an+ disburse/ent and release of public funds re<uire their approval,'( as in fact chec;s issued and si,ned b+ petitioner 6aron had to be countersi,ned b+ the/. Their indispensable participation in the issuance of the sub:ect chec;s to effect ille,al #ithdra#als of "RMM funds #as therefore dul+ established b+ the prosecution and the Sandi,anba+an did not err in rulin, that the+ acted in conspirac+ #ith petitioner 6aron in e/be88lin, and /isappropriatin, such funds. Moreover, as such accountable officers, petitioners Bacaria ". !andao and "bas ". !andao #ere char,ed #ith the dut+ of dili,entl+ supervisin, their subordinates to prevent loss of ,overn/ent funds or propert+, and are thus liable for an+ unla#ful application of ,overn/ent funds resultin, fro/ ne,li,ence, as provided in Sections &)$ and &)% of the 4overn/ent "uditin, !ode of the Philippines, #hich read= Sec. &)$. Records and reports re<uired b+ pri/aril+ responsible officers. N The head of an+ a,enc+ or instru/entalit+ of the national ,overn/ent or an+ ,overn/ent5o#ned or controlled corporation and an+ other self5,overnin, board or co//ission of the ,overn/ent shall e3ercise the dili,ence of a ,ood father of a fa/il+ in supervisin, accountable officers under his control to prevent the incurrence of loss

of ,overn/ent funds or propert+, other#ise he shall be :ointl+ and solidaril+ liable #ith the person pri/aril+ accountable therefor. 3 3 3 3 Sec. &)%. Measure of liabilit+ of accountable officers. 3 3 3 -'. ver+ officer accountable for ,overn/ent funds shall be liable for all losses resultin, fro/ the unla#ful deposit, use, or application thereof and for all losses attributable to ne,li,ence in the ;eepin, of the funds. The fact that "RMM #as still a recentl+ established autono/ous ,overn/ent unit at the ti/e does not /iti,ate or e3e/pt petitioners fro/ cri/inal liabilit+ for an+ /isuse or e/be88le/ent of public funds allocated for their operations and pro:ects. The Or,anic "ct for "RMM -R.". No. A01$. /andates that the financial accounts of the e3penditures and revenues of the "RMM are sub:ect to audit b+ the !O".1) Presentl+, under the "/ended Or,anic "ct -R.". No. ()%$., the "RMM re/ained sub:ect to national la#s and policies relatin, to, a/on, others, fiscal /atters and ,eneral auditin,. 1& 6ere, the prosecution successfull+ de/onstrated that the ille,al #ithdra#als #ere deliberatel+ effected throu,h the issuance of chec;s #ithout the re<uired disburse/ent vouchers and supportin, docu/ents. "nd even if petitioners Bacaria ". !andao and "bas ". !andao invo;e lac; of ;no#led,e in the cri/inal desi,n of their subordinate, Disbursin, Officer 6aron, the+ are still liable as co5principals in the cri/e of /alversation assu/in, such /isappropriation of public funds #as not intentional, as alle,ed in the infor/ations, but due to their ne,li,ence in the perfor/ance of their duties. "s this !ourt ratiocinated in !abello v. Sandi,anba+an1' = 2esides, even on the putative assu/ption that the evidence a,ainst petitioner +ielded a case of /alversation b+ ne,li,ence but the infor/ation #as for intentional /alversation, under the circu/stances of this case his conviction under the first /ode of /isappropriation #ould still be in order. Malversation is co//itted either intentionall+ or b+ ne,li,ence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is onl+ a /odalit+ in the perpetration of the felon+. ven if the /ode char,ed differs fro/ the /ode proved, the sa/e offense of /alversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper. " possible e3ception #ould be #hen the /ode of co//ission alle,ed in the particulars of the indict/ent is so far re/oved fro/ the ulti/ate cate,ori8ation of the cri/e that it /a+ be said due process #as denied b+ deludin, the accused into an erroneous co/prehension of the char,e a,ainst hi/. That no such pre:udice #as occasioned on petitioner nor #as he belea,uered in his defense is apparent fro/ the records of this case.11 - /phasis supplied.. >nder "rticle '&0, para,raph $ of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended, the penalt+ of reclusion te/poral in its /a3i/u/ period to reclusion perpetua shall be i/posed if the a/ount involved e3ceeds P'',))).)), in addition to fine e<ual to the funds /alversed. !onsiderin, that neither a,,ravatin, nor /iti,atin, circu/stance attended the cri/e char,ed, the /a3i/u/ i/posable penalt+ shall be #ithin the ran,e of the /ediu/ period of reclusion te/poral /a3i/u/ to reclusion perpetua, or ei,hteen -&*. +ears, ei,ht -*. /onths and one -&. da+ to t#ent+ -'). +ears. "ppl+in, the Indeter/inate Sentence 7a#, the /ini/u/ penalt+, #hich is one de,ree lo#er fro/ the /a3i/u/ i/posable penalt+, shall be #ithin the ran,e of prision mayor /a3i/u/ to reclusion temporal /ediu/, or ten -&). +ears and one -&. da+ to seventeen -&0. +ears and four -$. /onths. 1$ The penalt+ i/posed b+ the Sandi,anba+an on petitioners needs therefore to be /odified insofar as the /a3i/u/ penalt+ is concerned and is hereb+ reduced to seventeen -&0. +ears and four -$. /onths of reclusion temporal /ediu/, for each count. H6 R FOR , the petition for revie# on certiorari is D NI D for lac; of /erit. The Decision dated October '(, '))* in !ri/inal !ase Nos. '$%A( to '$%0$, '$%0%, '$%0A to '$%*$, '$%*% to '$%(', '$%(1, '$%($, '$%(% to '$A') findin, petitioners ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri/e of Malversation of Public Funds under "rticle '&0, para,raph $ of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended, and the Resolution dated Februar+ '), '))( of the Sandi,anba+an -First Division., den+in, petitionersI

/otion for reconsideration are "FFIRM D #ith MODIFI!"TIONS in that petitioners are instead accordin,l+ sentenced to suffer an indeter/inate prison ter/ of ten -&). +ears and one -&. da+ of prision mayor /a3i/u/, as /ini/u/, to seventeen -&0. +ears and four -$. /onths of reclusion temporal /ediu/, as /a3i/u/, in each of the above5nu/bered cri/inal cases. In addition to the pa+/ent of the fine ordered b+ the Sandi,anba+an, and b+ #a+ of restitution, the petitioners are li;e#ise ordered to pa+, :ointl+ and severall+, the Republic of the Philippines throu,h the "RMM5Re,ional Treasurer, the total a/ount of P'&,)$%,%0).A$ /alversed funds as finall+ deter/ined b+ the !O". In the service of their respective sentences, the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the three5 fold rule as provided in "rticle 0) of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended. Hith costs a,ainst the petitioners. SO ORD R D. M RT!N S. (!$$ R M , )R. "ssociate 9ustice H !ON!>R= REN TO C. CORON !hief 9ustice !hairperson $UC S P. #ERS M!N M R! NO C. "E$ C ST!$$O "ssociate 9ustice "ssociate 9ustice M R! $OUR"ES P. . SERENOQ "ssociate 9ustice ! RT I F I !"T I O N Pursuant to Section &1, "rticle VIII of the &(*0 !onstitution, I certif+ that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case #as assi,ned to the #riter of the opinion of the !ourtIs Division. REN TO C. CORON !hief 9ustice &oot0otes
Q

Desi,nated additional /e/ber per Raffle dated October &0, ')&& vice "ssociate 9ustice Teresita 9. 7eonardo5De !astro #ho recused herself fro/ the case due to prior action in the Sandi,anba+an.
&

Rollo, pp. 0$5&'$. Penned b+ "ssociate 9ustice Rodolfo ". Ponferrada #ith Presidin, 9ustice Diosdado M. Peralta -no# a Me/ber of this !ourt. and "ssociate 9ustice "le3ander 4. 4es/undo concurrin,.
'

Id. at &'%5&1&. Penned b+ "ssociate 9ustice Rodolfo ". Ponferrada #ith "ssociate 9ustices Norberto G. 4eralde8 and "le3ander 4. 4es/undo concurrin,.
1 $

3hibits K"K to KBBK, Sandi,anba+an Records. S2 Records, Vols. &, %5&), &'5'), '(, 1&5%A.

% A 0

Id., Vols. '&5'* and 1). Id., Vol. &&. Recentl+ appointed !o//issioner of the !o//ission on "udit. October &1, &((*, pp. 1, 05'A. Id. at '051$, $)5$&. Id. at $&5%', 0150$. Ma+ '), '))$, pp. &%5'$. 'A, '))%, pp. A5''. Id. at '%5$'. Id. at '$5$). 9une *, '))A, pp. %5&'. '0, '))$, pp. 15&0J S2 Records -Vol. II., pp. $A05$*&. Id. at &15&%. Id. at &05'&J id. at $*&5$*%. Id. at '&5''J id. at $*%5$*A. Rollo, pp. &)$5&'1. Id. at &)). Id. at $*. 7>IS 2. R G S, The Revised Penal !ode, 2oo; T#o, '))* dition, p. $'A. Sec. $)%, 4overn/ent "uditin, and "ccountin, Manual. Sec. $1), 4overn/ent "uditin, and "ccountin, Manual.

* TSN, (

&)

&& TSN, &'

&1 TSN, "pril &$

&% TSN, &A

&0 TSN, "u,ust &* &( ') '& '' '1 '$ '% 'A

2ernardino v. People, 4.R. Nos. &0)$%1 and &0)%&*, October 1), '))A, %)A S!R" '10, '%', citin, Dado v. People, $$) Phil. %'&, %10 -'))'..
'0

Davalos, Sr. v. People, 4.R. No. &$%''(, "pril '$, '))A, $** S!R" *%, (', citin, Sari,u/ba v. Sandi,anba+an, 4.R. Nos. &%$'1(5$&, Februar+ &A, '))%, $%& S!R" %11, %%$.
'*

People v. Pa:aro, 4.R. Nos. &A0*A)5A%, 9une &0, '))*, %%$ S!R" %0', %*A, citin, People v. 4arcia, 9r., 4.R. No. &1*$0), "pril &, '))1, $)) S!R" ''(, '1*5'1(.
'(

"rticle VII, Sec. '$ -e. of R.". No. A01$ entitled K"n "ct Providin, for an Or,anic "ct For the "utono/ous Re,ion in Musli/ MindanaoK, provides that= KNo funds or resources shall be disbursed unless dul+ approved b+ the Re,ional 4overnor or b+ his dul+ authori8ed representative.K This provision #as retained under R.". No. ()%$ a/endin, the Or,anic "ct, "rt. VII, Sec. '$ -e. thereof.
1) "rt. 1& "rt.

IL, Sec. '. IV, Section 1 -d. and -:..

1' 11 1$

4.R. No. (1**%, Ma+ &$, &((&, &(0 S!R" ($. Id. at &)1. !abarlo v. People, 4.R. No. &0''0$, Nove/ber &A, '))A, %)0 S!R" '1A, '$A.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila T6IRD DIVISION G.R. No. 178021 "ece+ber 6, 2006 S!ME " R#' EMP$O'EES SSOC! T!ON, OSC R E. P C!S, R MON C. RE'ES, &R NC!SCO R. RE', RO$!TO C. M RT!REZ, R U$ E. # R"E, %E$!NO . T! MSON, )OSE G. 8U!NO, EST N!$O M. S MSON, CE$EST!NO . S NTOS, RE'N $"O MEN"OZ , R MON . C!PR! NO, R. C ) 'ON, EMM NUE$ M. P $!S, )OSE$!TO "E P Z, RNO$" ). "E GUZM N, #EN) M!N C. "E$ P Z, )R., &ER"!N N" R. S C$UT!, $ M#ERTO S. $OPEZ, )R., G (!NO T. RE&UERZO, OR$ N"O #. P TEN! , E"9!N %. GU$ P , RU#EN G. CRUZ, RE'N $"O E. T N C!O, CONR "O ". &R NC!SCO, )R., CRESENC!O 8. T # " ', ERNESTO . !GN C!O, !S G N! . R MOS, "ENN!S (. C #US$ ', S MUE$ G. M M R "$O, $ NO R. (ENTUR , )R., NGE$!NO #. %ERMONO, M!GUE$ :. $UN , CE$E"ON!O #. &RON" , P TR!C!O P. R NTE !!!, RSEN!O ". CRUZ, $EOC "!O M. C N"E$ R! , RN $"O R. URE " , " N!$O &. S N "!EGO, $E; N"ER G. CUE( S, RO$ N"O G. S NTOS, !S #E$O (. N"RES, )R., RTURO M. $ORENZO, )ERR' &. S NT! GO, RM N" G. M R! NO, RE'N $"O '# NEZ, ROSU R"O S. CON"EZ, "!N"O CRUZ $ URE NO, RO' . "E GUZM N, &!COME"ES P. C $UG ', R N"O$P% P. R G S, PE"RO . M GNO, #EN) M!N P. "E$$OM S, ENR!8UE #. T M 'O, &ERN N"O C. $OPEZ, ROM N P. N #ONG, )U$!ETO P. "!ZON, ROMEO E. S NTOS, P #$O P. C #RER , )R., NE$SON ". NGE$ES, R!C R"O P. C N$ S, RE' $. "E GUZM N, T NG$ 9 E. "E$ P Z, $U"!(!CO C. $ CUN , $E; N"ER ". PU , )U N!TO $. S NTOS, E"G R"O #. (ERZOS , %!$ R!O S. M $!N G, N"RES C. S NT! GO, " N!$O S. MEN"OZ , )OSE ). C ST!$$O, E"U R"O &. C ' #' #, E"G R"O C. &$ORENC!O, $ RR' "E$ CRUZ, RO"O$&O #. M R! NO, (!RG!$!O C. (ERG R , )ESUS #. #ERN S, &E$!C! NO R. PER $T , % NN!E C. RE)USO, RO"E$!O $. S TOS, )U N M T , E"G R"O . )OSE&, RE'N $"O (. S!MON, )U N!TO T. G!NEZ, "ON R"O C. E( NGE$!ST , )U N EST 8U!O, R MON C. M NUE$, E&REN ". GONZ $ES, "OM!N "OR S. %ERN N"EZ, M R!O C. "! Z, ) !ME " (!", REMEG!O T. G ) 'ON, )OR" N $# (. )!MENEZ, $UC!O !. C PCO, &R NC!SCO &R NC!SCO, $&RE"O E. ESTE$, RE'N $"O P. MEN"OZ , )OE$ G. "!ZON, "O$&O ). S NTOS, RO#ERTO C. PECSON, )OSE #. G RC! , GEORGE . N GM , "OM!NGO S. CUE( S, )R., R MON . C!PR! NO, RO#ERTO . #UENCONSE)O, (!CTOR %. (!ZMONTE, E"9 R" $. G RC! , RO"R!GO S. M G# $OT, EME$!TO R. "E$ P Z, C R$OS O. R!EGO, RE'N $"O M G $$ON, #EN) M!N C. GERON, RO"R!GO C. $ #RO, E"U R"O N. P P , CENON ). CUM $, E""!E P. ESP!N SE, RE'N $"O S. "! M NTE, RO"E$!O C. "ERPO, (!RG!$!O . S!C T, &E$!; G. M R! NO, RTURO R. POSTO$, #ON!& C!O (. PO$!C!N , E"!ZER R. $C !"E, RO$ N"O G. S NTOS, ME$C%OR . S N P SCU $, RO$ N"O &RON" , S $( "OR #. COP!NO, )R., (!$$ MOR (E$ SCO, RTURO C S!$ NG, M C R!O S. #ERSO$ , $ES$!E C STOR, R & E$ (. $ NO, ROMEO "E S!S, R M!$O R. "E$ P Z, )O(ENT!NO C. O$#!S, RO"O$&O M. CERES, RM N"O C. $$EN "O, E"U R"O . S $( "OR, PO$!N R!O &. G 'O, RNO$" Z. M ;!MO, &$OR NTE R. P "!ERNOS, " N!$O M. EUSE#!O, NOE$ ". )EG!R , NESTOR ). 8U!MSON, NTON!O (!$$ MOR, #EN!TO ". R!O$ , )OSE ". M $$ R!, #R U$!O S. TO$ENT!NO, )U N!TO ". #UNG ', RN!E$ R. "OM!NGO, )ESUS (. ESCOTO, M!GUE$

$. $!# O, RO"O$&O G. N 'C $O, )R., GREGOR!O E. UM R N. ROMU$O ). (!$$ R Z , PO$!N R!O S. (!$$EN , RO$ N"O R. $OPEZ, ERNESTO ( $EROS, ESTE$!TO E. "E GUZM N, RO$ N"O &. "UN , RONN!E S. M NUE$, M ;!MO #. GR &!$, TEO"ORO (. %ENSON, #E$ R"O P. TORRES, REN TO C. ME"!N , E$"ER M. C S!S, $OPE $. M ', RM N"O R. $ T!, R!C R"O C. C ST!$$O, RC "!O C. "E$ CRUZ, # ' N! S. "E GUZM N, #UEN (ENTUR ". (!$$ $ON, ESTE$!TO #. M R8UEZ, )R., "OM!NGO $. CEC!$!O, NOE$ . NEPOMUCENO, G M!E S. (!$$ NUE( , %!$ R!ON #. GUTOM N, NOR#ERTO %. MUR!$$O, E&REN !. ) C!NTO, CEZ R "E )ESUS, E"G R"O #. CORON "O, &ERN N"O P. "E$ CRUZ, CES R ". GU!RRE, E$MER S. $!TU N! , R !N!ER M. T! MZON, M R!O M. T!MOTEO, RM N"O S!GUENZ , URE$!O . GR!T, $E) N"RO $!# O, RON $"O . # UT!ST , SER &!NO #. S NTOS, )R., M R!O M. "ONEZ , )R., ROMU$O &. RE(!$$ , &ERN N"O #. & USTO, ROMEO . !GN C!O, M R!O C. T 'O N, RE'N $"O P. ESGUERR , M NUE$ . "E GUZM N, RO#ERTO &. (!CENTE, %ONOR!O #. $!GONES, RE'N $"O (. &E$!PE, CONST NT!NO &. T $ N, &$ORENC!O S. N"RES, M R!O S. ENR!8UEZ, R!C R"O M. )OCSON, )R., G!$ $. $ CS!N , %ERN N! C. $!NG , E$MER $. S NTOS, RO#ERTO . # '$OS!S, RO#ERT G. C%R!STENSEN, CES R POSTO$, RO#ERTO T. CRUZ, C$EMENTE T G #!, G!$< # R!ON, NOE$ SEG!SMUN"O, ROS URO ". TOP C!O, ET $., petitioners, vs. N T!ON $ $ #OR RE$ T!ONS COMM!SS!ON, =T%!R" "!(!S!ON>, COMM!SS!ONERS !RENEO #. #ERN R"O, $OUR"ES C. ) (!ER, -0, T!TO &. GEN!$O, S!ME " R#' P!$!P!N S, !NC., SE N T. O?:E$$', R!C R"O ). ROMU$O, (!CENTE P TERNO, $U!S $ORENZO, R!C R"O NON S, E$S!E M G$ ' , EMM NUE$ T M 'O, R U$ P N$ S!GU!, M RT!N S. #ERR', N!: MO% ME" #!N N!: '% :O#, MO% ME" ) & R #!N #"U$ -0, TUN:U T N SR!" TO? SER! %M " #!N TUN:U ' % ' , S" RETRE " S'STEMS, !NC., ET $., respondents. D T!NG , J.@ For the !ourtIs ad:udication is a petition for revie# under Rule $%, see;in, to set aside the Decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"54.R. SP No. %$$'$, #hich affir/ed the 1) "pril &((( Resolution of the National 7abor Relations !o//ission -N7R!. in N7R! N!R5!NS. ))5)(5)A%0&5(%, ))5&&5)0%005 (%, ))5)&5))'*$5(A, !" No. )&0'A*5(*.& The facts of the case, as culled fro/ the findin,s of the !ourt of appeals follo#. So/eti/e in October &((%, Si/e Darb+ /plo+ees "ssociation -the >nion. sub/itted its proposal to Si/e Darb+ Pilipinas, Inc. -the !o/pan+. for the re/ainin, t#o -'. +ears of their then e3istin, !ollective 2ar,ainin, ",ree/ent -!2".. The co/pan+ ,ave its counter5proposal, but the parties failed to reach a /utual settle/ent. Thus, in a letter to the union president, the co/pan+ declared a deadloc; in the ne,otiations. Subse<uentl+, the co/pan+ sou,ht the intervention of the Depart/ent of 7abor and /plo+/ent -DO7 . b+ filin, a Notice of !2" Deadloc; and Re<uest for Preventive Mediation. ' Such action did not sit #ell #ith the union, #hich ob:ected to the deadloc;. It also filed its opposition to the "ssu/ption of 9urisdictionD!ertification to "rbitration. The co/pan+ filed a Notice of 7oc;out on '& 9une &((%, on the ,round of deadloc; in the collective !ISION

bar,ainin, ne,otiations, doc;eted as N!M25N!R5N75)A5)&15(%, and sent a Notice of 7oc; Out Vote 1 dated '$ 9ul+ &((% to the National !onciliation and Mediation 2oard -N!M2.. On the other hand, the union conducted its stri;e vote referendu/ on '1 9une &((%, and filed its Stri;e Vote Result Report $to N!M2 also on '$ 9ul+ &((%, and doc;eted as N!M25N!R5NS5!ase No. )A5'A%5(%. On )A "u,ust &((%, the co/pan+ declared and i/ple/ented a loc;out a,ainst all the hourl+ e/plo+ees of its tire factor+ on the ,round of sabota,e % and #or; slo#do#n. On Septe/ber &((%, the >nion filed a co/plaint for ille,al loc;out before the DO7 5N7R!, doc;eted as N7R! N!R !ase No. ))5)(5 )A%&05(%. Mean#hile, on &( October &((%, the stoc;holders of the co/pan+ approved the sale of the co/pan+Is tire /anufacturin, assets and business operation. The co/pan+ issued a /e/orandu/ dated ') October &((% infor/in, all its e/plo+ees of the plan to sell the tire /anufacturin, assets and operations. !onse<uentl+, on '0 October &((%, the co/pan+ filed #ith the DO7 a !losure and Sale of Tire Manufacturin, Operation. On &% Nove/ber &((%, the co/pan+ individuall+ served notices of ter/ination to all the e/plo+ees, includin, the individual petitioners.A On account of the loc;out, the e/plo+ees #ere barred fro/ enterin, co/pan+ pre/ises, and #ere onl+ allo#ed to enter to ,et their personal belon,in,s and their earned benefits on '&5'' Nove/ber &((%. Durin, said dates, the e/plo+ees li;e#ise received their separation pa+ e<uivalent to &%)M of the base rate for ever+ +ear of credited serviceJ the+ also si,ned and e3ecuted individual <uitclai/s and releases. On '$ Nove/ber &((%, the co/pan+ filed #ith the DO7 a Notice of Ter/ination of /plo+ees dated &0 Nove/ber &((%, coverin, all its e/plo+ees in the tire /anufacturin, and support operations effective &% Dece/ber &((%.0 In Nove/ber &((%, petitioners filed a co/plaint for Ille,al Dis/issal before the DO7 , doc;eted as N7R! N!R !ase No. ))5&&5)0%005(%.* In 9anuar+ of the follo#in, +ear, petitioners filed a co/plaint for >nfair 7abor Practice ->7P., doc;eted as N7R!5N!R !ase No. ))5)&5))'*$5(A. The cases for ille,al dis/issal, ille,al loc;out and unfair labor practice #ere then consolidated and eventuall+ assi,ned to 7abor "rbiter nrico Portillo. On '$ "pril &((A, the co/pan+ sold its tire /anufacturin, plant and facilities to 4ood+ear Philippines, Inc. -4ood+ear. under a Me/orandu/ of ",ree/ent of even date. On ') "u,ust &((A, the co/pan+ and its officers filed a /otion to conduct ocular inspection of the tire factor+ pre/ises to establish that it #as sold to 4ood+ear.( The /otion #as opposed b+ the union. On &$ 9ul+ &((*, the co/pan+ filed a /otion for the return of the separation pa+ received b+ the co/plainants, pendin, the resolution of the case. On '% "u,ust &((*, 7abor "rbiter nrico "n,elo !. Portillo issued an Order, &) the dispositive portion of #hich reads= H6 R FOR , pre/ises considered, the respondentsI instant /otion&& shall be treated in the resolution of the above5caption cases on the /erits. In lieu of the continuation of the trial, the parties are hereb+ ,iven the opportunit+ to sub/it their respective /e/orandu/ #ithin ten -&). da+s fro/ receipt hereof, and thereafter the instant cases shall be dee/ed sub/itted for resolution #ithout further notice. SO ORD R D.&' On 'A October &((*, the >nion, #ithout filin, the /e/orandu/ as ordered b+ the labor arbiter, filed an "ppeal Me/orandu/ #ith a petition for in:unction andDor a te/porar+ restrainin, order before the

N7R!. On '( October &((*, the labor arbiter rendered his Decision in the consolidated cases, dis/issin, for lac; of /erit petitionersI co/plaints a,ainst the co/pan+ for ille,al loc;out, ille,al dis/issal and unfair labor practice. The labor arbiter found the loc;out valid and le,al, and :ustified b+ the incidents of continued #or; slo#do#n, /ass absences, and consistent lo# production output, hi,h rate of #aste and scrap tires and /achine brea;do#n. 7i;e#ise, the conse<uent /ass ter/ination of all the e/plo+ees #as declared to be a valid and authori8ed ter/ination of e/plo+/ent due to closure of the establish/ent, the co/pan+ havin, co/plied #ith the re<uire/ents laid do#n b+ "rticle '*1 of the 7abor !ode, i.e., #ritten notice of ter/ination to the e/plo+ees concerned, a report to the DO7 , and pa+/ent of the prescribed separation pa+. 6e added that the co/pan+Is decision to sell all of its assets #as a valid and le,iti/ate e3ercise of its /ana,e/ent prero,ative. "nent the clai/ of unfair labor practice, the labor arbiter found no evidence to substantiate the sa/e, and that the records /erel+ sho#ed that the closure of and eventual cessation fro/ business #as :ustified b+ the circu/stances in order to protect the co/pan+Is invest/ents and assets. Further/ore, the labor arbiter ruled that the <uitclai/s and receipts si,ned b+ petitioners #ere voluntaril+ si,ned, indicatin, that the settle/ent reached b+ petitioners and the co/pan+ #as :ust and reasonable. Finall+, the labor arbiter declared that the /otions for ocular inspection and return of separation pa+ field b+ the co/pan+ are rendered /oot and acade/ic in vie# of said Decision.&1 The labor arbiter thus ad:udicated= H6 R FOR , fore,oin, pre/ises considered, the consolidated co/plaints for ille,al loc;out, ille,al dis/issal and unfair labor practice are hereb+ DISMISS D for lac; of /erit. The co/plaint a,ainst respondent SD Retread S+ste/, is li;e#ise ordered dis/issed for failure of the co/plainants to sufficientl+ establish and substantiate their clai/ that the latter and respondent Si/e Darb+ are one and the sa/e co/pan+, and for lac; of e/plo+er5e/plo+ee relationship. SO ORD R D.&$ Petitioners appealed the labor arbiterIs Decision to the N7R! on )& Dece/ber &((*. &% Said appeal, ho#ever, #as dis/issed on 1) "pril &((( for lac; of /erit. &A The N7R! affir/ed en toto the labor arbiterIs Decision. In addition, it ruled that that the labor arbiter could not have lost :urisdiction over the case #hen petitioners appealed his '% "u,ust &((* Order since the Order #as interlocutor+ in nature and cannot be appealed separatel+. Thus, the labor arbiter still had :urisdiction over the consolidated co/plaints #hen he issued his Decision. PetitionersI pra+er for da/a,es and attorne+Is fees #as also struc; do#n b+ the N7R!, holdin, that petitioners are not entitled thereto considerin, that it #as not sho#n that the dis/issal #as done in a #anton and oppressive /anner. &0 PetitionersI /otion for reconsideration #as also denied, pro/ptin, the/ to file a petition for certiorari #ith the !ourt of "ppeals, clai/in, ,rave abuse of discretion on the part of the N7R!. The !ourt of "ppeals denied the petition for lac; of /erit and affir/ed the Decision of the N7R!. &* The appellate court declared that the labor arbiterIs #as not divested of its :urisdiction over the consolidated cases #hen petitioners filed their appeal /e/orandu/ on 'A October &((* since the Order dated '% "u,ust &((* #hich the+ sou,ht to appeal is interlocutor+ in nature. Thus, the labor arbiterIs Decision. Thus, the labor arbiterIs Decision has the force and effect of a valid :ud,/ent. &( Findin, that said Decision #as supported b+ substantial evidence, the appellate court affir/ed the dis/issal of the co/plaints a,ainst SD Retread S+ste/ for failure of the petitioners to substantiate the clai/ of the e3istence of e/plo+er5e/plo+ee relationship. ') PetitionersI sou,ht reconsideration of the !ourt of "ppealIs Decision, but their /otion #as denied for lac; of /erit.'&

In the instant petition, petitioners reiterate that the+ #ere denied due process #hen the+ #ere dis/issed ri,ht on the da+ the+ #ere handed do#n their ter/ination letters, #ithout the benefit of the thirt+ -1).5 da+ notice as re<uired b+ la#, and invo;e the !ourtIs rulin, in Serrano v. NLRC'' The+ den+ havin, e3ecuted <uitclai/s in favor of the co/pan+. Further/ore, petitioners insist that the labor arbiter had lost :urisdictional co/petence to issue his '( October &((* Decision since the+ have alread+ perfected their appeal on 'A October &((*, /a;in, said Decision void ab initio. The+ li;e#ise clai/ that the labor arbiter erred #hen it failed to consider as ad/itted the /atters contained in their Re<uest for "d/ission after respondents failed to file a s#orn ans#er thereto. Finall+, the+ alle,e that the decisions of the !ourt of "ppeals and the N7R! lac;ed evidentiar+ support. On the other hand, the co/pan+ asserts that it co/plied #ith the 1)5da+ notice re<uire/ent under "rt. '*1 of the 7abor !ode #hen it notified the e/plo+ees on &% Nove/ber &((% that their ter/ination #as to ta;e effect on &% Dece/ber &((%. In an+ case, the alle,ed violation of the thirt+ -1). da+ notice re<uire/ent #as never raised in the proceedin,s belo#, e3cept in petitionersI supple/ental /otion for reconsideration of the !ourt of "ppealsI Decision. This bein, the case, the issue of failure to abide b+ the 1)5da+ notice rule can no lon,er be raised for the first ti/e on appeal. '1 The co/pan+ points out that the rulin, in Serrano'$ does not appl+ to this case since Serrano involved the retrench/ent of onl+ one e/plo+ee, Ruben Serrano, fro/ an establish/ent #hich re/ained and continued in business, #hile in the present scenario, the co/pan+Is business operation ceased for ,ood, and the e/plo+ees #ere furnished individual ter/ination notices thirt+ -1). da+s before the actual date of separation.'% The co/pan+ /aintains that the '% "u,ust &((% Order, bein, in the nature of an interlocutor+ order, is unappealable hence, the labor arbiter retained its :urisdiction over the cases even after the Order #as KappealedK to the N7R!. It /aintains that the decisions of the labor arbiter and the N7R! and the !ourt of "ppeals are supported b+ substantial evidence. Further/ore, it insists on the le,alit+ of the loc;out and ter/ination of e/plo+/ent, and denies havin, co//itted an unfair labor practice.'A For its part, respondent SD Retread S+ste/s, Inc. ar,ues that it has a separate and distinct entit+ fro/ Si/e Darb+ Pilipinas, Inc., and hence, denies the e3istence of an e/plo+er5e/plo+ee relationship #ith petitioners.'0 The petition is bereft of /erit. Despite petitionersI atte/pt to phrase its issues to sho# apparent <uestions of la#, it is obvious that the petition raises /ostl+ factual issues, #hich are not proper in a petition for revie#. Rule $% of the Rules of !ourt li/its the function of the !ourt to the revie# or revision of errors of la# and not to a second anal+sis of the evidence. The !ourt observes that petitioners co/e to this !ourt #ith the sa/e ar,u/ents it presented in the proceedin,s belo#, #hich have been co/petentl+ discussed and disposed of b+ the appellate court and the labor tribunals. 6o#ever, the petition presents t#o -'. <uestions of la# #hich need to be addressed, to #it= -i. the alle,ed loss of :urisdictional co/petence on the part of the labor arbiter to issue his Decision after petitioners appealed his '% "u,ust &((% Order, and -ii. that petitionersI Re<uest for "d/ission should have been ,ranted and the evidence included therein should have been ad/itted since respondentsI repl+Dob:ection thereto #ere not /ade under oath.'* The '% "u,ust &((* Order of the labor arbiter parta;es the nature of an interlocutor+ order, or one #hich refers to so/ethin, bet#een the co//ence/ent and end of the suit #hich decides so/e point or /atter but it is not the final decision of the #hole controvers+. '( "n interlocutor+ order is not appealable until after the rendition of the :ud,/ent on the /erits for a contrar+ rule #ould dela+ the ad/inistration of :ustice and undul+ burden the courts.1) The '% "u,ust &((* Order /erel+ ter/inated for/al trial of the consolidated cases, declared that the /otion for inspection #ill be dealt #ith in the

resolution of the case, and ordered the sub/ission of the partiesI respective /e/oranda after #hich the case shall be sub/itted for resolution. It did not put an end to the issues of ille,al loc;out, >7P, and ille,al dis/issal. 2ein, interlocutor+ in nature, the '% "u,ust &((* Order could not have been validl+ appealed such that it #ould divest the labor arbiter of his :urisdiction over the consolidated cases. This bein, the case, the labor arbiter still had :urisdiction #hen he rendered his Decision. ven if petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari, #hich #ould have been the proper re/ed+, the sa/e #ould still fail. The !ourt finds that the labor arbiter did not co//it an+ ,rave abuse of discretion #hen he issued the '% "u,ust &((* Order. For one, the holdin, of an adversarial trial is discretionar+ on the labor arbiter and the parties cannot de/and it as a /atter of ri,ht. 1& Section $, Rule V of the Ne# Rules of Procedure of the N7R! 1' ,rants a labor arbiter #ide latitude to deter/ine, after the sub/ission b+ the parties of their position papersD/e/oranda, #hether there is need for a for/al trial or hearin,.11 "s this court has so often held, a for/al t+pe or trial5t+pe hearin, is not at all ti/es and in all instances essential to due process the re<uire/ents of #hich are satisfied #here the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunit+ to e3plain their side of controvers+. 1$ In one case, this !ourt held that a part+ has no vested ri,ht to a for/al hearin, si/pl+ and /erel+ because the labor arbiter ,ranted its /otion and set the case for hearin,.1% Related to the issue of :urisdiction is the alle,ation that the decisions of the !ourt of "ppeals, the N7R! and the labor arbiter are #ithout evidentiar+ support since the respondent #as not able to present a sin,le evidence due to the '% "u,ust &((* Order of the labor arbiter ter/inatin, the trial of the cases and re<uirin, sub/ission of the partiesI /e/oranda, and ordainin, at the end of the /e/orandu/ period the sub/ission of the cases for decision. PetitionersI ar,u/ent that had the labor arbiter allo#ed respondents to present their evidence durin, the for/al trial, the Decision #ould have been different, cannot be sustained. "s previousl+ stated, the labor arbiter en:o+s #ide discretion in deter/inin, #hether there is a need for a for/al hearin, in a ,iven case, and he or she /a+ use all reasonable /eans to ascertain the facts of each case #ithout re,ard to technicalities. Hith or #ithout a for/al hearin,, the labor arbiter /a+ still ade<uatel+ decide the case since he can resolve the issues on the basis of the pleadin,s and other docu/entar+ evidence previousl+ sub/itted. Hhen the parties sub/itted their position papers and other pertinent pleadin,s to the labor arbiter, it is understoodD,ivenDdee/ed that the+ have included therein all the pieces of evidence needed to establish their respective cases. The rationale for this rule is e3plained b+ the !ourt in one case, thus= -P.etitioner believes that had there been a for/al hearin,, the arbiterIs alle,ed /ista;en reliance on so/e of the docu/entar+ evidence sub/itted b+ parties #ould have been cured and re/edied b+ the/, presu/abl+ throu,h the presentation of controvertin, evidence. videntl+, this postulate is not in consonance #ith the need for speed+ disposition of labor cases, for the parties /a+ then #illfull+ #ithhold their evidence and disclose the sa/e onl+ durin, the for/al hearin,, thus creatin, surprises #hich could /erel+ co/plicate the issues and prolon, the trial. There is a dire need to lessen technicalities in the process of settlin, labor disputes.K1A le/entar+ is the principle that this court is not a trier of facts. 9udicial revie# of labor cases does not ,o be+ond the evaluation of the sufficienc+ of the evidence upon #hich its labor officialsI findin,s rest.10 "s such, the findin,s of facts and conclusion of the N7R! are ,enerall+ accorded not onl+ ,reat #ei,ht and respect but even clothed #ith finalit+ and dee/ed bindin, on this !ourt as lon, as the+ are supported b+ substantial evidence. In the instant case, the !ourt finds that the labor arbiterIs decision, #hich #as affir/ed b+ both the N7R! and the !ourt of "ppeals cite as basis thereof the evidence

presented b+ both the petitioners and respondents in their pleadin,s. It is no lon,er the !ourtIs function to assess and evaluate all over a,ain the evidence, testi/onial and docu/entar+, adduced b+ the parties to an appeal, particularl+ #here the findin,s of both the labor arbiter, the N7R! and the appellate court trial court on the /atter coincide, as in this case at bar.1* The sub/ission that petitionersI Re<uest for "d/ission should have been dee/ed ad/itted in their favor after respondents had failed to file a s#orn repl+ or ob:ection thereto cannot be sustained. " re<uest for ad/ission is a re/ed+ provided b+ Rule 'A of the Rules of !ourt, #hich allo#s a part+ to file and serve upon an+ other part+ a #ritten re<uest for the ad/ission of = -i. the ,enuineness of an+ /aterial and relevant docu/ent described in and e3hibited #ith the re<uestJ or -ii. the truth of an+ /aterial and relevant /atter of fact set forth in the re<uest. Said re<uest /ust be ans#ered under oath #ithin the period indicated in the re<uest, other#ise the /atters of #hich ad/ission #ere re<uested should be dee/ed ad/itted. Petitioners clai/ that respondents, instead of filin, an ans#er under oath, filed an uns#orn repl+Dob:ection thereto. Thus, the ad/issions should be dee/ed ad/itted in their favor. PetitionersI Re<uest for "d/ission does not fall under Rule 'A of the Rules of !ourt. " revie# of said Re<uest for "d/ission sho#s that it contained /atters #hich are precisel+ the issues in the consolidated cases, andDor irrelevant /attersJ for e3a/ple, the reasons behind the loc;out, the co/pan+Is /otive in the !2" ne,otiations, lac; of notice of dis/issal, the validit+ of the release and <uitclai/, etc.1( Rule 'A as a /ode of discover+ conte/plates of interro,atories that #ould clarif+ and tend to shed li,ht on the truth or falsit+ of the alle,ations in a pleadin,. That is its pri/ar+ function. It does not refer to a /ere reiteration of #hat has alread+ been alle,ed in the pleadin,s.$) Other#ise stated, petitionerRs re<uest constitutes Kan utter redundanc+ and a useless, pointless process #hich the respondent should not be sub:ected to.K The rule on ad/ission as a /ode of discover+ is intended Kto e3pedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of provin, facts #hich #ill not be disputed on trial and the truth of #hich can be ascertained b+ reasonable in<uir+.K Thus, if the re<uest for ad/ission onl+ serves to dela+ the proceedin,s b+ abettin, redundanc+ in the pleadin,s, the intended purpose for the rule #ill certainl+ be defeated.$& More i/portantl+, #ell5settled is the rule that hearin,s and resolutions of labor disputes are not ,overned b+ the strict and technical rules of evidence and procedure observed in the re,ular courts of la#. Technical rules of procedure are not applicable in labor cases, but /a+ appl+ onl+ b+ analo,+ or in a suppletor+ character, for instance, #hen there is a need to attain substantial :ustice and an e3peditious, practical and convenient solution to a labor proble/. $' In vie# of the nature of the /atters re<uested for ad/ission b+ the petitioners, their re<uest for ad/ission #ould have onl+ served to dela+ the proceedin,s. One final note. Petitioners clai/ that the alle,ed failure of the co/pan+ to notif+ the/ of their ter/ination renders their dis/issal ille,al, and thus the+ should be reinstated and paid #ith full bac;#a,es or ,iven separation pa+, follo#in, the !ourtIs rulin, in Serrano v. Court of Appeals. The ar,u/ent does not hold. The rulin, in Serrano has alread+ been superseded b+ the case of A abon v. National Labor Relation Commission.$1 The A abon enunciates the ne# doctrine that if the dis/issal is for :ust cause but statutor+ due process #as not observed, the dis/issal should be upheld. Hhile the procedural infir/it+ cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dis/issal. 6o#ever, the e/plo+er should be held liable for non5co/pliance #ith the

procedural re<uire/ents of due process.$$ 2ut in an+ case, the issue of ille,al dis/issal had alread+ been resolved b+ the N7R! and the !ourt of "ppeals, #hich both found that the co/pan+ had an authori8ed cause and had co/plied #ith the re<uire/ents of due process #hen it dis/issed petitioners. H6 R FOR , the petition is D NI D and the Decision dated 1& 9ul+ '))) in !"54.R. SP No. %$$'$ is "FFIRM D. SO ORD R D. !uisumbin " #." Chairperson" Carpio" Carpio Morales" and $elasco" #r" ##." concur. &oot0otes
&

Rollo, pp. '%(5'*'J Penned b+ !o//issioner Ireneo 2. 2ernardo and concurred in b+ !o//issioners 7ourdes !. 9avier and Tito F. 4erilo.
' 1 $ %

!" rollo, pp. 0(5*). Id. at (&. Id. at (*.

arlier, the co/pan+, #ith the help of the National 2ureau of Investi,ation -N2I., discovered that the /achines in its recappin, plant #ere deliberatel+ bro;en do#n b+ still un;no#n perpetrators, renderin, the /achiner+ inutile.
A 0 * (

Records, Vol. VII. Records, Vol. III, pp. A(*50&). Records, Vol. V, p. '. NR7! Records, Vol. *, pp. &05&(. N7R! Records, Vol. *, pp. A(50&. Referrin, to respondentsI /otion for the return of separation pa+. N7R! Records, Vol. *, pp. 0)50&. Decision of the 7abor "rbiter, Rollo, pp. '$*5'%*. Id. at '%*. N7R! Records, Vol. *, pp. $&%5$%(. Rollo, pp. '%(5'*'. Id. Decision dated 1& 9ul+ '))), id. at $15 A0. Id. at %*5%(. Id. at %(5A0. Resolution dated ') "pril '))&, id. at A(50). 1*) Phil. $&A -')))..

&) && &' &1 &$ &% &A &0 &* &( ') '& ''

'1 '$

Rollo, pp. (15(A.

In Ruben Serrano v. N7R! and Isetann Depart/ent Store, supra, the !ourt ruled that an e/plo+ee #ho is dis/issed, #hether or not for :ust or authori8ed cause but #ithout prior notice of his ter/ination, is entitled to full bac;#a,es fro/ the ti/e he #as ter/inated until the decision in his case beco/es final, #hen the dis/issal #as for causeJ and in case the dis/issal #as #ithout :ust or valid cause, the bac;#a,es shall be co/puted fro/ the ti/e of his dis/issal until his actual reinstate/ent.
'% 'A '0 '* '( 1)

Rollo, pp. 005&&*J !o//ent To Petition For Revie# on !ertiorari datd '' October '))&. Id. Id. at 10&51(AJ !o//ent -on the Petition for Revie# on !ertiorari. dated 1 Dece/ber '))1. Id. at '&5'1, '%51). 2iton, v. !ourt of "ppeals, et al., 4.R. No. &'1%%1, %)1 S!R" '(' -&((*.. 9.7. 2ernardo !onstruction v. !ourt of "ppeals, 1*& Phil. '%, 1A -'))).. Mariti/e !o., Inc. v. National 7abor Relations !o//ission, 1$* Phil. 0&$, 0'A -&((*.. No# Revised Rules of Procedure of the N7R! -'))%., Rule V, Sec. *.

1& Vinta 1' 11

S !. $. Deter/ination of Necessit+ of 6earin,. N I//ediatel+ after the sub/ission b+ the parties of their position papersD/e/orandu/, the 7abor "rbiter shall /otu propio deter/ine #hether there is need for a for/al trial or hearin,. "t this sta,e, he /a+, at his discretion and for the purpose of /a;in, such deter/ination, as; clarificator+ <uestions to further elicit facts or infor/ation, includin, but not li/ited to the subpoena of relevant docu/entar+ evidence, if an+, fro/ an+ part+ or #itness.
1$ Taberrah 1%

v. National 7abor Relations !o//ission, 1$' Phil. 1($, $)' -&((0..

Shoppes Manila, Inc. v. National 7abor Relations !o//ission, 4.R. No. &$0&'%, &$ 9anuar+ '))$, $&( S!R" 1%$, 1A)51A&.
1A 10 1*

National Federation of 7abor v. N7R!, 1$0 Phil. %%%, %A% -&((0.. Fernande8 v. N7R!, 1$A Phil. $1', $1( -&((0..

P.9. 7huillier Inc. "nd Philippe 9. 7huillie, v. National 7abor Relations !o//ission , 4.R. No. &%*0%*, $%0 S!R" 0*$ -'))%..
1( $) $&

N7R! Records, Vol. &, A1&5A1(. !oncrete ",,re,ates !orp. v. !ourt of "ppeals, 11$ Phil. 00, *) -&((0..

7aSada v. !ourt of "ppeals, $'A Phil. '$(, 'A)5'A& -'))'. citin, Po v. !ourt of "ppeals, &A$ S!R" AA* -&(**.J 2riboneria v. !ourt of "ppeals, '&A S!R" A)0 -&(('.J and !oncrete ",,re,ates !orporation v. !ourt of "ppeals, 'AA S!R" ** -&((0. .
$' "2D $1 $$

Overseas Manpo#er !orporation v. N7R!, 1%) Phil. (', &)$ -&((*..

4.R. No. &%*A(1, &0 Nove/ber '))$, $$' S!R" %01.

Ma<uilin, v. Philippine Tuberculosis Societ+, 4.R. No. &$11*$, $ Februar+ '))%, $%) S!R" $A%, $0(.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION G.R. No. 127270 M-rc6 27, 2000 ONG C%! , petitioner, vs. REPU#$!C O& T%E P%!$!PP!NES -0, T%E COURT O& PPE $S, respondents. MEN"OZ , J.: This is a petition for revie# of the decision & of the !ourt of "ppeals reversin, the decision of the Re,ional Trial !ourt, 2ranch '$, ?oronadal, South !otabato ' ad/ittin, petitioner On, !hia to Philippine citi8enship. The facts are as follo#s= Petitioner #as born on 9anuar+ &, &('1 in "/o+, !hina. In &(1', as a nine5+ear old bo+, he arrived at the port of Manila on board the vessel K"n,;in,.K Since then, he has sta+ed in the Philippines #here he found e/plo+/ent and eventuall+ started his o#n business, /arried a Filipina, #ith #ho/ he had four children. On 9ul+ $, &(*(, at the a,e of AA, he filed a verified petition to be ad/itted as a Filipino citi8en under !.". No. $01, other#ise ;no#n as the Revised Naturali8ation 7a#, as a/ended. Petitioner, after statin, his <ualifications as re<uired in T', and lac; of the dis<ualifications enu/erated in T1 of the la#, stated U &0. That he has heretofore /ade -a. petition for citi8enship under the provisions of 7etter of Instruction No. '0) #ith the Special !o//ittee on Naturali8ation, Office of the Solicitor 4eneral, Manila, doc;eted as S!N !ase No. )1&00A, but the sa/e #as not acted upon o#in, to the fact that the said Special !o//ittee on Naturali8ation #as not reconstituted after the Februar+, &(*A revolution such that processin, of petitions for naturali8ation b+ ad/inistrative process #as suspendedJ Durin, the hearin,s, petitioner testified as to his <ualifications and presented three #itnesses to corroborate his testi/on+. So i/pressed #as Prosecutor Isaac "lvero V. Moran #ith the testi/on+ of petitioner that, upon bein, as;ed b+ the court #hether the State intended to present an+ #itness present an+ #itness a,ainst hi/, he re/ar;ed= "ctuall+, Gour 6onor, #ith the testi/on+ of the petitioner hi/self #hich is rather surprisin,, in the sense that he see/s to be #ell5versed #ith the /a:or portion of the histor+ of the Philippines, so, on our part, %e are convinced" &our 'onor Please" that petitioner really deserves to be admitted as a citi(en of the Philippines . And for this reason" %e do not %ish to present any evidence to counteract or refute the testimony of the %itnesses for the petitioner" as %ell as the petitioner himself.1 "ccordin,l+, on "u,ust '%, &(((, the trial court ,ranted the petition and ad/itted petitioner to Philippine citi8enship. The State, ho#ever, throu,h the Office of the Solicitor 4eneral, appealed all the na/es b+ #hich he is or had been ;no#nJ -'. failed to state all his for/er placer of residence in violation of !.". No. $01, T0J -1. failed to conduct hi/self in a proper and irreproachable /anner durin, his entire sta+ in the Philippines, in violation of T'J -$. has no ;no#n lucrative trade or occupation and his previous inco/es have been insufficient or /isdeclared, also in contravention of T'J and -%. failed to support his petition #ith the appropriate docu/entar+ evidence.$

"nne3ed to the StateRs appellantRs brief #as a cop+ of a &(00 petition for naturali8ation filed b+ petitioner #ith the Special !o//ittee on Naturali8ation in S!N !ase No. )1&0A0, % in #hich petitioner stated that in addition to his na/e of KOn, !hia,K he had li;e#ise been ;no#n since childhood as K7oreto !hia On,.K "s petitioner, ho#ever, failed to state this other na/e in his &(*( petition for naturali8ation, it #as contended that his petition /ust fail. A The state also anne3ed inco/e ta3 returns 0 alle,edl+ filed b+ petitioner fro/ &(01 to &(00 to sho# that his net inco/e could hardl+ support hi/self and his fa/il+. To prove that petitioner failed to conduct hi/self in a proper and irreproachable /anner durin, his sta+ in the Philippines, the State contended that, althou,h petitioner clai/ed that he and Ra/ona Villaruel had been /arried t#ice, once before a :ud,e in &(%1, and then a,ain in church in &(00, petitioner actuall+ lived #ith his #ife #ithout the benefit of /arria,e fro/ &(%1 until the+ #ere /arried in &(00. It #as alle,ed that petitioner failed to present his &(%1 /arria,e contract, if there be an+. The State also anne3ed a cop+ of petitionerRs &(00 /arria,e contract * and a 9oint5"ffidavit( e3ecuted b+ petitioner and his #ife. These docu/ents sho# that #hen petitioner /arried Ra/ona Villaruel on Februar+ '1, &(00, no /arria,e license had been re<uired in accordance #ith "rt. 0A of the !ivil !ode because petitioner and Ra/ona Villaruel had been livin, to,ether as husband and #ife since &(%1 #ithout the benefit of /arria,e. This, accordin, to the State, belies his clai/ that #hen he started livin, #ith his #ife in &(%1, the+ had alread+ been /arried. The State also ar,ued that, as sho#n b+ petitionerRs I//i,rant !ertificate of Residence, resided at K9.M. 2asa Street, Iloilo,K but he did not include said address in the petition.
&)

petitioner

On Nove/ber &%, &((A, the !ourt of "ppeals rendered its decision #hich, as alread+ noted, reversed the trial court and denied petitionerRs application for naturali8ation. It ruled that due to the i/portance naturali8ation cases, the State is not precluded fro/ raisin, <uestions not presented in the lo#er court and brou,ht up for the first ti/e on appeal. && The appellate court held= "s correctl+ observed b+ the Office of the Solicitor 4eneral, petitioner On, !hia failed to state in this present petition for naturali8ation his other na/e, K7OR TO !6I" ON4,K #hich na/e appeared in his previous application under 7etter of Instruction No. '0). Na/es and pseudon+/s /ust be stated in the petition for naturali8ation and failure to include the sa/e /ilitates a,ainst a decision in his favor. . . This is a /andator+ re<uire/ent to allo# those persons #ho ;no# -petitioner. b+ those other na/es to co/e for#ard and infor/ the authorities of an+ le,al ob:ection #hich /i,ht adversel+ affect his application for citi8enship. Further/ore, On, !hia failed to disclose in his petition for naturali8ation that he for/erl+ resided in K9.M. 2asa St., IloiloK and K"li/odian, Iloilo.K Section 0 of the Revised Naturali8ation 7a# re<uires the applicant to state in his petition Khis present and for/er places of residence.K This re<uire/ent is /andator+ and failure of the petitioner to co/pl+ #ith it is fatal to the petition. "s e3plained b+ the !ourt, the reason for the provision is to ,ive the public, as #ell as the investi,atin, a,encies of the ,overn/ent, upon the publication of the petition, an opportunit+ to be infor/ed thereof and voice their ob:ections a,ainst the petitioner. 2+ failin, to co/pl+ #ith this provision, the petitioner is deprivin, the public and said a,encies of such opportunit+, thus defeatin, the purpose of the la#. . . On, !hia had not also conducted hi/self in a proper and irreproachable /anner #hen he lived5 in #ith his #ife for several +ears, and sired four children out of #edloc;. It has been the consistent rulin, that the KapplicantRs *5+ear cohabitation #ith his #ife #ithout the benefit of cler,+ and be,ettin, b+ her three children out of #edloc; is a conduct far fro/ bein, proper and irreproachable as re<uired b+ the Revised Naturali8ation 7a#K, and therefore dis<ualifies hi/ fro/ beco/in, a citi8en of the Philippines b+ naturali8ation . . . 7astl+, petitioner On, !hiaRs alle,ed annual inco/e in &(A& of P%,))).)), e3clusive of bonuses,

co//issions and allo#ances, is not lucrative inco/e. 6is failure to file an inco/e ta3 return Kbecause he is not liable for inco/e ta3 +etK confir/s that his inco/e is lo#. . . KIt is not onl+ that the person havin, the e/plo+/ent ,ets enou,h for his ordinar+ necessities in life. It /ust be sho#n that the e/plo+/ent ,ives one an inco/e such that there is an appreciable /ar,in of his inco/e over e3penses as to be able to provide for an ade<uate support in the event of une/plo+/ent, sic;ness, or disabilit+ to #or; and thus avoid oneRs beco/in, the ob:ect of charit+ or public char,e.K . . . No# that the+ are in their old a,e, petitioner On, !hia and his #ife are livin, on the allo#ance ,iven to the/ b+ their children. The /onthl+ pension ,iven b+ the elder children of the applicant cannot be added to his inco/e to /a;e it lucrative because li;e bonuses, co//issions and allo#ances, said pensions are contin,ent, speculative and precarious. . . 6ence, this petition based on the follo#in, assi,n/ent of errors= I. T6 !O>RT OF "PP "7S 4R"V 7G "2>S D ITS DIS!R TION IN R>7IN4 T6"T IN N"T>R"7IB"TION !"S S, T6 "PP 77"T !O>RT !"N D NG "N "PP7I!"TION FOR P6I7IPPIN !ITIB NS6IP ON T6 2"SIS OF DO!>M NTS NOT PR S NT D 2 FOR T6 TRI"7 !O>RT "ND NOT FORMIN4 P"RT OF T6 R !ORDS OF T6 !"S . II. T6 FINDIN4 OF T6 !O>RT OF "PP "7S T6"T T6 P TITION R 6"S 2 N ?NOHN 2G SOM OT6 R N"M NOT ST"T D IN 6IS P TITION IS NOT S>PPORT D 2G T6 VID N! ON R !ORD. III. !ONTR"RG TO T6 FINDIN4 OF T6 !O>RT OF "PP "7S, T6 P TITION R ST"T D IN 6IS P TITION "ND ITS "NN L S 6IS PR S NT "ND FORM R P7"! S OF R SID N! . IV. T6 FINDIN4 OF T6 !O>RT OF "PP "7S T6"T T6 P TITION R F"I7 D TO !OND>!T 6IMS 7F IN " PROP R "ND IRR PRO"!6"27 M"NN R IS NOT S>PPORT D 2G T6 VID N! ON R !ORD. PetitionerRs principal contention is that the appellate court erred in considerin, the docu/ents #hich had /erel+ been anne3ed b+ the State to its appellantRs brief and, on the basis of #hich, :ustified the reversal of the trial courtRs decision. Not havin, been presented and for/all+ offered as evidence, the+ are /ere Kscrap-s. of paper devoid of an+ evidentiar+ value,K &' so it #as ar,ued, because under Rule &1', T1$ of the Revised Rules on vidence, the court shall consider no evidence #hich has not been for/all+ offered. The contention has no /erit. Petitioner failed to note Rule &$1 that U
&1

of the Rules of !ourt #hich provides

These rules shall not appl+ to land re,istration, cadastral and election cases, naturali(ation and insolvenc+ proceedin,s, and other cases not herein provided for, e)cept by analo y or in a suppletory character and %henever practicable and convenient. - /phasis added.. Prescindin, fro/ the above, the rule on for/al offer of evidence -Rule &1', T1$. no# bein, invo;ed b+ petitioner is clearl+ not applicable to the present case involvin, a petition for naturali8ation. The onl+ instance #hen said rules /a+ be applied b+ analo,+ or suppletoril+ in such cases is #hen it is Kpracticable and convenient.K That is not the case here, since reliance upon the docu/ents presented b+ the State for the first ti/e on appeal, in fact, appears to be the /ore practical and convenient course of action considerin, that decisions in naturali8ation proceedin,s are not covered b+ the rule on res *udicata. &$ !onse<uentl+, a final favorable :ud,/ent does not preclude the State fro/ later on /ovin,

for a revocation of the ,rant of naturali8ation on the basis of the sa/e docu/ents. Petitioner clai/s that as a result of the failure of the State to present and for/all+ offer its docu/entar+ evidence before the trial court, he #as denied the ri,ht to ob:ect a,ainst their authenticit+, effectivel+ deprivin, hi/ of his funda/ental ri,ht to procedural due process. &% He are not persuaded. Indeed, the reason for the rule prohibitin, the ad/ission of evidence #hich has not been for/all+ offered is to afford the opposite part+ the chance to ob:ect to their ad/issibilit+. &A Petitioner cannot clai/ that he #as deprived of the ri,ht to ob:ect to the authenticit+ of the docu/ents sub/itted to the appellate court b+ the State. 6e could have included his ob:ections, as he, in fact, did, in the brief he filed #ith the !ourt of "ppeals. thus= The authenticit+ of the alle ed petition for naturali8ation -S!N !ase No. )1&0A0. #hich #as supposedl+ filed b+ On, !hia under 7OI '0) has not been established. In fact, the case nu/ber of the alle,ed petition for naturali8ation. . . is +,1-.- #hile the case nu/ber of the petition actuall+ filed b+ the appellee is +,1--.. Thus, said docu/ent is totall+ unreliable and should not be considered b+ the 6onorable !ourt in resolvin, the instant appeal. &0 Indeed, the ob:ection is fli/s+ as the alle,ed discrepanc+ is trivial, and, at /ost, can be accounted for as a t+po,raphical error on the part of petitioner hi/self. That KS!N !ase No. )1&0A0,K a cop+ of #hich #as anne3ed to the petition, is the correct case nu/ber is confir/ed b+ the valuation Sheet &* of the Special !o//ittee on Naturali8ation #hich #as also doc;eted as KS!N !ase No. )1&0A0.K Other than this, petitioner offered no evidence to disprove the authenticit+ of the docu/ents presented b+ the State. Further/ore, the !ourt notes that these docu/ents U na/el+, the petition in S!N !ase No. )1&0A0, petitionerRs /arria,e contract, the :oint affidavit e3ecuted b+ hi/ and his #ife, and petitionerRs inco/e ta3 returns U are all public docu/ents. "s such, the+ have been e3ecuted under oath. The+ are thus reliable. Since petitioner failed to /a;e a satisfactor+ sho#in, of an+ fla# or irre,ularit+ that /a+ cast doubt on the authenticit+ of these docu/ents, it is our conclusion that the appellate court did not err in rel+in, upon the/. One last point. The above discussion #ould have been enou,h to dispose of this case, but to settle all the issues raised, #e shall briefl+ discuss the effect of petitionerRs failure to include the address K9.M. 2asa St., IloiloK in his petition, in accordance #ith T0, !.". No. $01. This address appears on petitionerRs I//i,rant !ertificate of Residence, a docu/ent #hich for/s part of the records as "nne3 " of his &(*( petition for naturali8ation. Petitioner ad/its that he failed to /ention said address in his petition, but ar,ues that since the I//i,rant !ertificate of Residence containin, it had been full+ published, &( #ith the petition and the other anne3es, such publication constitutes substantial co/pliance #ith T0. ') This is alle,edl+ because the publication effectivel+ satisfied the ob:ective sou,ht to be achieved b+ such re<uire/ent, i.e., to ,ive investi,atin, a,encies of the ,overn/ent the opportunit+ to chec; on the bac;,round of the applicant and prevent suppression of infor/ation re,ardin, an+ possible /isbehavior on his part in an+ co//unit+ #here he /a+ have lived at one ti/e or another. '& It is settled, ho#ever, that naturali8ation la#s should be ri,idl+ enforced and strictl+ construed in favor of the ,overn/ent and a,ainst the applicant. '' "s noted b+ the State, !.". No. $01, T0 clearl+ provides that the applicant for naturali8ation shall set forth in the petition his present and for/er places of residence. '1 This provision and the rule of strict application of the la# in naturali8ation cases defeat petitionerRs ar,u/ent of Ksubstantial co/plianceK #ith the re<uire/ent under the Revised Naturali8ation 7a#. On this ,round alone, the instant petition ou,ht to be denied.1/%phi1.n0t H6 R FOR , the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals is "FFIRM D and the instant petition is hereb+

D NI D. SO ORD R D. 1ellosillo" !uisumbin " 1uena and 2e Leon" #r." ##." concur. &oot0otes
&

Per 9ustice 2ernardo 7l. Salas, and concurred in b+ 9ustices 4loria !. Paras and "licia "ustria Martine8.
'

Presided b+ the Rodolfo !. Soledad. p. &%', 9une '0, &((&. - /phasis added.. 2rief, pp. '&5''J !" Rollo, pp. 1%51A. 2J 3d., pp. &'(5&1*. F, F5&, F5', F51 and F5$J 3d., pp. &$$5&%0. J 3d, p. &$). Records, p. &A.

1 TSN,

$ "ppellantRs % "nne3 A

Citin Hatt v. Republic, $A S!R" A*1 -&(0'.J 3d., p. 10. DJ 3d., p. &1(.

0 "nne3es * "nne3 ( "nne3

&) "nne3 "J && &' &1 &$ &% &A

!" Decision, p. *J Rollo, p. %). !itations o/itted. Petition, p. '&J 3d., p. '(. No# found under Rule &, T$ of the &((0 Rules of !ivil Procedure. Republic v. 4u+, &&% S!R" '$$ -&(*'.. Petition, p. &0J Rollo, p. '%. See Peninsula !onstruction, Inc. v. is/a, &($ S!R" AA0 -&((&.. 2rief, p. &1J !" Rollo, p. &*$.

&0 "ppelleeRs &*

"nne3 !J !" Rollo, p. &11. Said evaluation sheet reco//ended that the petition be dis/issed as petitioner failed to /eet the re<uire/ents under 7OI $(& because his inco/e is insufficient for his support and that of his fa/il+ and also because he failed to sho# that he believes in the principles underl+in, the !onstitution.
&( ')

In the Official 4a8ette and in the Saran,ani 9ournal. Petition, p. ''J Rollo, p. 1). v. Republic, supra.

'& Hatt ''

!han !hen v. Republic, &)( Phil. ($) -&(A)., citin !o Puin, v. Republic, &)$ Phil. **( -&(%*. and !o. v. Republic, &)* Phil. 'A% -&(A)..
'1

!o//ent, p. '1J Rollo, p. &&).

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION G.R. No. 110662 August 4, 1994 TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ON. RO!EO F. ZA!ORA, P"#s$%$&g 'u%g#, (". 94, R#g$o&)* T"$)* Cou"t o+ ,u#-o& C$t. )&% RAFAEL S. ORTANEZ, respondents. Oscar A. Inocentes & Associates Law Office for petitioner. Efren A. Santos for private respondent. PADILLA, J.: This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks to reverse the decision / of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP o. !"545 entitled # Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez versus Hon. Romeo . !amora" #residin$ %ud$e" &r. '(" Re$ional Trial )ourt of *uezon )it+ and Rafael S. Ortanez#. The relevant facts of the case are as follows$ %n ! &a' ())*, private respondent Rafael S. %rtane+ filed with the Re,ional Trial Court of -ue+on Cit' a co.plaint for annul.ent of .arria,e with da.a,es a,ainst petitioner Teresita Salcedo-%rtane+, on ,rounds of lack of .arria,e license and/or ps'cholo,ical incapacit' of the petitioner. The co.plaint was docketed as Civil Case o. --)*-501* and raffled to 2ranch )4, RTC of -ue+on Cit' presided over 3' respondent 4ud,e Ro.eo 5. 6a.ora. Private respondent, after presentin, his evidence, orall' for.all' offered in evidence 78hi3its #A# to #&#. A.on, the e8hi3its offered 3' private respondent were three 90: cassette tapes of alle,ed telephone conversations 3etween petitioner and unidentified persons. Petitioner su3.itted her %3;ection/Co..ent to private respondent<s oral offer of evidence on ) 4une ())!= on the sa.e da', the trial court ad.itted all of private respondent<s offered evidence. A .otion for reconsideration fro. petitioner was denied on !0 4une ())!. A petition for certiorari was then filed 3' petitioner in the Court of Appeals assailin, the ad.ission in evidence of the afore.entioned cassette tapes. %n (* 4une ())0, the Court of Appeals rendered ;ud,.ent which is the su3;ect of the present petition, which in part reads$
>t is .uch too o3vious that the petition will have to fail, for two 3asic reasons$ 9(: Tape recordin,s are not inad.issi3le per se. The' and an' other variant thereof can 3e ad.itted in evidence for certain purposes, dependin, on how the' are presented and offered and on how the trial ;ud,e utili+es the. in the interest of truth and fairness and the even handed ad.inistration of ;ustice.

9!: A petition for certiorari is notoriousl' inappropriate to rectif' a supposed error in ad.ittin, evidence adduced durin, trial. The rulin, on ad.issi3ilit' is interlocutor'= neither does it i.pin,e on ;urisdiction. >f it is erroneous, the rulin, should 3e ?uestioned in the appeal fro. the ;ud,.ent on the .erits and not throu,h the special civil action of certiorari. The error, assu.in, ,ratuitousl' that it e8ists, cannot 3e an'.ore than an error of law, properl' correcti3le 3' appeal and not 3' certiorari. %therwise, we will have the sorr' spectacle of a case 3ein, su3;ect of a counterproductive #pin,-pon,# to and fro. the appellate court as often as a trial court is perceived to have .ade an error in an' of its rulin,s with respect to evidentiar' .atters in the course of trial. This we cannot sanction. @A7R75%R7, the petition for certiorari 3ein, devoid of .erit, is here3' B>S&>SS7B. 1

5ro. this adverse ;ud,.ent, petitioner filed the present petition for review, statin,$
,rounds for Allowance of t-e #etition (*. The decision of respondent CCourt of AppealsD has no 3asis in law nor previous decision of the Supre.e Court. (*.( >n affir.in, the ?uestioned order of respondent ;ud,e, the Court of Appeals has decided a ?uestion of su3stance not theretofore deter.ined 3' the Supre.e Court as the ?uestion of ad.issi3ilit' in evidence of tape recordin,s has not, thus far, 3een addressed and decided s?uarel' 3' the Supre.e Court. ((. >n affir.in, the ?uestioned order of respondent ;ud,e, the Court of Appeals has likewise rendered a decision in a wa' not in accord with law and with applica3le decisions of the Supre.e Court. ((.( Althou,h the ?uestioned order is interlocutor' in nature, the sa.e can still 3e CtheD su3;ect of a petition for certiorari. 2

The .ain issue to 3e resolved is whether or not the re.ed' of certiorari under Rule 15 of the Rules of Court was properl' availed of 3' the petitioner in the Court of Appeals. The e8traordinar' writ of certiorari is ,enerall' not availa3le to challen,e an interlocutor' order of a trial court. The proper re.ed' in such cases is an ordinar' appeal fro. an adverse ;ud,.ent, incorporatin, in said appeal the ,rounds for assailin, the interlocutor' order. Aowever, where the assailed interlocutor' order is patentl' erroneous and the re.ed' of appeal would not afford ade?uate and e8peditious relief, the Court .a' allow certiorari as a .ode of redress. 0 >n the present case, the trial court issued the assailed order ad.ittin, all of the evidence offered 3' private respondent, includin, tape recordin,s of telephone conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons. These tape recordin,s were .ade and o3tained when private respondent allowed his friends fro. the .ilitar' to wire tap his ho.e telephone. 4 Rep. Act o. 4!** entitled #An Act to Prohi3it and Penali+e @ire Tappin, and %ther Related Eiolations of the Privac' of Co..unication, and for other purposes# e8pressl' .akes such tape recordin,s inad.issi3le in evidence. The relevant provisions of Rep. Act o. 4!** are as follows$
Sec. (. >t shall 3e unlawful for an' person, not 3ein, authori+ed 3' all the parties to an' private co..unication or spoken word, to tap an' wire or ca3le, or 3' usin, an' other device or arran,e.ent, to secretl' overhear, intercept, or record such co..unication or spoken word 3' usin, a device co..onl' known as a dictaphone or dicta,raph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise descri3ed. . . . Sec. 4. An' co..unication or spoken word, or the e8istence, contents, su3stance, purport, or .eanin, of the sa.e or an' part thereof, or an' infor.ation therein contained, o3tained or secured 3' an' person in violation of the precedin, sections of

this Act shall not 3e ad.issi3le in evidence in an' ;udicial, ?uasi-;udicial, le,islative or ad.inistrative hearin, or investi,ation.

Clearl', respondents trial court and Court of Appeals failed to consider the afore-?uoted provisions of the law in ad.ittin, in evidence the cassette tapes in ?uestion. A3sent a clear showin, that 3oth parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recordin, of the sa.e, the inad.issi3ilit' of the su3;ect tapes is .andator' under Rep. Act o. 4!**. Additionall', it should 3e .entioned that the a3ove-.entioned Repu3lic Act in Section ! thereof i.poses a penalt' of i.prison.ent of not less than si8 91: .onths and up to si8 91: 'ears for violation of said Act. 1 @e need not address the other ar,u.ents raised 3' the parties, involvin, the applica3ilit' of A.erican ;urisprudence, havin, arrived at the conclusion that the su3;ect cassette tapes are inad.issi3le in evidence under Philippine law. @A7R75%R7, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP o. !"545 is here3' S7T AS>B7. The su3;ect cassette tapes are declared inad.issi3le in evidence. S% %RB7R7B. .arvasa" ).%." Re$alado" #uno and /endoza" %%." concur.
2Foot&ot#s

F Penned 3' 4ustice 7.eterio C. Cui with 4ustices 4ainal B. Rasul and Alfredo G. Ga,a.on concurrin,. ( Rollo" pp. !4-!5. ! Rollo" p. ((. 0 /arcelo v. de ,uzman, G. R. o. G-!)*HH, !) 4une ()"!, ((4 SCRA 15H. 4 TS , ) Bece.3er ())!, p. 4. 5 #Sec. !. An' person who wilfull' or knowin,l' does or who shall aid, per.it, or cause to 3e done an' of the acts declared to 3e unlawful in the precedin, section or who violates the provisions of the followin, section or of an' order issued thereunder, or aids, per.its, or causes such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, 3e punished 3' i.prison.ent for not less than si8 .onths or .ore than si8 'ears and with accessor' penalt' of perpetual a3solute dis?ualification fro. pu3lic office if the offender 3e a pu3lic official at the ti.e of the co..ission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall 3e su3;ect to deportation proceedin,s.#

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila N 2"N! G.R. No. 129296 Se1te+ber 25, 2000 PEOP$E O& T%E P%!$!PP!NES, plaintiff5appellee, vs. #E ( $"EZ / "E$ CRUZ, accused5appellant. D 8U!SUM#!NG, J.: For auto/atic revie# is the decision & pro/ul,ated on Februar+ &*, &((0, b+ the Re,ional Trial !ourt of 2a+o/bon,, Nueva Vi8ca+a, 2ranch '0, in !ri/inal !ase No. 1&)%. It found appellant "be Valde8 + Dela !ru8 ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt for violatin, Section ( of the Dan,erous Dru,s "ct of &(0' -R.". No. A$'%., as a/ended b+ R.". No. 0A%(. 6e #as sentenced to suffer the penalt+ of death b+ lethal in:ection. In an Infor/ation dated Septe/ber 'A, &((A, appellant #as char,ed as follo#s=KThat on or about Septe/ber '%, &((A, at Sitio 2ulan, 2aran,a+ Sa#/ill, Municipalit+ of Villaverde, Province of Nueva Vi8ca+a, Philippines, and #ithin the :urisdiction of this 6onorable !ourt, the above5na/ed accused, #ho #as cau,ht in fla rante delicto and #ithout authorit+ of la#, did then and there #ilfull+ -sic., unla#full+ and feloniousl+ plant, cultivate and culture seven -0. full+ ,ro#n /ari:uana plants ;no#n as Indian 6e/p #ei,hin, '.&($ ;ilos, fro/ #hich dan,erous dru,s /a+be -sic. /anufactured or derived, to the da/a,e and pre:udice of the ,overn/ent of the Republic of the Philippines. KThat the propert+ #here the said seven -0. full+ ,ro#n /ari:uana plants #ere planted, cultivated and cultured shall be confiscated and escheated in favor of the ,overn/ent. K!ONTR"RG TO 7"H.K' On Nove/ber &%, &((A, appellant #as arrai,ned and, #ith assistance of counsel, pleaded not ,uilt+ to the char,e. Trial on the /erits then ensued. The first #itness for the prosecution #as SPO1 Marcelo Tipa+, a /e/ber of the police force of Villaverde, Nueva Vi8ca+a. 6e testified that at around &)=&% a./. of Septe/ber '$, &((A, he received a tip fro/ an unna/ed infor/er about the presence of a /ari:uana plantation, alle,edl+ o#ned b+ appellant at Sitio 2ulan, Ibun,, Villaverde, Nueva Vi8ca+a. 1 The prohibited plants #ere alle,edl+ planted close to appellantRs hut. Police Inspector "le:andro R. Parun,ao, !hief of Police of Villaverde, Nueva Vi8ca+a then for/ed a reaction tea/ fro/ his operatives to verif+ the report. The tea/ #as co/posed of SPO1 Marcelo M. Tipa+, SPO' Noel V. 7ibunao, SPO' Pedro S. Morales, SPO& Ro/ulo 4. Tobias and PO' "lfel/er I. 2alut. Inspector Parun,ao ,ave the/ specific instructions to Kuproot said /ari:uana plants and arrest the cultivator of sa/e.K$ "t appro3i/atel+ %=)) oRcloc; ".M. the follo#in, da+, said police tea/, acco/panied b+ their infor/er, left for the site #here the /ari:uana plants #ere alle,edl+ bein, ,ro#n. "fter a three5hour, uphill tre; fro/ the nearest baran,a+ road, the police operatives arrived at the place pinpointed b+ their infor/ant. The police found appellant alone in his nipa hut. The+, then, proceeded to loo; around the area #here appellant had his 4ain in and sa# seven -0. five5foot hi,h, flo#erin, /ari:uana plants in t#o ro#s, appro3i/atel+ '% /eters fro/ appellantRs hut. % PO' 2alut as;ed appellant #ho o#ned the prohibited plants and, accordin, to 2alut, the latter ad/itted that the+ #ere his.A The police uprooted !ISION

the seven /ari:uana plants, #hich #ei,hed '.&($ ;ilo,ra/s. 0 The police too; photos of appellant standin, beside the cannabis plants.* "ppellant #as then arrested. One of the plants, #ei,hin, &.)() ;ilo,ra/s, #as sent to the Philippine National Police !ri/e 7aborator+ in 2a+o/bon,, Nueva Vi8ca+a for anal+sis.( Inspector Prev+ Fabros 7u#is, the !ri/e 7aborator+ forensic anal+st, testified that upon /icroscopic e3a/ination of said plant, she found c+stolitic hairs containin, calciu/ carbonate, a positive indication for /ari:uana.&) She ne3t conducted a che/ical e3a/ination, the results of #hich confir/ed her initial i/pressions. She found as follo#s= KSP !IM N S>2MITT D= 3h K"K 5 &.)() ,ra/s of uprooted suspected /ari:uana plant placed inside a #hite sac; #ith /ar;in,s. 333 KFINDIN4S= Pualitative e3a/ination conducted on the above stated speci/en ,ave POSITIV result to the test for Mari:uana, a prohibited dru,.K&& The prosecution also presented a certification fro/ the Depart/ent of nviron/ent and Natural Resources that the land cultivated b+ appellant, on #hich the ,ro#in, /ari:uana plants #ere found, #as 7ot 1''$ of Ti/berland 2loc; 2, #hich for/ed part of the Inte,rated Social Forestr+ "rea in Villaverde, Nueva Vi8ca+a.&' This lot #as part of the public do/ain. "ppellant #as ac;no#led,ed in the certification as the occupant of the lot, but no !ertificate of Ste#ardship had +et been issued in his favor.&1 "s its sole #itness, the defense presented appellant. 6e testified that at around &)=)) oRcloc; ".M., Septe/ber '%, &((A, he #as #eedin, his ve,etable far/ in Sitio 2ulan #hen he #as called b+ a person #hose identit+ he does not ;no#. 6e #as as;ed to ,o #ith the latter to Ksee so/ethin,.K &$ This un;no#n person then brou,ht appellant to the place #here the /ari:uana plants #ere found, appro3i/atel+ &)) /eters a#a+ fro/ his nipa hut. &% Five ar/ed police/en #ere present and the+ /ade hi/ stand in front of the he/p plants. 6e #as then as;ed if he ;ne# an+thin, about the /ari:uana ,ro#in, there. Hhen he denied an+ ;no#led,e thereof, SPO' 7ibunao po;ed a fist at hi/ and told hi/ to ad/it o#nership of the plants. &A "ppellant #as so nervous and afraid that he ad/itted o#nin, the /ari:uana.&0 The police then too; a photo of hi/ standin, in front of one of the /ari:uana plants. 6e #as then /ade to uproot five of the cannabis plants, and brin, the/ to his hut, #here another photo #as ta;en of hi/ standin, ne3t to a bundle of uprooted /ari:uana plants. &* The police tea/ then brou,ht hi/ to the police station at Villaverde. On the #a+, a certain ?i;o Pascua, a baran,a+ peace officer of 2aran,a+ Sa#/ill, acco/panied the police officers. Pascua, #ho bore a ,rud,e a,ainst hi/, because of his refusal to participate in the for/erRs ille,al lo,,in, activities, threatened hi/ to ad/it o#nin, the /ari:uana, other#ise he #ould Kbe put in a bad situation.K &( "t the police head<uarters, appellant reiterated that he ;ne# nothin, about the /ari:uana plants sei8ed b+ the police.') On cross5e3a/ination, appellant declared that there #ere ten other houses around the vicinit+ of his 4ain in" the nearest house bein, &)) /eters a#a+. '& The latter house belon,ed to one !arlito -7ito. Pascua, an uncle of the baran,a+ peace officer #ho had a ,rud,e a,ainst hi/. The spot #here the /ari:uana plants #ere found #as located bet#een his house and !arlito PascuaRs.'' The prosecution presented SPO1 Tipa+ as its rebuttal #itness. 6is testi/on+ #as offered to rebut appellantRs clai/ that the /ari:uana plants #ere not planted in the lot he #as cultivatin,. '1 Tipa+ presented a s;etch he /ade,'$ #hich sho#ed the location of /ari:uana plants in relation to the old and ne# nipa huts of appellant, as #ell as the closest nei,hbor. "ccordin, to Tipa+, the /ari:uana plot #as located $) /eters a#a+ fro/ the old hut of Valde8 and '%) /eters distant fro/ the hut of !arlito

Pascua.'% Tipa+ ad/itted on cross5e3a/ination that no surve+or acco/panied hi/ #hen he /ade the /easure/ents.'A 6e further stated that his basis for clai/in, that appellant #as the o#ner or planter of the sei8ed plants #as the infor/ation ,iven hi/ b+ the police infor/er and the pro3i/it+ of appellantRs hut to the location of said plants.'0 Findin, appellantRs defense insipid, the trial court held appellant liable as char,ed for cultivation and o#nership of /ari:uana plants as follo#s= KH6 R FOR , findin, the accused 4>I7TG be+ond reasonable doubt of cultivatin, /ari:uana plants punishable under section ( of the Dan,erous Dru,s "ct of &(0', as a/ended, accused is hereb+ sentenced to death b+ lethal in:ection. !osts a,ainst the accused. KSO ORD R D.K'* "ppellant assi,ns the follo#in, errors for our consideration= I T6 TRI"7 !O>RT 4R"V 7G RR D IN "DMITTIN4 "S VID N! T6 S V N -0. M"RI9>"N" P7"NTS D SPIT T6 IR IN"DMISSI2I7ITG 2 IN4 PROD>!TS OF "N I77 4"7 S "R!6. II T6 TRI"7 !O>RT 4R"V 7G RR D IN !ONVI!TIN4 "PP 77"NT OF VIO7"TION OF S !TION (, R P>27I! "!T NO. A$'% D SPIT T6 IN"DMISSI2I7ITG OF T6 C5RP6S 27L3C83 "ND T6 F"I7>R OF T6 PROS !>TION TO PROV 6IS 4>I7T 2 GOND R "SON"27 DO>2T. III T6 TRI"7 !O>RT 4R"V 7G RR D IN IMPOSIN4 T6 S>PR M P N"7TG OF D "T6 >PON "PP 77"NT D SPIT F"I7>R OF T6 PROS !>TION TO PROV T6"T T6 7"ND H6 R T6 M"RI9>"N" P7"NTS H R P7"NT D IS " P>27I! 7"ND ON T6 "SS>MPTION T6"T IND D "PP 77"NT P7"NT D T6 S>29 !T M"RI9>"N".'( Si/pl+ stated, the issues are= -&. Has the search and sei8ure of the /ari:uana plants in the present case la#fulV -'. Here the sei8ed plants ad/issible in evidence a,ainst the accusedV -1. 6as the prosecution proved appellantRs ,uilt be+ond reasonable doubtV -$. Is the sentence of death b+ lethal in:ection correctV The first and second issues #ill be :ointl+ discussed because the+ are interrelated. "ppellant contends that there #as unla#ful search. First, the records sho# that the la# enforcers had /ore than a/ple ti/e to secure a search #arrant. Second, that the /ari:uana plants #ere found in an unfenced lot does not re/ove appellant fro/ the /antle of protection a,ainst unreasonable searches and sei8ures. 6e relies on the rulin, of the >S Supre/e !ourt in 8erry v. 5hio" ,9: 6S 1" :+ L. 7d :d ;9;" ;; S. Ct. 1;.; <19.;=" to the effect that the protection a,ainst unreasonable ,overn/ent intrusion protects people, not places. For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor 4eneral ar,ues that the records clearl+ sho# that there #as no search /ade b+ the police tea/, in the first place. The OS4 points out that the /ari:uana plants in

<uestion #ere ,ro#n in an unfenced lot and as each ,re# about five -%. feet tall, the+ #ere visible fro/ afar, and #ere, in fact, i//ediatel+ spotted b+ the police officers #hen the+ reached the site. The sei8ed /ari:uana plants #ere, thus, in plain vie# of the police officers. The instant case /ust, therefore, be treated as a #arrantless la#ful search under the Kplain vie#K doctrine. The court a >uo upheld the validit+ of the search and confiscation /ade b+ the police tea/ on the findin, that= K...It see/s there #as no need for an+ search #arrant. The police/en #ent to the plantation site /erel+ to /a;e a verification. Hhen the+ found the said plants, it #as too /uch to e3pect the/ to appl+ for a search #arrant. In vie# of the re/oteness of the plantation site -the+ had to #al; for si3 hours bac; and forth. and the dan,ers lur;in, in the area if the+ sta+ed overni,ht, the+ had a valid reason to confiscate the said plants upon discover+ #ithout an+ search #arrant. Moreover, the evidence sho#s that the lot #as not le,all+ occupied b+ the accused and there #as no fence #hich evinced the occupantRs desire to ;eep trespassers out. There #as, therefore, no privac+ to protect, hence, no search #arrant #as re<uired.K1) The !onstitution1& la+s do#n the ,eneral rule that a search and sei8ure /ust be carried on the stren,th of a :udicial #arrant. Other#ise, the search and sei8ure is dee/ed Kunreasonable.K vidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and sei8ure is dee/ed tainted for bein, the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be e3cluded. 1' Such evidence shall be inad/issible in evidence for an+ purpose in an+ proceedin,.11 In the instant case, there #as no search #arrant issued b+ a :ud,e after personal deter/ination of the e3istence of probable cause. Fro/ the declarations of the police officers the/selves, it is clear that the+ had at least one -&. da+ to obtain a #arrant to search appellantRs far/. Their infor/ant had revealed his na/e to the/. The place #here the cannabis plants #ere planted #as pinpointed. Fro/ the infor/ation in their possession, the+ could have convinced a :ud,e that there #as probable cause to :ustif+ the issuance of a #arrant. 2ut the+ did not. Instead, the+ uprooted the plants and apprehended the accused on the e3cuse that the trip #as a ,ood si3 hours and inconvenient to the/. He need not underscore that the protection a,ainst ille,al search and sei8ure is constitutionall+ /andated and onl+ under specific instances are searches allo#ed #ithout #arrants.1$ The /antle of protection e3tended b+ the 2ill of Ri,hts covers both innocent and ,uilt+ ali;e a,ainst an+ for/ of hi,h5handedness of la# enforcers, re,ardless of the praise#orthiness of their intentions. He find no reason to subscribe to Solicitor 4eneralRs contention that #e appl+ the Kplain vie#K doctrine. For the doctrine to appl+, the follo#in, ele/ents /ust be present= -a. a prior valid intrusion based on the valid #arrantless arrest in #hich the police are le,all+ present in the pursuit of their official dutiesJ -b. the evidence #as inadvertentl+ discovered b+ the police #ho have the ri,ht to be #here the+ areJ and -c. the evidence /ust be i//ediatel+ apparentJ and -d. plain vie# :ustified /ere sei8ure of evidence #ithout further search.1% In the instant case, recall that PO' 2alut testified that the+ first located the /ari:uana plants before appellant #as arrested #ithout a #arrant. 1A 6ence, there #as no valid #arrantless arrest #hich preceded the search of appellantRs pre/ises. Note further that the police tea/ #as dispatched to appellantRs 4ain in precisel+ to search for and uproot the prohibited flora. The sei8ure of evidence in Kplain vie#K applies onl+ #here the police officer is not searchin, for evidence a,ainst the accused, but inadvertentl+ co/es across an incri/inatin, ob:ect. 10 !learl+, their discover+ of the cannabis plants

#as not inadvertent. He also note the testi/on+ of SPO' Tipa+ that upon arrivin, at the area, the+ first had to Kloo; around the areaK before the+ could spot the ille,al plants. 1* Patentl+, the sei8ed /ari:uana plants #ere not Ki//ediatel+ apparentK and a Kfurther searchK #as needed. In su/, the /ari:uana plants in <uestion #ere not in Kplain vie#K or Kopen to e+e and hand.K The Kplain vie#K doctrine, thus, cannot be /ade to appl+. Nor can #e sustain the trial courtRs conclusion that :ust because the /ari:uana plants #ere found in an unfenced lot, appellant could not invo;e the protection afforded b+ the !harter a,ainst unreasonable searches b+ a,ents of the State. The ri,ht a,ainst unreasonable searches and sei8ures is the i//unit+ of oneRs person, #hich includes his residence, his papers, and other possessions. 1( The ,uarantee refers to Kthe ri,ht of personal securit+K $) of the individual. "s appellant correctl+ points out, #hat is sou,ht to be protected a,ainst the StateRs unla#ful intrusion are persons, not places. $& To conclude other#ise #ould not onl+ /ean s#i//in, a,ainst the strea/, it #ould also lead to the absurd lo,ic that for a person to be i//une a,ainst unreasonable searches and sei8ures, he /ust be in his ho/e or office, #ithin a fenced +ard or a private place. The 2ill of Ri,hts belon,s as /uch to the person in the street as to the individual in the sanctuar+ of his bedroo/. He therefore hold, #ith respect to the first issue, that the confiscated plants #ere evidentl+ obtained durin, an ille,al search and sei8ure. "s to the second issue, #hich involves the ad/issibilit+ of the /ari:uana plants as evidence for the prosecution, #e find that said plants cannot, as products of an unla#ful search and sei8ure, be used as evidence a,ainst appellant. The+ are fruits of the proverbial poisoned tree. It #as, therefore, a reversible error on the part of the court a >uo to have ad/itted and relied upon the sei8ed /ari:uana plants as evidence to convict appellant. He no# proceed to the third issue, #hich revolves around the sufficienc+ of the prosecutionRs evidence to prove appellantRs ,uilt. 6avin, declared the sei8ed /ari:uana plants inad/issible in evidence a,ainst appellant, #e /ust no# address the <uestion of #hether the re/ainin, evidence for the prosecution suffices to convict appellantV In convictin, appellant, the trial court li;e#ise relied on the testi/on+ of the police officers to the effect that appellant ad/itted o#nership of the /ari:uana #hen he #as as;ed #ho planted the/. It /ade the follo#in, observation= KIt /a+ be true that the ad/ission to the police b+ the accused that he planted the /ari:uana plants #as /ade in the absence of an+ independent and co/petent counsel. 2ut the accused #as not, at the ti/e of police verificationJ under custodial investi,ation. 6is ad/ission is, therefore, ad/issible in evidence and not violative of the constitutional fiat that ad/ission ,iven durin, custodial investi,ation is not ad/issible if ,iven #ithout an+ counsel.K$' "ppellant no# ar,ues that his ad/ission of o#nership of the /ari:uana plants in <uestion cannot be used a,ainst hi/ for bein, violative of his ri,ht to counsel durin, the police investi,ation. 6ence, it #as error for the trial court to have relied upon said ad/ission of o#nership. 6e sub/its that the investi,ation conducted b+ the police officers #as not a ,eneral in<uir+, but #as /eant to elicit infor/ation on the o#nership of the /ari:uana plants. "ppellant theori8es that since the investi,ation had narro#ed do#n to hi/, co/petent and independent counsel should have assisted hi/, #hen the police sou,ht infor/ation fro/ hi/ re,ardin, the o#nership of the prohibited plants. "ppellant clai/s the presu/ption of re,ularit+ of dut+ of officers cannot be /ade to appl+ to his purported voluntaril+ confession of o#nership of the /ari:uana plants. Nor can it override his constitutional ri,ht to counsel durin, investi,ation. The Office of the Solicitor 4eneral believes other#ise. The OS4 avers that appellant #as not +et under custodial investi,ation #hen he ad/itted to the police that he o#ned the /ari:uana plants. 6is ri,ht to

co/petent and independent counsel, accordin,l+, had not +et attached. Moreover, appellantIs failure to i/pute an+ false /otive for the police officers to falsel+ accuse hi/ indicates that the presu/ption of re,ularit+ in the perfor/ance of official duties b+ police officers #as not sufficientl+ rebutted. The !onstitution plainl+ declares that an+ person under investi,ation for the co//ission of an offense shall have the ri,ht= -&. to re/ain silentJ -'. to have co/petent and independent counsel preferabl+ of his o#n choiceJ and -1. to be infor/ed of such ri,hts. These ri,hts cannot be #aived e3cept in #ritin, and in the presence of counsel.$1 "n investi,ation be,ins #hen it is no lon,er a ,eneral in<uir+ but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., #hen the police investi,ator starts interro,atin, or e3actin, a confession fro/ the suspect in connection #ith an alle,ed offense. $$ The /o/ent the police tr+ to elicit ad/issions or confessions or even plain infor/ation fro/ a person suspected of havin, co//itted an offense, he should at that :uncture be assisted b+ counsel, unless he #aives the ri,ht in #ritin, and in the presence of counsel.$% In the instant case #e find that, fro/ the start, a tipster had furnished the police appellantRs na/e as #ell as the location of appellantRs far/, #here the /ari:uana plants #ere alle,edl+ bein, ,ro#n. Hhile the police operation #as supposedl+ /eant to /erel+ Kverif+K said infor/ation, the police chief had li;e#ise issued instructions to arrest appellant as a suspected /ari:uana cultivator. Thus, at the ti/e the police tal;ed to appellant in his far/, the latter #as alread+ under investi,ation as a suspect. The <uestionin, b+ the police #as no lon,er a ,eneral in<uir+.$A >nder cross5e3a/ination, PO' 2alut stated, he Kdid not +et ad/it that he is the cultivator of that /ari:uana so #e :ust as;ed hi/ and I thin; there is no need to infor/ -hi/ of. his constitutional ri,hts because #e are :ust as;in, hi/...K$0 In tr+in, to elicit infor/ation fro/ appellant, the police #as alread+ investi,atin, appellant as a suspect. "t this point, he #as alread+ under custodial investi,ation and had a ri,ht to counsel even if he had not +et been arrested. !ustodial investi,ation is K<uestionin, initiated b+ la# enforce/ent officers after a person has been ta;en into custod+ or other#ise deprived of his freedo/ of action in an+ si,nificant #a+.K $* "s a suspect, t#o ar/ed police/en interro,ated appellant. 2ehind his in<uisitors #ere a baran,a+ peace officer and three other ar/ed police/en. $( "ll had been dispatched to arrest hi/.%) Fro/ these circu/stances, #e /a+ infer that appellant had alread+ been deprived of his freedo/ of action in a si,nificant #a+, even before the actual arrest. Note that even before he #as arrested, the police /ade hi/ incri/inatin,l+ pose for photos in front of the /ari:uana plants. Moreover, #e find appellantRs e3tra:udicial confession fla#ed #ith respect to its ad/issibilit+. For a confession to be ad/issible, it /ust satisf+ the follo#in, re<uire/ents= -&. it /ust be voluntar+J -'. it /ust be /ade #ith the assistance of co/petent and independent counselJ -1. it /ust be e3pressJ and -$. it /ust be in #ritin,.%& The records sho# that the ad/ission b+ appellant #as verbal. It #as also uncounselled. " verbal ad/ission alle,edl+ /ade b+ an accused durin, the investi,ation, #ithout the assistance of counsel at the ti/e of his arrest and even before his for/al investi,ation is not onl+ inad/issible for bein, violative of the ri,ht to counsel durin, cri/inal investi,ations, it is also hearsa+.%' ven if the confession or ad/ission #ere K,ospel truthK, if it #as /ade #ithout assistance of counsel and #ithout a valid #aiver of such assistance, the confession is inad/issible in evidence, re,ardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntaril+ ,iven.%1 It is funda/ental in cri/inal prosecutions that before an accused /a+ be convicted of a cri/e, the prosecution /ust establish b+ proof be+ond reasonable doubt that a cri/e #as co//itted and that the accused is the author thereof.%$ The evidence arra+ed a,ainst the accused, ho#ever, /ust not onl+ stand the test of reason,%% it /ust li;e#ise be credible and co/petent.%A !o/petent evidence is K,enerall+ ad/issibleK evidence.%0 "d/issible evidence, in turn, is evidence Kof such a character that the court or

:ud,e is bound to receive it, that is, allo# it to be introduced at trial.K%* In the instant case, the trial court relied on t#o pieces of probative /atter to convict appellant of the offense char,ed.1/%phi1 These #ere the sei8ed /ari:uana plants, and appellantRs purportedl+ voluntar+ confession of o#nership of said /ari:uana plants to the police. Other than these proofs, there #as no other evidence presented to lin; appellant #ith the offense char,ed. "s earlier discussed, it #as error on the trial courtRs part to have ad/itted both of these proofs a,ainst the accused and to have relied upon said proofs to convict hi/. For said evidence is doubl+ tainted. First, as earlier pointed out, the sei8ed /ari:uana plants #ere obtained in violation of appellantRs constitutional ri,hts a,ainst unreasonable searches and sei8ures. The search and sei8ure #ere void ab initio for havin, been conducted #ithout the re<uisite :udicial #arrant. The prosecutionRs ver+ o#n evidence clearl+ establishes that the police had sufficient ti/e to obtain a #arrant. There #as no sho#in, of such ur,enc+ or necessit+ for the #arrantless search or the i//ediate sei8ure of the /ari:uana plants sub:ect of this case. To reiterate, said /ari:uana plants cannot be utili8ed to prove appellantRs ,uilt #ithout runnin, afoul of the constitutional ,uarantees a,ainst ille,al searches and the inad/issibilit+ of evidence procured pursuant to an unla#ful search and sei8ure. Second, the confession of o#nership of the /ari:uana plants, #hich appellant alle,edl+ /ade to the police durin, investi,ation, is not onl+ hearsa+ but also violative of the 2ill of Ri,hts. The purported confession #as /ade #ithout the assistance of co/petent and independent counsel, as /andated b+ the !harter. Thus, said confession cannot be used to convict appellant #ithout runnin, afoul of the !onstitutionRs re<uire/ent that a suspect in a cri/inal investi,ation /ust have the services of co/petent and independent counsel durin, such investi,ation. In su/, both the ob:ect evidence and the testi/onial evidence as to appellantRs voluntar+ confession of o#nership of the prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellantRs ,uilt failed to /eet the test of !onstitutional co/petence. The !onstitution decrees that, KIn all cri/inal prosecutions, the accused shall be presu/ed innocent until the contrar+ is proved...K%( To :ustif+ the conviction of the accused, the prosecution /ust adduce that <uantu/ of evidence sufficient to overco/e the constitutional presu/ption of innocence. The prosecution /ust stand or fall on its evidence and cannot dra# stren,th fro/ the #ea;ness of the evidence for the accused.A) "bsent the re<uired de,ree of proof of an accusedRs ,uilt, he is entitled to an ac<uittal.A& In this case, the sei8ed /ari:uana plants lin;in, appellant to the cri/e char,ed are /iserabl+ tainted #ith constitutional infir/ities, #hich render these inad/issible Kfor an+ purpose in an+ proceedin,.KA' Nor can the confession obtained durin, the uncounselled investi,ation be used a,ainst appellant, Kit bein, inad/issible in evidence a,ainst hi/.K A1 Hithout these proffered but proscribed /aterials, #e find that the prosecutionRs re/ainin, evidence did not even appro3i/ate the <uantu/ of evidence necessar+ to #arrant appellantRs conviction. 6ence, the presu/ption of innocence in his favor stands. Perforce, his ac<uittal is in order. In ac<uittin, an appellant, #e are not sa+in, that he is lil+5#hite, or pure as driven sno#. Rather, #e are declarin, his innocence because the prosecutionRs evidence failed to sho# his ,uilt be+ond reasonable doubt. For that is #hat the basic la# re<uires. Hhere the evidence is insufficient to overco/e the presu/ption of innocence in favor of the accused, then his Kac<uittal /ust follo# in faithful obeisance to the funda/ental la#.KA$ 9%ERE&ORE, the decision pro/ul,ated on Februar+ &*, &((0, b+ the Re,ional Trial !ourt of 2a+o/bon,, Nueva Vi8ca+a, 2ranch '0, in !ri/inal !ase No. 1&)%, findin, "be Valde8 + Dela !ru8, ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of violatin, Section ( of the Dan,erous Dru,s "ct of &(0', and i/posin, upon hi/ the death penalt+, is hereb+ R V RS D and S T "SID for insufficienc+ of

evidence. "ppellant is "!P>ITT D and ordered R 7 "S D i//ediatel+ fro/ confine/ent unless held for another la#ful cause. SO ORD R D. Davide, 9r., !.9., 2ellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitu,, ?apunan, Mendo8a, Pan,aniban, Purisi/a, Pardo, 2uena, 4on8a,a5Re+es, and De 7eon, 9r., 99., concur. Gnares5Santia,o, 9., on leave. &oot0otes
& '

Records, pp. %$5%*. 3d. at &. Nove/ber &(, &((A, p. 1. Nove/ber '), &((A, pp. %5A. Dece/ber &&, &((A, p. 1. See also Supra Note %, at A. Nove/ber '&, &((A, p. 1. See also 3hibit KDK, Supra Note &, at $. Nove/ber '*, &((A, pp. %5A. 3hibit K&K, 3hibit K!K, Supra Note &, at 1. See also TSN, Nove/ber '), &((A, p. 1.

1 TSN, $

% TSN, A TSN, 0 TSN, *

3hibits KI,K KI5&,K Supra Note &, at '$5"5'$52. See also TSN, Nove/ber '*, &((A, pp. &)5&&. 3bid. 3hibit K",K Supra Note & at &A. 3hibits K9,K K95&K to K951,K Supra Note &, at $&. Supra. 9anuar+ &%, &((0, pp. '51. 3d. at A. 3d. at $. 3d. at %. Supra Note &%. Supra Note &$, at 0. 3d. 3d. at &). 3d. at &&. 9anuar+ '*, &((0, p. '. 3hibit K9K -should be 3hibit K?K., Supra Note &, at $(. Supra Note '1, at $.

( TSN, &) && &' &1

&$ TSN, &% &A &0 &* &( ') '& ''

'1 TSN, '$ '%

'A '0 '* '( 1)

3d. at *. 3bid. Supra Note &, at %*. Rollo, pp. 1&51'. Supra Note '*.

1& "rt.

III, Sec. ' states= Kthe ri,ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects a,ainst unreasonable searches and sei8ures of #hatever nature and for an+ purpose shall be inviolable, and no search #arrant or #arrant of arrest shall issue e3cept upon probable cause to be deter/ined personall+ b+ the :ud,e after e3a/ination under oath or affir/ation of the co/plainant and the #itnesses he /a+ produce, and particularl+ describin, the place to be searched and the persons or thin,s to be sei8ed.K
1'

People v. "licando, '%& S!R" '(1, 1&$ -&((%. citin, Nardone v. >S, 1)* >S 1**, A) S. !t. 'AA, *$ 7. d. 1)0 -&(1(..
11

"rt. III, Sec. 1-'. provides= K"n+ evidence obtained in violation of this or the precedin, section shall be inad/issible for an+ purpose in an+ proceedin,.K
1$ These

instances include=

-a. " search as an incident to a la#ful arrest, provided that the search is /ade conte/poraneous to the arrest and #ithin a per/issible area of search. See R>7 S OF !O>RT, Rule &'A, Sec. &'.J People v. Musa, '&0 S!R" %( -&(('.J People v. !atan, ')% S!R" '1% -&(('.J Posadas v. !ourt of "ppeals, &** S!R" '** -&(().J and People v. Tan,liben, &*$ S!R" '') -&(().. -b. Searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of i//i,ration, custo/s, and dru, la#s. See 6i8on v. !ourt of "ppeals, 'A% S!R" %&0 -&((A.J Roldan v. "rca, A% S!R" 11A -&(0%.. !.f. People v. "//u/udin, &A1 S!R" $)' -&(**. -c. Searches of auto/obiles at borders or constructive borders. See Mustan, 7u/ber v. !ourt of "ppeals, '%0 S!R" $%) -&((A.J People v. 2alin,an, '$& S!R" '00 -&((%.J People v. 7o 6oi Hin,, &(1 S!R" &'' -&((&.J Val/onte v. de Villa, &*% S!R" AA% -&(()., &0* S!R" '&& -&(*(.J People v. !ourt of First Instance of Ri8al, &)& S!R" *A -&(*)., and Papa v. Ma,o, '' S!R" *%0 -&(A*.. -d. Inspection of buildin,s and other pre/ises to enforce fire safet+, sanitar+, and other buildin, re,ulations. -e. Hhere the prohibited articles or contraband are in Kplain vie#K See People v. Musa, supraJ !hia v. "ctin, !ollector of !usto/s, &00 S!R" 01% -&(*(.
1%

People v. 2olasa, 4.R. No. &'%0%$, Dece/ber '', &(((, p. %, citin, People v. "ruta, '** S!R" A'A, A105A1* -&((*..
1A TSN, 10

Dece/ber &&, &((A, pp. '51.

People v. Musa, '&0 S!R" %(0, A&& -&((1. citin, !oolid,e v. Ne# 6a/pshire, $)1 >S $$1, '( 7. d 'd %A$ -&(0&..
1* TSN,

Nove/ber &(, &((A, p. $. v. Puerubin, $* S!R" 1$%, 1$( -&(0'..

1( Villanueva

$)

Rodri,ue8 v. Villa/iel, A% Phil. '1), '1% -&(10.J "lvare8 v. !FI of Ta+abas, A$ Phil. 11, $& -&(10..
$&

Terr+ v. Ohio, ') 7. d.**(, *(( -&(A*. citin, ?at8 v. >nited States, 1*( >S 1$0, 1%&, &( 7. d 'd %0A, %*', ** S. !t %)0 -&(A0.. Supra Note &, at %0. III, Sec. &' -&..

$'

$1 "rt. $$

4a/boa v. !ru8, &A' S!R" A$', A$* -&(**.J People v. "+son, &0% S!R" '&A, '1& -&(*(. uses Kunder investi,ation for the co//ission of an offense.K
$% $A

4a/boa v. !ru8, supra, A%&. People v. De 9esus, '&1 S!R" 1$%, 1%& -&(('.. Dece/ber &&, &((A, p. %.

$0 TSN, $*

People v. 7o,ronio, '&$ S!R" %&(, %'* -&(('. citin, People v. !a,uioa, (% S!R" ', (, -&(*)..
$( %) %&

Supra Note $A, at $. Supra Note $.

People v. Tan, '*A S!R" ')0, '&$ -&((*.J People v. 9ere8, '*% S!R" 1(1, 1(( -&((*.J People v. !alvo, 9r., 'A( S!R" A0A, A*' -&((0.J People v. !abiles, '*$ S!R" &((, '&& -&((0..
%'

People v. !abinto+, '$0 S!R" $$', $$( -&((%. citin, People v. Daco+co+, ')* S!R" %*1 -&(('.J People v. Rodri,ue8, ')% S!R" 0(& -&(('.J and People v. 4on8ales, &*( S!R" 1$1 -&(()..
%1

People v. !abinto+, supra, $%), citin, People v. Penillos, ')% S!R" %$A -&(('.J People v. Repe, &0% S!R" $'' -&(*(..
%$

People v. !have8, '0* S!R" '1), '$' -&((0. citin, People v. 2ello, '10 S!R" 1$0, 1%' -&(($..
%%

People v. Vas<ue8, '*) S!R" &A), &0* -&((0. citin, People v. Salcedo, '01 S!R" $01 -&((0..
%A %0 %*

People v. 2erro+a, '*1 S!R" &&&, &'& -&((0.. 27"!?IS 7"H DI!TION"RG -Ath d. &((&. '*$. 3d. at $0. III, Sec. &$ -'.. People v. "cuno, 4.R. No. &1)(A$, Septe/ber 1, &(((.

%( "rt. A) A&

People v. llore,, et al., 4.R. No. &'A((*, Septe/ber &$, &(((, pp. 1)51&, citin, People v. Fider, ''1 S!R" &&0 -&((1..
A' A1 A$

!ONST., "rt. III, Sec. 1 -'.. !ONST., "rt. III, Sec. &' -1.. People v. 2olasa and Delos Re+es, 4.R. No. &'%0%$, Dece/ber '', &(((, p. 0.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECON" "!(!S!ON G.R. No. 107A8A &ebr5-r/ 20, 1996 petitioner, CEC!$! ZU$UET , vs. COURT O& PPE $S -0, $&RE"O M RT!N, respondents. "EC!S!ON MEN"OZ , J.@ This is a petition to revie# the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals, affir/in, the decision of the Re,ional Trial !ourt of Manila -2ranch L. #hich ordered petitioner to return docu/ents and papers ta;en b+ her fro/ private respondentRs clinic #ithout the latterRs ;no#led,e and consent. The facts are as follo#s= Petitioner !ecilia Bulueta is the #ife of private respondent "lfredo Martin. On March 'A, &(*', petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of /edicine, and in the presence of her /other, a driver and private respondentRs secretar+, forcibl+ opened the dra#ers and cabinet in her husbandRs clinic and too; &%0 docu/ents consistin, of private correspondence bet#een Dr. Martin and his alle,ed para/ours, ,reetin,s cards, cancelled chec;s, diaries, Dr. MartinRs passport, and photo,raphs. The docu/ents and papers #ere sei8ed for use in evidence in a case for le,al separation and for dis<ualification fro/ the practice of /edicine #hich petitioner had filed a,ainst her husband. Dr. Martin brou,ht this action belo# for recover+ of the docu/ents and papers and for da/a,es a,ainst petitioner. The case #as filed #ith the Re,ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 2ranch L, #hich, after trial, rendered :ud,/ent for private respondent, Dr. "lfredo Martin, declarin, hi/ Kthe capitalDe3clusive o#ner of the properties described in para,raph 1 of plaintiffRs !o/plaint or those further described in the Motion to Return and SuppressK and orderin, !ecilia Bulueta and an+ person actin, in her behalf to a i//ediatel+ return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pa+ hi/ P%,))).)), as no/inal da/a,esJ P%,))).)), as /oral da/a,es and attorne+Rs feesJ and to pa+ the costs of the suit. The #rit of preli/inar+ in:unction earlier issued #as /ade final and petitioner !ecilia Bulueta and her attorne+s and representatives #ere en:oined fro/ Kusin, or sub/ittin,Dad/ittin, as evidenceK the docu/ents and papers in <uestion. On appeal, the !ourt of "ppeals affir/ed the decision of the Re,ional Trial !ourt. 6ence this petition. There is no <uestion that the docu/ents and papers in <uestion belon, to private respondent, Dr. "lfredo Martin, and that the+ #ere ta;en b+ his #ife, the herein petitioner, #ithout his ;no#led,e and consent. For that reason, the trial court declared the docu/ents and papers to be properties of private respondent, ordered petitioner to return the/ to private respondent and en:oined her fro/ usin, the/ in evidence. In appealin, fro/ the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals affir/in, the trial courtRs decision, petitionerRs onl+ ,round is that in "lfredo Martin v. "lfonso Feli3, 9r., & this !ourt ruled that the docu/ents and papers -/ar;ed as "nne3es "5& to 950 of respondentRs co//ent in that case. #ere ad/issible in evidence and, therefore, their use b+ petitionerRs attorne+, "lfonso Feli3 did not constitute /alpractice or ,ross /isconduct, For this reason it is contended that the !ourt of "ppeals erred in affir/in, the decision of the trial court instead of dis/issin, private respondentRs co/plaint. PetitionerRs contention has no /erit. The case a,ainst "tt+. Feli3, 9r. #as for disbar/ent. "/on, other thin,s, private respondent, Dr. "lfredo Martin, as co/plainant in that case, char,ed that in usin, the

docu/ents in evidence, "tt+. Feli3, 9r. co//itted /alpractice or ,ross /isconduct because of the in:unctive order of the trial court. In dis/issin, the co/plaint a,ainst "tt+. Feli3, 9r., this !ourt too; note of the follo#in, defense of "tt+. Feli3J 9r. #hich it found to be Ki/pressed #ith /erit=K' On the alle,ed /alpractice or ,ross /isconduct of respondent E"lfonso Feli3, 9r.F, he /aintains that= .... $. Hhen respondent refiled !eciliaRs case for le,al separation before the Pasi, Re,ional Trial !ourt, there #as ad/ittedl+ an order of the Manila Re,ional Trial !ourt prohibitin, !ecilia fro/ usin, the docu/ents "nne3 K"5& to 950.K On Septe/ber A, &(*1, ho#ever havin, appealed the said order to this !ourt on a petition for certiorari, this !ourt issued a restrainin, order on aforesaid date #hich order te/poraril+ set aside the order of the trial court. 6ence, durin, the enforceabilit+ of this !ourtRs order, respondentRs re<uest for petitioner to ad/it the ,enuineness and authenticit+ of the sub:ect anne3es cannot be loo;ed upon as /alpractice. Notabl+, petitioner Dr. Martin finall+ ad/itted the truth and authenticit+ of the <uestioned anne3es, "t that point in ti/e, #ould it have been /alpractice for respondent to use petitionerRs ad/ission as evidence a,ainst hi/ in the le,al separation case pendin, in the Re,ional Trial !ourt of Ma;atiV Respondent sub/its it is not /alpractice. Si,nificantl+, petitionerRs ad/ission #as done not thru his counsel but b+ Dr. Martin hi/self under oath, Such verified ad/ission constitutes an affidavit, and, therefore, receivable in evidence a,ainst hi/. Petitioner beca/e bound b+ his ad/ission. For !ecilia to avail herself of her husbandRs ad/ission and use the sa/e in her action for le,al separation cannot be treated as /alpractice. Thus, the ac<uittal of "tt+. Feli3, 9r. in the ad/inistrative case a/ounts to no /ore than a declaration that his use of the docu/ents and papers for the purpose of securin, Dr. MartinRs ad/ission as to their ,enuiness and authenticit+ did not constitute a violation of the in:unctive order of the trial court. 2+ no /eans does the decision in that case establish the ad/issibilit+ of the docu/ents and papers in <uestion. It cannot be overe/phasi8ed that if "tt+. Feli3, 9r. #as ac<uitted of the char,e of violatin, the #rit of preli/inar+ in:unction issued b+ the trial court, it #as onl+ because, at the ti/e he used the docu/ents and papers, enforce/ent of the order of the trial court #as te/poraril+ restrained b+ this !ourt. The TRO issued b+ this !ourt #as eventuall+ lifted as the petition for certiorari filed b+ petitioner a,ainst the trial courtRs order #as dis/issed and, therefore, the prohibition a,ainst the further use of the docu/ents and papers beca/e effective a,ain. Indeed the docu/ents and papers in <uestion are inad/issible in evidence. The constitutional in:unction declarin, Kthe privac+ of co//unication and correspondence Eto beF inviolableK 1 is no less applicable si/pl+ because it is the #ife -#ho thin;s herself a,,rieved b+ her husbandRs infidelit+. #ho is the part+ a,ainst #ho/ the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The onl+ e3ception to the prohibition in the !onstitution is if there is a Kla#ful order Efro/ aF court or #hen public safet+ or order re<uires other#ise, as prescribed b+ la#.K$ "n+ violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inad/issible Kfor an+ purpose in an+ proceedin,.K % The inti/acies bet#een husband and #ife do not :ustif+ an+ one of the/ in brea;in, the dra#ers and cabinets of the other and in ransac;in, the/ for an+ telltale evidence of /arital infidelit+. " person, b+ contractin, /arria,e, does not shed hisDher inte,rit+ or his ri,ht to privac+ as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to hi/ or to her.

The la# insures absolute freedo/ of co//unication bet#een the spouses b+ /a;in, it privile,ed. Neither husband nor #ife /a+ testif+ for or a,ainst the other #ithout the consent of the affected spouse #hile the /arria,e subsists.A Neither /a+ be e3a/ined #ithout the consent of the other as to an+ co//unication received in confidence b+ one fro/ the other durin, the /arria,e, save for specified e3ceptions.0 2ut one thin, is freedo/ of co//unicationJ <uite another is a co/pulsion for each one to share #hat one ;no#s #ith the other. "nd this has nothin, to do #ith the dut+ of fidelit+ that each o#es to the other. H6 R FOR , the petition for revie# is D NI D for lac; of /erit. SO ORD R D. Re alado" Romero and Puno" ##." concur. &oot0otes
& ' 1 $ % A 0

&A1 S!R" &&& -&(**.. 3d. at &')5&'&, &'A. &(01 !ONST., "rt. IV, T$-&.J &(*0 !ONST., "rt. III, T1-&.. 3d. &(01 !ONST., "RT. IV, T$-'.J &(*0 !ONST., "rt. III, T1-'.. Rule &1), T''. Rule &1), T'$.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION G.R. Nos. 1705A8-A9 )50e 17, 2007 PEOP$E O& T%E P%!$!PP!NES, appellee, vs. GO"O&RE"O #. "OR -0, "!OS" "O #. "OR !!!, appellants. D PUNO, J.@ The <uiescence of the fadin, da+ #as shattered b+ bursts of ,unfire, startlin, the other#ise tran<uil but san,uine fol;s of Pacol, Na,a !it+. "s the fusillade of shots ceased and the #isp of s/o;e cleared, frolic;in, pro/enaders stu/bled upon O/pon, !have8 #ho #as ,aspin, his last, clutchin, his intestines #hich had spe#ed out fro/ his bloodied sto/ach. 6e did not in fact reach the hospital alive. " breath a#a+, "be !u+a la+ lifeless on the pave/ent. 6e died on the spot. For the t#inned deaths, the "dors, si3 -A. of the/, #ere haled to court. In t#o -'. separate infor/ations,& Diosdado Sr.,' Diosdado 9r., Diosdado III, 4odofredo, Rosalino and "llan, all surna/ed "dor, #ere char,ed #ith the /urder of "bsalon K"beK S. !u+a III and Rodolfo KO/pon,K S. !have8. The Infor/ations in !ri/. !ases Nos. (05A*&% and (05A*&A identicall+ read= That on or about March &), &((0, in the !it+ of Na,a, Philippines, and #ithin the :urisdiction of this 6onorable !ourt, the above5na/ed accused, conspirin,, confederatin, to,ether and /utuall+ helpin, one another, #ith intent to ;ill, #ith treacher+ and the aid of ar/ed /en, did then and there #illfull+, unla#full+ and feloniousl+ shoot "2S"7ON K"2 K !>G" III -RODO7FO KOMPOK !6"V B + S"N "NDR S1 for !ri/. !ase No. (05A*&A. #ith firear/s, inflictin, upon hi/ /ultiple and /ortal ,unshot #ounds #hich caused his death, to the da/a,e and pre:udice of his heirs. Hith the a,,ravatin, circu/stance of evident pre/editation and ni,htti/e. !ONTR"RG TO 7"H. 6o#ever, onl+ four -$. of the si3 -A. "dors, na/el+, Diosdado Sr., 4odofredo, Rosalino and "llan, #ere ta;en into custod+. The t#o -'., Diosdado 9r. and Diosdado III, re/ained at lar,e. Trial thus proceeded onl+ a,ainst Diosdado Sr., 4odofredo, Rosalino and "llan #ho all pleaded not ,uilt+. Diosdado Sr. is the father of Diosdado 9r., Diosdado III and 4odofredo, #hile Rosalino is the father of "llan. Diosdado Sr. and Rosalino are brothers.$ In its effort to secure the conviction of the accused, the prosecution presented a total of si3teen -&A. #itnesses= Merc+ 2eriSa, 7arr+ !ado, Medico57e,al Officer of Na,a !it+ Dr. 9oel S. 9urado, Police Inspector Ma. 9ulieta Ra8onable, SPO& 2en:a/in 2arbosa, SPO1 "u,usto 2asa,re, Ma:or rnesto Idian, Inspector Re+naldo F. Ful,ar, SPO& Noli Re+es Sol, SPO1 duardo !. 2athan, Inspector Vicente !. 7auta, rnani !astillo, PO1 "u,usto I. Nepo/uceno, "bsalon !u+a Sr., fren !have8 and Pablo !alsis. Fro/ the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that on March &), &((0, at around seven5thirt+ in the evenin,, #hile Merc+ 2eriSa, 7arr+ !ado and so/e eleven -&&. others #ere leisurel+ #al;in, alon, ?ilo/eter && on their #a+ to Bone &, ?ilo/eter &), Pacol, Na,a !it+, to attend a #eddin, anniversar+, the+ heard several ,unshots. Shortl+ after, the+ /et a certain Pablito >/ali #ho told the/ that !ISION

KO/pon,K !have8 had been shot. The+ ran to !have8 strai,ht off and sa# hi/ alread+ l+in, on the ,round, about &W /eters a#a+ fro/ a li,hted electric post, holdin, on to his intestines #hich #ere startin, to co/e out. 2eriSa shoo; !have8 and as;ed hi/ #hat had happened. !have8 replied Ktinamban an 4ami na AdorK -KHe #ere a/bushed b+ the "dorsK. and re<uested that he be brou,ht to the hospital as he #as d+in,. "bout ei,ht -*. /eters fro/ #here !have8 #as, in a dar; spot, la+ K"beK !u+a, dead.% >pon learnin, of the shootin, incident throu,h their radio co//unication, SPO& 2en:a/in 2arbosa, to,ether #ith PO' "le3ander Dia8, i//ediatel+ proceeded to the cri/e scene to conduct an investi,ation. SPO1 duardo 2athan and SPO& Hilfredo Fernande8, a/on, others, #ere alread+ there.A SPO& 2arbosa collected so/e pieces of evidence, too; so/e pictures and /ade so/e s;etches. 0 SPO& Fernande8 on the other hand intervie#ed one !resenciana Mendo8a in her house #hich #as nearb+, and #hen he heard people shout that !have8 #as still alive, he brou,ht !have8 to the hospital but the latter e3pired on the #a+.* That sa/e evenin,, upon bein, infor/ed that the "dors had a lon,5standin, ,rud,e a,ainst the !u+as, SPO& 2arbosa sou,ht the help of then 2aran,a+ !aptain 9osue Pere8 to acco/pan+ hi/ to the residence of the "dors. The+ arrived at the "dors at around ten oIcloc; that evenin, and spo;e #ith their patriarch, Diosdado "dor Sr. SPO& 2arbosa loo;ed for the other /ale /e/bers of the "dor fa/il+ but #as told b+ Diosdado Sr. that the+ #ere alread+ asleep. Diosdado Sr. nevertheless pro/ised to present the/ the follo#in, da+.( The follo#in, /ornin,, March &&, &((0, 2aran,a+ !aptain Pere8 acco/panied the "dors, na/el+, Diosdado Sr., Diosdado III, 4odofredo, Rosalino, "llan and Re+naldo, to SPO& 2arbosa at the PNP !entral Police 6ead<uarters. The "dors #ere infor/ed of their constitutional ri,hts to re/ain silent and to choose their o#n counsel. The+ #ere then brou,ht to the PNP !ri/e 7aborator+ at the Provincial 6ead<uarters and sub:ected to paraffin tests. &) On the #a+ to the cri/e laborator+, 4odofredo told his police escort that he had been entrusted #ith a hand,un #hich he ;ept in his residence.&& The infor/ation #as rela+ed to Ma:or rnesto Idian, then Deput+ !hief of Police of Na,a !it+, #ho ordered PO1 "u,usto I. Nepo/uceno to acco/pan+ hi/ in recoverin, the ,un because 4odofredo said that he #ould turn in the ,un onl+ to PO1 Nepo/uceno. Thus, Ma:or Idian, PO1 Nepo/uceno and so/e others acco/panied 4odofredo to the latterIs residence. >pon reachin, the "dor residence, 4odofredo, to,ether #ith PO1 Nepo/uceno, #ent to their bac;+ard, retrieved the ,un fro/ under a fallen coconut trun; and turned it in to the latter. 4odofredo alle,edl+ told the police that he fired the said ,un outside their house on the ni,ht of March &) after he heard several ,unshots.&' PO1 Nepo/uceno identified the ,un as a caliber .1* Kpalti;K hand,un #hich had no serial nu/ber.&1 PO1 Nepo/uceno then turned over the hand,un to Ma:or Idian &$ #ho li;e#ise identified it as a .1* caliber revolver. Ma:or Idian returned the hand,un to PO1 Nepo/uceno for ballistic and paraffin e3a/ination.&% Thereafter, PO1 Nepo/uceno placed his initials on the ,un and put it in his private loc;er #hile preparin, the docu/ents for the e3a/inations and the possible filin, of a case for Ille,al Possession of Firear/.&A "lso, on the sa/e da+, March &&, &((0, Dr. 9oel S. 9urado, Medico57e,al Officer of Na,a !it+, conducted an autops+ on the bodies of !have8 and !u+a. 2ased on the autops+ reports, Dr. 9urado testified that !u+a sustained five -%. ,unshot #ounds and died fro/ Kcardio5pul/onar+ arrest, /assive intra5thoracic, intra5abdo/inal, intra5cranial he/orrha,e secondar+ to /ultiple ,unshot #ounds penetratin, the heart, brain, lun,s and di,estive tract.K&0 !have8 on the other hand had three -1. ,unshot #ounds and died fro/ Ktrau/atic shoc; and /assive intra5abdo/inal he/orrha,e secondar+

to /ultiple ,unshot #ounds penetratin, the ri,ht ;idne+ and the internal abdo/inal or,ans.K &* Dr. 9urado further testified that that he recovered a slu, fro/ !u+aIs head three -1. da+s after he conducted the autops+ 5 after !u+aIs relatives called his attention to a protrudin, /ass in !u+aIs head. Thus, he had !u+aIs cadaver sent bac; to the funeral parlor, opened it and #as able to e3tract a defor/ed .1* caliber slu, #hich he thereafter sub/itted to the !it+ ProsecutorIs Office.&( Police Inspector Re+naldo Ful,ar, !hief of the Firear/ Identification Section of the PNP !ri/e 7aborator+, !a/p Ola, 7e,aspi !it+, testified that based on the ballistic e3a/ination he conducted on the bullets sub/itted to his office, the .1* caliber slu, recovered fro/ !u+aIs head /atched the three -1. .1* caliber test bullets #hich #ere test5fired fro/ the suspected firear/ surrendered b+ 4odofredo. 6e ho#ever averred that the .1* caliber bullets #ere actuall+ fired fro/ a .1%0 S/ith and Hesson Ma,nu/ ho/e/ade revolver #ithout serial nu/ber, and not fro/ a .1* caliber revolver.') The paraffin casts ta;en fro/ the "dors #ere also trans/itted to the PNP !ri/e 7aborator+ Services for e3a/ination and +ielded the presence of ,unpo#der nitrates, thus N -&. Diosdado ". "dor N both hands, positiveJ -'. Diosdado 2. "dor III N ri,ht hand, positiveJ left hand, ne,ativeJ -1. 4odofredo 2. "dor N ri,ht hand, positiveJ left hand, ne,ativeJ -$. Rosalino ". "dor N both hands, positiveJ -%. Re+naldo T. "dor N both hands, ne,ativeJ'& -A. "llan T. "dor N both hands, positive.'' "bsalon !u+a Sr., father of deceased !u+a III, said that the ;illin, of his son #as driven b+ the lon,5 standin, feud bet#een the "dors and his fa/il+. 6e said that Diosdado 9r. had earlier accused his other son 7iberato of frustrated ho/icide for alle,edl+ stabbin, hi/ -Diosdado 9r... '1 Then, "delina, a dau,hter of Diosdado Sr., filed a case for abduction #ith /ultiple rape a,ainst hi/, "bsalon III, Ra+ne and 9osephine, all surna/ed !u+a, after the ro/antic relationship bet#een "delina and his deceased son "bsalon III turned sour.'$ 6e also presented official receipts of the funeral and burial e3penses #hich a/ounted to P&),'1).)).'% fren !have8, brother of deceased !have8, li;e#ise spo;e of the ani/osit+ bet#een the !have8 and the "dor fa/ilies. 6e produced a certification fro/ the PNP Na,a !it+ Police Station that on Februar+ &0, &((0, a blotter #as entered in the Dail+ Record of vents sho#in, that deceased !have8 reported a certain Ricardo "dor #ho #hile under the influence of li<uor caused hi/ ph+sical in:ur+. 'A The #itness li;e#ise presented an official receipt sho#in, that the fa/il+ spent P1,%)).)) for the funeral of the deceased !have8.'0 "fter presentin, !have8, the prosecution rested its case. On "pril 0, &((*, the four -$. accused filed a de/urrer to evidence Kfor utter lac; of evidence.K '* On Ma+ &1, &((*, the trial court dis/issed the cases a,ainst Diosdado Sr., Rosalino and "llan but denied the de/urrer to evidence a,ainst 4odofredo N H6 R FOR , this !ourt finds the de/urrer to evidence to be :ustified for the accused Diosdado ". "dor, "llan T. "dor and Rosalino "dor, hence, the sa/e is hereb+ ,ranted insofar as these accused are concerned. Said accused therefore, na/el+= Diosdado ". "dor, "llan T. "dor and Rosalino "dor are "!P>ITT D in !ri/. !ases Nos. (05A*&% and (05A*&A. The bailbonds posted for their provisional libert+ are hereb+ cancelled. Trial of the case insofar as 4odofredo 2. "dor is concerned shall proceed. SO ORD R D.'(

Thus, trial proceeded a,ainst 4odofredo. For his defense, 4odofredo denied an+ participation in the ;illin,s of !u+a and !have8. 6e said that on March &), &((0, at around seven oIcloc; in the evenin,, he heard several ,unshots #hile he #as havin, dinner #ith his #ife and four -$. children in their house in Pacol, Na,a !it+. Since his #ife advised hi/ not to ,o out an+/ore, he slept after dinner. The follo#in, da+, #hile he #as ,atherin, pili nuts, his lon,5ti/e friend Do/inador 2autista arrived and as;ed hi/ to ,o do#n fro/ the tree. 2autista #anted to borro# /one+ and on his #a+ to see hi/, found a ,un b+ the footpath. 2autista ,ave the ,un to hi/. It #as his first ti/e to hold a ,un. 6e tried it out and fired three -1. ti/es. "fter firin, the ,un, he re/oved the e/pt+ shells fro/ its cha/bers and thre# the/ a#a+. 6e then #rapped the ,un #ith plastic and hid it under a coconut trun;. 2autista left #hen he told hi/ that he had no /one+. 6e then continued to ,ather pili nuts until Ma:or Idian and three -1. other police/en ca/e. 4odofredoIs father told hi/ that the+ #ere bein, suspected of ;illin, !have8 and !u+a the ni,ht before. Thus, the+ #ent to the provincial head<uarters, #ere sub:ected to paraffin testin, and /ade to si,n a blan; bond paper. "fter that, the+ #ent bac; to the central police station. "t the central police station, 4odofredo narrated to a certain !alabia that that /ornin,, his friend 2autista found a ,un alon, the road and ,ave it to hi/. 6e hid the ,un under a coconut trun;. !alabia rela+ed the infor/ation to Ma:or Idian #ho directed PO1 Nepo/uceno to ,o #ith 4odofredo to ,et the ,un. 4odofredo led PO1 Nepo/uceno to #here he hid the ,un, retrieved it and handed it to the latter. The+ then returned to the police head<uarters #here he #as :ailed. 6e asserted that the ,un presented in court is different fro/ the ,un he surrendered to the police.1) 2autista corroborated 4odofredoIs stor+. 6e testified that he found the ,un #hich 4odofredo +ielded to PO1 Nepo/uceno. 6e said that he #as on his #a+ to see 4odofredo to borro# /one+ #hen he chanced upon the hand,un on the path#a+. 6e ,ave the ,un to 4odofredo and the latter tested it b+ pullin, its tri,,er. "fter firin, the ,un, 4odofredo re/oved the e/pt+ shells and thre# the/. 4odofredo then #rapped the ,un #ith plastic and hid it under a fallen coconut trun;.1& Mean#hile, Diosdado 9r. #as arrested on October (, &((*, at 2aran,a+ DoSa, Orani, 2ataan, and co//itted to the Na,a !it+ 9ail on Nove/ber &0, &((*, #hile Diosdado III surrendered to the court and #as co//itted to the sa/e cit+ :ail on Nove/ber '', &((*. On Nove/ber '1, &((*, both Diosdado 9r. and Diosdado III #ere arrai,ned and entered a plea of not ,uilt+. 6ence, trial a,ainst the/ co//enced and proceeded :ointl+ #ith the case of the re/ainin, accused, 4odofredo. The prosecution presented Pablo !alsis 1' as a #itness a,ainst Diosdado 9r. and Diosdado III. !alsis testified that on March &), &((0, at around 0=1) in the evenin,, he dropped b+ the house of !resenciana Mendo8a #ho/ he fondl+ called 7ola ?isin, at ?ilo/eter &), Pacol, Na,a !it+, before ,oin, ho/e fro/ #or;. "fter as;in, per/ission fro/ her to ,o ho/e and #hile about to urinate outside her house, he heard several ,unshots. 6e duc;ed b+ a sine uelas tree at a nearb+ flo#er plantation. "s he #as about to stand up, he sa# Disodado 9r., Diosdado III, 4odofredo and another unidentified /an run a#a+. 4odofredo #as carr+in, a short firear/ #hile Diosdado 9r. had a lon, firear/. 11 6e sa# !have8 and !u+a l+in, on the road. !have8 #as about five -%. /eters a#a+ fro/ #here he stood #hile !u+a #as ten -&). /eters a#a+. The place #as illu/inated b+ a bri,ht li,ht fro/ an electric post. There #ere no other people around. !alsis ran a#a+ for fear that he /i,ht be identified b+ the assailants. 6e heard !have8 /u/blin, but shir;ed nevertheless.1$ !alsis narrated to "bsalon !u+a Sr. #hat he sa# onl+ after about one -&. +ear and nine -(. /onths. Fear struc; hi/.1% 6e /aintained that he ;ne# the assailants because he and his #ife lived in the house of 7ola ?isin, after the+ ,ot /arried.1A I//ense fear prevented hi/ fro/ attendin, to !have8, even #hile he heard hi/ /ur/urin,, and fro/ infor/in, the fa/ilies of the victi/s of the incident that ver+

sa/e ni,ht. 6e #as about to tell the !have8 fa/il+ the follo#in, /ornin, but #as counseled b+ his 7ola 2adin,, the sister of his 7ola ?isin,, a,ainst ,ettin, involved in the case. 10 !alsis and his fa/il+ left their residence in Pacol one -&. /onth after the incident because he #as afraid the assailants /i,ht have identified hi/.1* ven 7ola ?isin, left her residence t#o -'. /onths after the incident. 1( It #as onl+ after he learned fro/ "bsalon !u+a Sr. that the trial court dis/issed the cases for lac; of evidence insofar as so/e of the ori,inal accused #ere concerned that he too; pit+ on the respective fa/ilies of the victi/s #ho have failed to ,et :ustice for the death of their loved ones.$) In defense, Diosdado 9r. testified that on March &), &((0, he #as in Mari;ina !it+ #or;in, as a #arehouse/an and ti/e;eeper of the !onsuelo 2uilders !orporation. 6e #as there the #hole ti/e fro/ Februar+ &%, &((0, until March '$, &((0. $& Pablo "spe, a co5#or;er of Diosdado 9r., corroborated the latterIs testi/on+. 6e said that on Februar+ &%, &((0, he and Diosdado 9r. left Pacol, Na,a !it+, to,ether to #or; in !onsuelo !onstruction in Mari;ina !it+. The+ #ere #ith each other in Mari;ina !it+ the #hole ti/e fro/ Februar+ &%, &((0, until he -"spe. #ent ho/e to Na,a !it+ on March '', &((0. Hhile in Mari;ina !it+, the+ resided and slept to,ether in their barrac;s at the construction site.$' Diosdado III also too; the #itness stand. On March &), &((0, at around seven oIcloc; in the evenin,, he #as at their house at Bone &, Pacol, Na,a !it+, #atchin, television #ith his parents and cousins Re+naldo and "llan #hen the+ heard ,unshots. The+ i,nored the ,unshots, continued #atchin, television and slept at ei,ht oIcloc;. The follo#in, da+, at around si3 oIcloc; in the /ornin,, #hile he #as fetchin, #ater, four -$. police/en arrived at their house and tal;ed to his father. Thereafter, his father called hi/, his brother 4odofredo, uncle Rosalino and cousins "llan and Re+naldo. The police/en then re<uested all of the/ to ,o to the PNP !entral Police 6ead<uarters for investi,ation re,ardin, the ;illin,s of !have8 and !u+a. >pon reachin, the police head<uarters, the+ #ere intervie#ed b+ the /edia and after#ards brou,ht to the provincial head<uarters #here the+ #ere sub:ected to paraffin tests. The+ #ere then brou,ht bac; to the !entral Police 6ead<uarters and later allo#ed to ,o bac; ho/e to Pacol. Then, so/eti/e in October, &((0, his father #as arrested b+ the police. Diosdado III #as at their residence #hen his father #as pic;ed up. Onl+ his father #as ta;en b+ the police. 6e continued to reside in their house until "pril, &((*, #hen he transferred to Sa,uron,, San Mi,uel, Tabaco, "lba+, to #or; as a fisher/an. On Nove/ber '&, &((*, he received a letter fro/ his father tellin, hi/ to co/e ho/e. Thus, he #ent ho/e the follo#in, da+. On Nove/ber '1, &((*, he surrendered to the court.$1 The defense also presented 2aran,a+ !aptain 9osue Pere8 and an uncle of Diosdado 9r. and Disodado III, 9ai/e 2obiles. Pere8 testified that he #as the baran,a+ captain of Pacol fro/ &(*' until Ma+, &((0. In &((A, !resenciana Mendo8a left their baran,a+ per/anentl+ to live #ith her children in Manila because she #as sic;l+ and alone in her house. 6e said that Mendo8a never ca/e bac;. 6e does not ;no# an+ Pablo !alsis and the latter could not have tal;ed to Mendo8a on March &), &((0, because at that ti/e, Mendo8a #as not there and her house #as alread+ abandoned. $$ Si/ilarl+, 2obiles confir/ed the testi/on+ that Diosdado III #or;ed as a fisher/an in Tabaco and sta+ed in his residence fro/ Ma+ &, &((*, until Nove/ber &((* #hen Diosdado III received a letter fro/ his father and had to ,o ho/e.$% In rebuttal ho#ever, prosecution #itness SPO& Fernande8 asserted that he intervie#ed !resenciana Mendo8a that fateful ni,ht of March &), &((0.$A "fter the rebuttal #itness #as presented, the cases #ere finall+ sub/itted for decision.$0 On "u,ust ', &(((, the trial court held that Ka chain of circu/stances 3 3 3 lead to a sound and lo,ical conclusion that indeed the accused -Diosdado III and 4odofredo. co//itted the offense char,edK $*

and as such rendered :ud,/ent N H6 R FOR , pre/ises considered, this court finds the accused 4odofredo 2. "dor and Diosdado 2. "dor III 4>I7TG be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri/e of M>RD R, defined and penali8ed under the provisions of "rticle '$* of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended b+ Republic "ct 0A%( in !ri/inal !ases Nos. (05A*&% and (05A*&A, hereb+ sentences the said accused 4odofredo 2. "dor and Diosdado 2. "dor III to suffer the penalt+ of R !7>SION P RP T>" in !ri/inal !ase No. (05A*&%J R !7>SION P RP T>" in !ri/inal !ase No. (05A*&A, to pa+ the heirs of "bsalon K"beK !u+a III P'%,))) each b+ #a+ of actual da/a,es and P%),))) in each cri/inal case b+ #a+ of inde/nit+. To pa+ the heirs of Rodolfo KO/pon,K !have8 the su/ of P%),))) in each cri/inal case b+ #a+ of inde/nit+, such accessor+ penalties as provided for b+ la# and to pa+ the cost. For insufficienc+ of the prosecution to prove the ,uilt of the accused Diosdado 2. "dor, 9r. be+ond reasonable doubt, he is hereb+ "!P>ITT D in !ri/. !ases Nos. (05A*&% and (05A*&A. The 9ail Harden of the Na,a !it+ District 9ail is hereb+ ordered to forth#ith release fro/ its custod+ the accused Diosdado 2. "dor, 9r., unless his further detention is #arranted b+ an+ other le,al cause or causes. SO ORD R D.$( 6ence, this :oint appeal interposed b+ Disodado III and 4odofredo. The+ /aintain that the trial court ,ravel+ erred in convictin, the/ of /urder based on circu/stantial evidence. The testi/on+ of prosecution #itness Pablo !alsis that he sa# the/ runnin, a#a+ fro/ the scene of the cri/e #as concocted. The hand,un turned in b+ 4odofredo #as not the sa/e ,un presented b+ the prosecution durin, the trial. The unusual discover+ of a slu, fro/ the head of the deceased 5 three -1. da+s after the autops+ #as conducted and after the cadaver #as turned over to the fa/il+ of the victi/ 5 #as <uite doubtful. ven the supposed d+in, declaration of the victi/ specificall+ pointed to neither Diosdado III nor 4odofredo. "nd, the trial court erred in ad/ittin, in evidence those ta;en a,ainst the/ in violation of their constitutional ri,hts to counsel durin, custodial investi,ation.%) The rules of evidence allo# the courts to rel+ on circu/stantial evidence to support its conclusion of ,uilt.%& It /a+ be the basis of a conviction so lon, as the co/bination of all the circu/stances proven produces a lo,ical conclusion #hich suffices to establish the ,uilt of the accused be+ond reasonable doubt.%' "ll the circu/stances /ust be consistent #ith each other, consistent #ith the theor+ that all the accused are ,uilt+ of the offense char,ed, and at the sa/e ti/e inconsistent #ith the h+pothesis that the+ are innocent and #ith ever+ other possible, rational h+pothesis e3cept that of ,uilt. %1 The evidence /ust e3clude each and ever+ h+pothesis #hich /a+ be consistent #ith their innocence. %$ "lso, it should be acted on and #ei,hed #ith ,reat caution. %% !ircu/stantial evidence #hich has not been ade<uatel+ established, /uch less corroborated, cannot b+ itself be the basis of conviction.%A Thus, for circu/stantial evidence to suffice, -&. there should be /ore than one circu/stanceJ -'. the facts fro/ #hich the inferences are derived are provenJ and -1. the co/bination of all the circu/stances is such as to produce a conviction be+ond reasonable doubt. %0 7i;e an ornate tapestr+ created out of inter#oven fibers #hich cannot be pluc;ed out and assa+ed a strand at a ti/e apart fro/ the others, the circu/stances proved should constitute an unbro;en chain #hich leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the e3clusion of all others, is ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt.%* The test to deter/ine #hether or not the circu/stantial evidence on record are sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of the circu/stances proved /ust be consistent #ith the ,uilt of the accused and inconsistent #ith his innocence. %( "ccordin,l+, #e have set ,uidelines in appreciatin, circu/stantial evidence= -&. it should be acted upon #ith cautionJ -'. all the essential facts /ust be

consistent #ith the h+pothesis of ,uiltJ -1. the facts /ust e3clude ever+ theor+ but that of ,uiltJ and -$. the facts /ust establish such a certaint+ of ,uilt of the accused as to convince the :ud,/ent be+ond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one #ho co//itted the offense.A) Measured a,ainst the ,uidelines set, #e cannot uphold the conviction of the accused based on the circu/stantial evidence presented. The first circu/stance #hich the prosecution sou,ht to prove is that the accused #ere supposedl+ seen fleein, fro/ the locus cri/inis, ar/ed #ith their respective #eapons. Thus, the trial court, ,leanin, fro/ the evidence presented, found that KE#Fhen about to stand, !alsis sa# 4odofredo 2. "dor, Diosdado 2. "dor, 9r. and Diosdado 2. "dor III, and a person ,oin, to the direction of the house of the "dors #hich is about %)) /eters a#a+.K A& In fact, prosecution #itness !alsis alle,edl+ even sa# Diosdado 9r. carr+in, Ka lon, firear/ but 3 3 3 could not deter/ine #hat ;ind of ,un it #as.K A' 6o#ever, the trial court ac<uitted Diosdado 9r. 2ut onl+ ri,htl+ so. For, !alsis had difficult+ in identif+in, the "dors not#ithstandin, his assertion that he ;ne# and sa# the/ personall+. He defer to his direct e3a/ination N "TTG. T R2IO -Private Prosecutor.= P. Gou said +ou reco,ni8ed the persons runnin,, could +ou tell us their na/esV P"27O !"7SIS= ". Ges sir. P. Na/e the/V ". 4odofredo "dor, 9r., Sadan, III. P. 6o# about the othersV ". I could not tell his na/e but if I see hi/ I could identif+ hi/. P. The $ persons #ho/ +ou sa# that ni,ht, if the+ are present in court, please point the/ outV ". Ges sir. P. Point particularl+ Go,o2re,o "dor, 9r.V ". -Hitness pointed or tapped the shoulder of a person inside the courtroo/ #ho ans#ered b+ the na/e "*os,-,o ,or, )r.. P. 6o# about this Sadan, IIIV ". -Hitness tapped the shoulder of a /an #ho ans#ered b+ the na/e of Diosdado "dor III.. P. 7i;e#ise, point to the t6*r, 1erso0V ". -Hitness pointed to - +-0O. COURT@ "e.ete t6-t 1ort*o0 2ro+ t6e recor,, 6e *s 0ot o0 tr*-.. "TTG T R2IO= P. Gou said +ou sa# $ persons, is the fourth one inside the courtroo/V ". None sir. P. 2ut if +ou sa# that person, #ill +ou be able to reco,ni8e hi/V ". Ges sir.

P. Hh+ do +ou ;no# these persons #ho/ +ou :ust tapped the shoulderV 333 P. 6o# farV ". "round &)) /eters. P. On the said date and ti/e and place, +ou said +ou sa# the/ runnin,, ho# far #ere +ou fro/ the/V ". "round &) /eters. -7mphases supplied.A1 The testi/on+ of !alsis, if at all, could hardl+ be used a,ainst Diosdado III #ho/ he /iserabl+ failed to positivel+ identif+ durin, trial. In fact, the ac<uittal of Diosdado 9r. b+ the trial court renders the entire testi/on+ of !alsis in serious doubt. !alsis #as presented to positivel+ identif+ the assailants #ho #ere supposedl+ personall+ ;no#n to hi/ and #ere :ust ten -&). /eters a#a+ fro/ hi/. It pu88les us no end #h+ he cannot even identif+ the "dors in open court. Thus, despite !alsisI assertion that Diosdado 9r. #as one of the assailants, the trial court doubted hi/ and ,ave credence to the alibi of Diosdado 9r. that the latter #as in Nan,;a, Mari;ina, #hen the ;illin,s too; place. The trial court favored the unbiased testi/on+ of "spe #ho said that Diosdado 9r. #or;ed as a ti/e;eeper and #arehouse/an #ith hi/ at the !onsuelo !onstruction at Nan,;a, Mari;ina, fro/ Februar+ &%, &((0, until March '', &((0, and #ent ho/e to Pacol onl+ on Ma+ '0, &((0. This rulin, is stren,thened b+ the fact that on the /ornin, follo#in, the ;illin,s, all the /ale /e/bers of the "dor fa/il+ #ere brou,ht to the police head<uarters for paraffin e3a/ination and Diosdado 9r. #as not a/on, the/.A$ He thus respect the findin, of the trial court that indeed Diosdado 9r. #as not at the scene of the cri/e absent an+ indication that the lo#er court overloo;ed so/e facts or circu/stances #hich if considered #ould alter the outco/e of the case.A% Hhile it is true that the courts are not bound to accept or re:ect an entire testi/on+, and /a+ believe one part and disbelieve another,AA our !onstitution and the la# /andate that all doubts /ust be resolved in favor of the accused. !alsis co//itted an obvious blunder in identif+in, the supposed assailants #hich this !ourt cannot si/pl+ let ,o. On the contrar+, it creates reasonable doubt in our /inds if !alcis reall+ sa# the persons he alle,edl+ sa# or if he #as even #here he said he #as that evenin,. For, it is ele/entar+ that the positive identification of the accused is crucial in establishin, his ,uilt be+ond reasonable doubt. That is #antin, in the instant case. Hhat is /ore, !alsisI asseverations, at the outset, could no lon,er be used a,ainst 4odofredo since both the prosecution and the defense have alread+ rested and the case a,ainst 4odofredo #as alread+ sub/itted for decision #hen !alsis #as presented. A0 Neither can the+ still be used a,ainst Diosdado 9r. #ho #as alread+ ac<uitted b+ the trial court. 2oth Diosdado III and 4odofredo denied the char,es hurled a,ainst the/. 2ut, #hile it is true that alibi and denial are the #ea;est of the defenses as the+ can easil+ be fabricated, A* absent such clear and positive identification, the doctrine that the defense of denial cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused /ust +ield to the constitutional presu/ption of innocence. A( 6ence, #hile denial is concededl+ fra,ile and unstable, the conviction of the accused cannot be based thereon. 0) The rule in cri/inal la# is fir/l+ entrenched that verdicts of conviction /ust be predicated on the stren,th of the evidence for the prosecution and not on the #ea;ness of the evidence for the defense.0& The second circu/stance is the hand,un turned in b+ 4odofredo. 2ut this #as bun,led b+ the prosecution. Ma:or Idian, Deput+ !hief of Police of the Na,a !it+ Police Station, to #ho/ the 333 333 ". I ;no# these persons havin, lived in the house of 7ola ?isin,.

hand,un #as turned over after 4odofredo surrendered it, identified it as a caliber .1* revolver, thus N "TTG T R2IO -Private Prosecutor.= P. Hhat ;ind of firear/ #as itV M"9OR IDI"N= ". Revolver hand,un, caliber .1* #ith A rounds a//unition. P. Hhat is the caliberV ". .1* caliber.0' Si/ilarl+, PO1 Nepo/uceno #ho then had been #ith the PNP for ei,ht -*. +ears alread+ and to #ho/ 4odofredo turned in the hand,un, li;e#ise identified it as a caliber .1*, thus N "TTG T R2IO -Private Prosecutor.= P. Hhat is the caliber of that ,unV PO1 N POM>! NO= ". .1* caliber.01 6o#ever, Insp. Ful,ar, !hief of the Firear/ Identification Section of the PNP !ri/e 7aborator+, testified that KEtFhe indorse/ent co/in, fro/ the !it+ Prosecutors Office 3 3 3 alle,ed that the .1* caliber live bullet #as fired fro/ a .1* caliber revolver. 2ut our office found out that the firear/ #as not a .1* caliber revolver but a .1%0 caliber revolver.K0$ !ould it be that the hand,un #as replaced before it #as turned over to the PNP !ri/e 7aborator+V Hhile the prosecution traced the trail of police officers #ho at ever+ sta,e held the ,un supposedl+ recovered fro/ 4odofredo, it never clarified this discrepanc+ #hich is <uite ,larin, to i,nore. It is difficult to believe that a Deput+ !hief of Police and a police officer of ei,ht -*. +ears #ill both /ista;e a .1%0 caliber for a .1* caliber hand,un. 7i;e#ise, a !hief of the Firear/ Identification Section of the PNP !ri/e 7aborator+ cannot be presu/ed not to ;no# the difference bet#een the t#o -'. hand,uns. Suffice it to sa+ that the prosecution failed to clear up the variance and for this !ourt to su,,est an e3planation #ould be to venture into the real/ of pure speculation, con:ecture and ,uess#or;. Thus, faced #ith the obvious disparit+ in the suspected firear/ used in the cri/e and that #hich #as turned over b+ 4odofredo, his declaration that the hand,un presented in court #as different fro/ the ,un he ,ave to the police deserves serious, if not sole consideration. !onse<uentl+, even the third circu/stance, the .1* caliber slu, supposedl+ recovered fro/ the head of the victi/ three -1. da+s after the autops+ #as conducted loses evidentiar+ value as its source is no# hi,hl+ <uestionable. It has beco/e uncertain #hether the defor/ed slu, #as fired fro/ the .1* caliber revolver turned in b+ 4odofredo or fro/ a .1%0 caliber hand,un as attested to b+ the !hief of the Firear/ Identification Section of the PNP !ri/e 7aborator+. Neither can this !ourt rel+ on the d+in, declaration of the d+in, !have8 nor on the results of the paraffin tests to convict either Diosdado III or 4odofredo or both. To refute these, #e need not ,o far and be+ond the &1 Ma+ &((* Order of the trial court partiall+ ,rantin, the de/urrer to evidence filed b+ the accused N The onl+ direct evidence introduced b+ the prosecution is the testi/on+ of Merc+ 2eriSa, that she heard Rodolfo KO/pon,K !have8 sa+ Ktina/ban,an ;a/i na "dorK -He #ere a/bushed b+ the "dors.. Sad to sa+, no specific na/e #as ever /entioned b+ the #itness. Neither #as she able to tell ho# /an+ -persons. K"dorsK #ere involved. This testi/on+ if it #ill be ,iven credence /a+ inculpate an+ person

#ith the fa/il+ na/e "dor as assailant. The prosecution therefore #as not able to establish #ith /oral certaint+ as to #ho of the "dors #ere perpetrators of the offense 3 3 3 3 Paraffin tests are not conclusive evidence that indeed a person has fired a ,un. The fact that the accused5appellants tested positive of ,unpo#der nitrates does not conclusivel+ sho# that the+ fired the /urder #eapon, or a ,un for that /atter, for such forensic evidence should be ta;en onl+ as an indication of possibilit+ or even of probabilit+, but not of infallibilit+, since nitrates are also ad/ittedl+ found in substances other than ,unpo#der. -People v. "bellarosa, 4.R. No. &'&&(%, '0 Nove/ber &((AJ People v. de 4u8/an, '%) S!R" &&*J People v. Nitcha, '$) S!R" '*1.0% Thus, #hile a d+in, declaration /a+ be ad/issible in evidence, it /ust identif+ #ith certaint+ the assailant. Other#ise, it loses its si,nificance. "lso, #hile a paraffin test could establish the presence or absence of nitrates on the hand, it cannot establish that the source of the nitrates #as the dischar,e of firear/s N a person #ho tests positive /a+ have handled one or /ore substances #ith the sa/e positive reaction for nitrates such as e3plosives, fire#or;s, fertili8ers, phar/aceuticals, tobacco and le,u/inous plants.0A In Peo1.e 4. Me.c6or,00 this !ourt ac<uitted the accused despite the presence of ,unpo#der nitrates on his hands N ESFcientific e3perts concur in the vie# that the result of a paraffin test is not conclusive. Hhile it can establish the presence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand, it does not al#a+s indubitabl+ sho# that said nitrates or nitrites #ere caused b+ the dischar,e of firear/. The person tested /a+ have handled one or /ore of a nu/ber of substances #hich ,ive the sa/e positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as e3plosives, fire#or;s, phar/aceuticals and le,u/inous plants such as peas, beans and alfalfa. " person #ho uses tobacco /a+ also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances are present in the products of co/bustion of tobacco. The presence of nitrates or nitrites, therefore, should be ta;en onl+ as an indication of a possibilit+ but not of infallibilit+ that the person tested has fired a ,un. In fine, the ad/issions /ade b+ 4odofredo to Ma:or Idian and PO1 Nepo/uceno includin, the ,un in <uestion cannot be considered in evidence a,ainst hi/ #ithout violatin, his constitutional ri,ht to counsel. 4odofredo #as alread+ under custodial investi,ation #hen he /ade his ad/issions and surrendered the ,un to the police authorities. The police had alread+ be,un to focus on the "dors and #ere carr+in, out a process of interro,ations that #as lendin, itself to elicitin, incri/inatin, state/ents and evidence= the police #ent to the "dor residence that sa/e evenin, upon bein, infor/ed that the "dors had a lon,5standin, ,rud,e a,ainst the !u+asJ the follo#in, da+, all the /ale /e/bers of the "dor fa/il+ #ere told to ,o to the police stationJ the police #as also infor/ed of the d+in, declaration of deceased !have8 pointin, to the "dors as the assailantsJ the "dors #ere all sub:ected to paraffin e3a/inationJ and, there #ere no other suspects as the police #as not considerin, an+ other person or ,roup of persons. The investi,ation thus #as no lon,er a ,eneral in<uir+ into an unsolved cri/e as the "dors #ere alread+ bein, held as suspects for the ;illin,s of !u+a and !have8. !onse<uentl+, the ri,hts of a person under custodial investi,ation, includin, the ri,ht to counsel, have alread+ attached to the "dors, and pursuant to "rt. III, Sec. &'-&. and -1., &(*0 !onstitution, an+ #aiver of these ri,hts should be in #ritin, and underta;en #ith the assistance of counsel. "d/issions under custodial investi,ation /ade #ithout the assistance of counsel are barred as evidence. 0* The records are bare of an+ indication that the accused have #aived their ri,ht to counsel, hence, an+ of their ad/issions are inad/issible in evidence a,ainst the/. "s #e have held, a suspectIs confession, #hether verbal or non5verbal, #hen ta;en #ithout the assistance of counsel #ithout a valid #aiver of such assistance re,ardless of the absence of such coercion, or the fact that it had been voluntaril+ ,iven, is inad/issible in evidence, even if such confession #ere ,ospel truth.0( Thus, in b-..e 4. Peo1.e,*) the death #eapon, a four5inch ;itchen ;nife, #hich #as

found after the accused brou,ht the police to his house and pointed to the/ the pot #here he had concealed it, #as barred fro/ ad/ission as it #as discovered as a conse<uence of an uncounseled e3tra:udicial confession. Hith hardl+ an+ substantial evidence left, the prosecution li;e#ise pla+ed up the feud bet#een the "dors on one hand and the !have8es and the !u+as on the other hand, and su,,ested that the "dors had an a3e to ,rind a,ainst the !have8es and the !u+as. For sure, /otive is not sufficient to support a conviction if there is no other reliable evidence fro/ #hich it /a+ reasonabl+ be adduced that the accused #as the /alefactor.*& Motive alone cannot ta;e the place of proof be+ond reasonable doubt sufficient to overthro# the presu/ption of innocence.*' "ll told, contrar+ to the pronounce/ents of the trial court, #e cannot rest eas+ in convictin, the t#o -'. accused based on circu/stantial evidence. For, the pieces of the said circu/stantial evidence presented do not ine3orabl+ lead to the conclusion that the+ are ,uilt+. *1 The prosecution #itness failed to identif+ the accused in court. " cloud of doubt continues to hover over the ,un used and the slu, recovered. The d+in, declaration and paraffin e3a/ination re/ain unreliable. 4odofredoIs uncounseled ad/issions includin, the ,un he turned in are barred as evidence. "nd, the supposed /otive of the accused is si/pl+ insufficient. Plainl+, the facts fro/ #hich the inference that the accused co//itted the cri/e #ere not proven. "ccordin,l+, the ,uilt of the accused cannot be established, /ore so to a /oral certaint+. It is #hen evidence is purel+ circu/stantial that the prosecution is /uch /ore obli,ated to rel+ on the stren,th of its o#n case and not on the #ea;ness of the defense, and that conviction /ust rest on nothin, less than /oral certaint+.*$ !onse<uentl+, the case of the prosecution has been reduced to nothin, but /ere suspicions and speculations. It is hornboo; doctrine that suspicions and speculations can never be the basis of conviction in a cri/inal case.*% !ourts /ust ensure that the conviction of the accused rests fir/l+ on sufficient and co/petent evidence, and not the results of passion and pre:udice. *A If the alle,ed inculpator+ facts and circu/stances are capable of t#o -'. or /ore e3planations, one of #hich is consistent #ith the innocence of the accused, and the other consistent #ith his ,uilt, then the evidence is not ade<uate to support conviction.*0 The court /ust ac<uit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of /oral certaint+ and is therefore insufficient to support a :ud,/ent of conviction. ** !onviction /ust rest on nothin, less than a /oral certaint+ of the ,uilt of the accused. *( The overridin, consideration is not #hether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but #hether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his ,uilt. () It is thus apropos to repeat the doctrine that an accusation is not, accordin, to the funda/ental la#, s+non+/ous #ith ,uilt N the prosecution /ust overthro# the presu/ption of innocence #ith proof of ,uilt be+ond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to dischar,e its burden. "ccordin,l+, #e have to ac<uit. !N (!E9 9%EREO&, the Decision of the Re,ional Trial !ourt of Na,a !it+, 2r. '%, in !ri/. !ases Nos. (05A*&% and (05A*&A dated "u,ust ', &(((, findin, accused5appellants 4odofredo 2. "dor and Diosdado 2. "dor III ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of t#o -'. counts of /urder and i/posin, on the/ the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua, is hereb+ R V RS D and S T "SID . "ccused5appellants 4odofredo 2. "dor and Diosdado 2. "dor III are "!P>ITT D on reasonable doubt and their IMM DI"T R 7 "S is hereb+ ORD R D unless the+ are bein, held for so/e other le,al cause. SO OR"ERE". !uisumbin " Austria?Martine(" Calle*o" Sr." and 8in a" ##." concur. &oot0otes

& '

2oth dated &' Nove/ber &((0J Rollo, pp. &05&*.

Diosdado ". "dor Sr. is interchan,eabl+ referred to in the different parts of the records as si/pl+, Diosdado ". "dor, #ithout the suffi3 KSr.K
1

Prosecution #itnesses referred to !have8 as KO/pon,K. '0 Ma+ &(((, pp. '51J &$5&%. 3d., &* Februar+ &((*, pp. *5&', 'A. 3d." $ Februar+ &((*, pp. %5A. 3d., pp. 05(. Id., 1) 9une &(((, pp. $5%. 3d., $ Februar+ &((*, pp. &&5&$. 3d., pp. &%, 'A, 11J 3hibit KFK -Investi,ation Report., Folder of 3hibits, pp. '&5'A. 3d., 0 Dece/ber &((*, p. A. 3d., &A March &((*, pp. 1)51&.

$ TSN, % A 0 * (

&) && &' &1

3d., p. 1&. The investi,ation report of SPO& 2arbosa - 3hibit KF5$K. states that the ,un recovered #as Kan unlicensed revolver, caliber .1*, TM 5 S/ith and Hesson, -Palti;. #ithout serial nu/ber.K
&$ &% &A &0

3d., 'A Februar+ &((*, pp. &15&$. 3d., pp. *5(. 3d., &A March &((*, pp. &*51$.

3d., &0 Dece/ber &((*, pp. &&5&%J "utops+ Report dated && March &((0, Ori,inal Records of !ri/. !ase No. (05A*&%, p. *.
&*

3d., &0 Dece/ber &((*, pp. &A5&0J "utops+ Report dated &' March &((0, Ori,inal Records, !ri/. !ase No. (05A*&A, p. *.
&( ') '&

3d." &A March &((*, pp. &)5&'J 3hibit KNK, Folder of 3hibits, p. $0. 3d., ( Februar+ &(((, pp. A50J 3hibit KP,K Folder of 3hibits, p. $(.

Hhile Re+naldo "dor #as sub:ected to paraffin testin,, he #as not a/on, those eventuall+ char,ed. On the other hand, Diosdado "dor 9r. #ho #as char,ed #as not sub:ected to paraffin testin,.
''

9ud,/ent of the trial court, pp. &A5&0J Rollo, pp. A)5A&J 3hibits K2,K K!,K KD,K and K ,K Folder of 3hibits, pp. &5').
'1 TSN, '$

&A March &((*, pp. $'5$$.

3hibit KLK, Folder of 3hibits, pp. 0)5*)J The trial courtIs findin, that it #as the brother of victi/ !u+a, "bsalon !u+a II, #ho #as char,ed b+ "delina "dor of /ultiple rape is not consistent #ith the Resolution of the Office !it+ Prosecutor dated 9une &1, &((A in I.S. No. (A5 )1*).
'%

3hibits KV5'K to KV5*K, Folder of 3hibits, pp. %05A1.

'A '0 '* '(

3hibit KVK for !ri/. !ase No. (05A*&A, Id., p. %$. 3hibits KHK and KH5&K for !ri/. !ase No. (05A*&A, Id., pp. A05A*. De/urrer to vidence, p. $J Ori,inal Records, !ri/ !ase No. (05A*&%, p. &A1. &1 Ma+ &((* Order of the Trial !ourt, Ori,inal Records, !ri/. !ase No. (05A*&%, p. &($. & Septe/ber &((*, pp. 15$'. 3d., '0 "u,ust '0, &((*, pp. 15*. K!alsisK is interchan,eabl+ referred to as K!alcisK in the different parts of the records.

1) TSN, 1& 1' 11

TSN, 'A 9anuar+ &(((, pp. &)5&&J The trial court appears to have /is<uoted the testi/on+ of !alcis #hen in its ' "u,ust &((( 9ud,/ent, p. &(, it stated that Diosdado "dor III #as the one carr+in, a lon, firear/.
1$ 1% 1A 10 1* 1( $) $& $' $1 $$ $% $A $0 $* $( %) %& %' %1

3d., pp. '5&1J * Februar+ &(((, p. &A. 3bid. 3d., pp. %5A. 3d., pp. &05&*. 3d., p. 0. 3d., pp. &)5&&. 3d., pp. ')5'&. 3d., '% Ma+ &(((, pp. 05*. 3d., &(, Ma+ &(((, pp. A5*. 3d., '0 Ma+ &(((, pp. '5&). 3d., &$ 9une &(((, pp. 150. 3d., pp. &$5&A. 3d., 1) 9une &(((, pp. 15%. 3d., p. &A. 9ud,/ent of the trial court, p. '$J Rollo, p. A*. 3d., p. '%J Id., p. A(. Rollo, pp. &)15&)$. People v. "+ola, 4.R. No. &1*('1, $ Septe/ber '))&, 1A$ S!R" $%&. People v. !oncepcion, 4.R. No. &1&$00, ') "pril '))&, 1%0 S!R" &A*.

People v. Flores, 4.R. No. &&A$**, 1& Ma+ '))&, 1%* S!R" 1&(J People v. "briol, 4.R. No. &'1&10, &0 October '))&, 1A0 S!R" 1'0.
%$ %%

People v. 2ato, 4.R. No. &&1*)$, &A 9anuar+ '))&, '*$ S!R" ''1. People v. Solis, 4.R. No. &1*(1A, 1) 9anuar+ '))&, 1%) S!R" A)*.

%A

People v. 2ato, 4.R. No. &&1*)$, &A 9anuar+ '))&, '*$ S!R" ''1J People v. Maluenda, 4.R. No. &&%1%&, '0 March &((*, '** S!R" ''%.
%0

People v. Olivio, 9r., 4.R. No. &1)11%, &* 9anuar+ '))&, 1$( S!R" $((J People v. 7u,od, 4.R. No. &1A'%1, '& Februar+ '))&, 1%' S!R" $(*J People v. 7avapie, 4.R. No. &1)')(, &$ March '))&, 1%$ S!R" 1%&J People v. llasos, 4.R. No. &1(1'1, A 9une '))&, 1%* S!R" %&AJ People v. !orre, 9r., 4.R. No. &10'0&, &% "u,ust '))&, 1A1 S!R" &A%J People v. De 7as ras, 4.R. No. &1$&'*, '* Septe/ber '))&, 1AA S!R" '1&J People v. !anlas, 4.R. No. &$&A11, &$ Dece/ber '))&, 10' S!R" $)&J People v. 2acon,uis, 4.R. No. &$(**(, ' Dece/ber '))1.
%*

People v. !onse:ero, 4.R. No. &&*11$, ') Februar+ '))&, 1%' S!R" '0AJ People v. 7eano, 4.R. No. &1***A, ( October '))&, 1AA S!R" 00$J People v. Patriarca, 4.R. No. &10*(&, && 9ul+ '))&, 1A& S!R" **J People v. Nanas, 4.R. No. &10'((, '& "u,ust '))&, 1A1 S!R" $%'.
%( A) A&

People v. "+ola, 4.R. No. &1*('1, $ Septe/ber '))&, 1A$ S!R" $%&. People v. !aba+a, 4.R. No. &'0&'(, ') 9une '))&, 1%( S!R" &&&. 9ud,/ent of the trial court, p. &(J Rollo, p. A1. 'A 9anuar+ &(((, p. &&. 3d., pp. A5*. 9ud,/ent of the trial court, p. ''J Rollo, p. AA.

A' TSN, A1 A$ A%

People vs. Pacuancua, 4.R. No. &$$%*(, &A 9une '))1J People vs. Sibon,a, 4.R. No. (%()&, &A 9une '))1.
AA

People v. !oncorcio, 4.R. Nos. &'&')&5)', &( October, '))&, 1A0 S!R" %*AJ People vs. Masapol, 4.R. No. &'&((0, &) Dece/ber '))1.
A0 The

proceedin,s before the trial court #hen Pablo !alsis #as presented b+ the prosecution #ere as follo#s= !O>RT= Place it on record that this #itness is bein, presented insofar as the accused Diosdado "dor 9r. and Diosdado "dor III #ho have recentl+ been brou,ht to the :urisdiction of this court -are concerned.. "TTG. T R2IO -Private Prosecutor.= He intend to present this #itness as an additional #itness to the one bein, tried, 4odofredo "dor, because insofar as his case is concerned, it is not +et ter/inated. !O>RT= Gou cannot do that because +ou have alread+ rested +our cases and the defense as #ell has presented its evidence -TSN, 'A 9anuar+ &(((, p. '..
A* A( 0) 0&

People v. !anton:os, 4.R. No. &1A0$*, '& Nove/ber '))&, 10) S!R" &)%. People v. !aba+a, 4.R. No. &'0&'(, ') 9une '))&, 1%( S!R" &&&. People v. Sinco, 4.R. No. &1&*1A, 1) March '))&, 1%% S!R" 0&1.

People v. Melencion, 4.R. No. &'&()', 'A March '))&, 1%% S!R" &&1J People v. Teves, 4.R. No. &$&0A0, ' "pril '))&, 1%A S!R" &$.

0' TSN, 01 0$ 0% 0A 00 0*

'A Februar+ &((*, p. *.

3d., &A March &((*, p. '). 3d., ( Februar+ &(((, p. 0. Order of the Trial !ourt, pp. %5AJ Ori,inal Records, !ri/. !ase No. (05A*&%, pp. &('5&(1. People v. "briol, 4.R. No. &'1&10, &0 October '))&, 1A0 S!R" 1'0. 4.R. No. &'$1)&, &* Ma+ &(((, 1)0 S!R" &00, &*05&**.

Sec. &', "rt. III, &(*0 !onstitution provides= K-&. "n+ person under investi,ation for the co//ission of an offense shall have the ri,ht to be infor/ed of his ri,ht to re/ain silent and to have co/petent and independent counsel preferabl+ of his o#n choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he /ust be provided #ith one. These ri,hts cannot be #aived e3cept in #ritin, and in the presence of counsel 3 3 3 3 -1. "n+ confession or ad/ission obtained in violation of this or Section &0 hereof shall be inad/issible in evidence a,ainst hi/.K
0( *) *&

People v. Sia, 4.R. No. &10$%0, '& Nove/ber '))&, 10) S!R" &'1. 4.R. No. A$)*A, &% March &((), &*1 S!R" &(A.

People v. Teves, 4.R. No. &$&A0A, ' "pril '))&, 1%A S!R" &$J People v. Sa/son, 4.R. No. &11$10, &A Nove/ber '))&, 1A( S!R" ''(.
*' *1 *$ *% *A *0

People v. Mantes, 4.R. No. &&0&AA, 1 Dece/ber &((*, '(( S!R" %A'. People v. Mi:ares, 4.R. No. &'A)$', * October &((*, '(0 S!R" %'). People v. !aparas, 9r., 4.R. Nos. &'&*&&5&', &$ Ma+ &((*, '() S!R" 0*. People v. !uadro, 4.R. No. &'$0)$, '' Februar+ '))&, 1%' S!R" %10. People v. Francisco, 4.R. Nos. &1%')&5)', &% March '))&, 1%$ S!R" $0%.

People v. Hillia/s, 4.R. No. &'%(*%, ') "pril '))&, 1%0 S!R" &'$J People v. Mariano, 4.R. No. &11((), 'A 9une '))&, 1%( S!R" A$*.
** *( ()

People v. 7eano, 4.R. No. &1***A, ( October '))&, 1AA S!R" 00$. People v. 2aulite, 4.R. No. &10%((, * October '))&, 1AA S!R" 01'.

People v. !aba+a, 4.R. No. &'0&'(, ') 9une '))&, 1%( S!R" &&&J People v. Villaflores, 4.R. Nos. &1%)A15A$, % Dece/ber '))&, 10& S!R" $'(.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila N 2"N! G.R. No. 179889 "ece+ber 2, 200A T%E PEOP$E O& T%E P%!$!PP!NES, appellee, vs. RUE$ # CONGU!S / !NSON, appellant. D C RP!O-MOR $ES, J.: On auto/atic revie# is the Decision of 9ul+ &&, '))& pro/ul,ated b+ the Re,ional Trial !ourt of !a,a+an de Oro !it+, 2ranch &*, convictin, Ruel 2acon,uis y Inson -appellant. of /urder and sentencin, hi/ to death. To the char,e of /urder alle,edl+ co//itted as follo#s, That on or about 9une '1, '))) at '=)$ earl+ in the /ornin, at Phase 1, 2loc; '&, 7ot (, Villa Trinitas Subd., 2u,o, !a,a+an de Oro !it+, and #ithin the :urisdiction of this 6onorable !ourt, the above5 na/ed accused, #ith treacher+ and #ith intent to ;ill, attac;ed one Roberto !. Mercado #ith the use of an undeter/ined caliber of a ,un thereb+ inflictin, /ortal #ounds #hich is the cause of his i//ediate death. !ontrar+ to "rticle '$* of the Revised Penal !ode, in relation to R" 0A%(, as a/ended.& appellant pleaded not ,uilt+ durin, his arrai,n/ent on 9ul+ '0, '))).' !ulled fro/ the evidence for the prosecution is its follo#in, version of the case= On 9une '1, '))), at around '=$) a./., #hile 7+dia Mercado57ledo #as sleepin, in her 15bedroo/ one store+ house, she #as a#a;ened b+ the sound of a ,unshot. She i//ediatel+ loo;ed out of her bedroo/ #indo# and sa# to her ri,ht a tall /an so/e five /eters a#a+ fro/ her 1 leave her house and :u/p over the '&D' 5 1 /eters hi,h ba/boo fence.$ 2efore the /an #ho #as #earin, ;ha;i short pants and a #hite T5shirt :u/ped, he turned his face to the left, thus enablin, her to see his sli/ face and tall nose.% 7+dia soon heard so/eone /oanin,. She thus repaired to the sala #here she found her +oun,er brother, ta3i5driver '$5+ear old Roberto Mercado -the victi/., spra#led and bleedin, on the floor. 6e #as brou,ht to the hospital but he died on the #a+ due to severe he/orrha,e resultin, fro/ a ,unshot #ound at the left chest. "side fro/ the chest, the victi/ also suffered ,unshot #ounds on his left forear/.A The investi,atin, officers found that the description of the /an seen leavin, 7+diaIs house /atched that of herein appellant Ruel 2acon,uis #ho #as a suspect in several cases of theft and robber+. In the afternoon of the incident, the police arrested appellant in the house of his in5la#s at Puro; '52, 4usa, !a,a+an de Oro !it+.0 "t about noon of the follo#in, da+ or on 9une '$, '))), appellant #as paraffin5tested and #as found positive for ,unpo#der nitrates on both hands.* 7+dia #as accordin,l+ infor/ed b+ her other brother, police/an "dolfo Mercado, that the suspect had been arrested. In the earl+ afternoon of 9une '$, '))), she #as brou,ht to the cell of the police station #here appellant #as detained and #as infor/ed that the lone detainee therein #as t6e suspect.( On !ISION

seein, appellant, she declared that he #as the /an she sa# leavin, her house and :u/pin, over the fence.&) The defense, on the other hand, denied the accusation. Profferin, alibi, appellant clai/ed that on the ni,ht of 9une '', '))), he too; a #al; alon, 7i/;et;ai #ith his co//on5la#5#ife 7ie8el Sacala, child, /other5in5la# and sister5in5la# after #hich the+ returned to the house of his in5la#sJ and at the ti/e of the incident, he #as fast asleep.&& 7ie8el corroborated appellantIs clai/, addin, that on the ni,ht of the incident she #o;e up t#ice to ,ive /il; to their '5+ear old bab+, and appellant never left the house follo#in, their return fro/ the #al;.&' !reditin, 7+diaIs positive identification of appellant as the /an she sa# leavin, her house and :u/pin, over the fence and the results of the paraffin test, the trial court convicted appellant b+ the decision on revie#,&1 the dispositive portion of #hich reads= H6 R FOR , findin, accused R> 7 2"!ON4>IS + INSON 4>I7TG be+ond reasonable doubt of the cri/e of M>RD R punishable under "rticle '$* of the Revised Penal !ode in relation to R.". 0A%(, and after ta;in, into account the presence of one ,eneric a,,ravatin, circu/stance of d#ellin,, #ithout an+ /iti,atin,, the said accused is hereb+ sentenced to suffer the supre/e penalt+ of D "T6 b+ lethal in:ection. 6e is further directed to inde/nif+ the heirs the a/ount of FIFTG T6O>S"ND P SOS as da/a,es for the death of the victi/, another FIFTG T6O>S"ND P SOS as e3e/plar+ da/a,es, actual e3penses in the a/ount of T6IRTG FO>R T6O>S"ND P SOS, plus to pa+ the costs. Pursuant to section '' of R.". 0A%( and section &) of Rule &'' of the Rules of !ourt, let the entire record of this case be for#arded to the Supre/e !ourt for auto/atic revie#. SO ORD R D.&$ In his brief, appellant proffers the follo#in, assi,n/ent of errors= I. T6 7OH R !O>RT RR D IN !ONVI!TIN4 T6 "!!>S D OF T6 !RIM !6"R4 D D SPIT F"I7>R OF T6 PROS !>TION TO PROV 6IS 4>I7T 2 GOND R "SON"27 DO>2T. II. T6 7OH R !O>RT RR D IN DISR 4"RDIN4 T6 T STIMONI S OF T6 "!!>S D "ND D F NS HITN SS S "ND IN R 7GIN4 6 "VI7G ON T6 T STIMONG OF T6 PROS !>TION HITN SS S. III. T6 7OH R !O>RT RR D IN "PPR !I"TIN4 T6 F"!T T6"T T6 "!!>S D H"S NOT "SSIST D 2G " 7"HG R D>RIN4 T6 !>STODI"7 INV STI4"TION IN VIO7"TION OF 6IS 2"SI! !ONSTIT>TION"7 RI46T. IV. T6 7OH R !O>RT RR D IN "PPR !I"TIN4 T6 PR S N! OF T6 4 N RI! "44R"V"TIN4 !IR!>MST"N! OF DH 77IN4 D SPIT T6 F"!T

T6"T IT H"S NOT "77 4 D IN T6 INFORM"TION. ->nderscorin, supplied. "ppellant <uestions his arrest as bereft of a valid #arrant. 6avin,, ho#ever, sub/itted to the :urisdiction of the trial court #hen he entered his plea &% and activel+ participated in the trial of the case, an+ infir/it+ in his arrest #as dee/ed cured.&A "ppellant li;e#ise <uestions his sub:ection to custodial interro,ation #ithout the assistance of counsel. There #as, ho#ever, nothin, inculpator+ or e3culpator+ obtained fro/ hi/ b+ the police durin, his custodial investi,ation. Hhile it cannot be denied that accused5appellant #as deprived of his ri,ht to be infor/ed of his ri,hts to re/ain silent and to have co/petent and independent counsel, he has not sho#n that, as a result of his custodial interro,ation, the police obtained an+ state/ent fro/ hi/U#hether inculpator+ or e3culpator+U#hich #as used in evidence a,ainst hi/. The records do not sho# that he had ,iven one or that, in findin, hi/ ,uilt+, the trial court relied on such state/ent 3 3 3 3 In other #ords, no uncounseled state/ent #as obtained fro/ accused5appellant #hich should have been e3cluded as evidence a,ainst hi/.&0 It bears notin, that the evidence relied upon b+ the prosecution is circu/stantial. It is settled that for circu/stantial evidence to suffice to convict, the follo#in, re<uisites /ust be /et= &. there is /ore than one circu/stanceJ '. the facts fro/ #hich the inferences are derived are provenJ and 1. the co/bination of all circu/stances is such as to produce a conviction be+ond reasonable doubt.&* The first circu/stance #hich the prosecution sou,ht to prove is that appellant #as seen leavin, the house #here the victi/ la+ bleedin, of ,unshot #ounds not lon, after a ,unshot #as heard. Prosecution #itness 7+dia identified appellant, then alone in the detention cell, and in open court as the person she sa# leavin, the house. The value of the in5court identification /ade b+ 7+dia, ho#ever, is lar,el+ dependent upon the out5of5 court identification she /ade #hile appellant #as in the custod+ of the police. In People v. 8eehan4ee" #r.,&( this !ourt held that corruption of out5of5court identification conta/inates the inte,rit+ of in5court identification durin, the trial of the case. In resolvin, the ad/issibilit+ of and rel+in, on out5of5court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test #here the+ consider the follo#in, factors, vi(= -&. the #itnessR opportunit+ to vie# the cri/inal at the ti/e of the cri/eJ -'. the #itnessR de,ree of attention at that ti/eJ -1. the accurac+ of an+ prior description ,iven b+ the #itnessJ -$. the level of certaint+ de/onstrated b+ the #itness at the identificationJ -%. the len,th of ti/e bet#een the cri/e and the identificationJ and, -A. the su,,estiveness of the identification procedure.') ->nderscorin, supplied. The totality of circumstances test has been fashioned to assure fairness as #ell as co/pliance #ith constitutional re<uire/ents of due process in re,ard to out5of5court identification.'& "ppl+in, the above5said test, there are na,,in, doubts if 7+dia had a ,ood opportunit+ to vie# the /an she sa# leavin, her house. For b+ her clai/, after hearin, a ,unshot, she stood up and KopenedK the 15 panel :alousied and ,rilled bedroo/ #indo# upon #hich she sa# a tall, sli/ /an #ho #as about % /eters a#a+ at the Kri,ht side of the #indo#KJ'' and the /an turned his face to the left, ,lancin, at the terrace'1 #hich terrace she could not see fro/ #here she #as, but #hich #as li,hted b+ an &*5#att KEnFot <uite di/K but K/ore +ello#K bulb Kattached to the road -sic..K'$ If 7+dia could not see the terrace'% #hich #as five /eters a#a+ fro/ #here she #as, ho# could the

suspect, #ho #as b+ her account also five /eters a#a+ fro/ the terrace, ,lance at the terrace b+ /erel+ turnin, his #hole face to the left, ,iven the lo,ical location of the terrace to be obli<uel+ behind -to his ri,ht. hi/. If before appellant :u/ped he #as, b+ 7+diaIs clai/, about three /eters a#a+ fro/ the li,ht bulb Kattached to the roadK #hich li,ht illu/inated the terrace, ho# could 7+dia have clearl+ seen the face of the /an turnin, his face to the leftV "s for the circu/stances surroundin, the identification process, the+ #ere clearl+ tainted b+ i/proper su,,estion. Hhile there is no la# re<uirin, a police line5up as essential to a proper identification, as even #ithout it there could still be proper identification as lon, as the police did not su,,est the identification to the #itness,'A the police in the case at bar did even /ore than su,,est to 7+dia. Thus, b+ 7+diaIs o#n account, the follo#in, transpired after she arrived at the cell #here appellant #as detained. Pros. Nolasco= On 9une '$, that is the follo#in, da+, #here #ere +ouV " = I #as in our house. P = In the afternoon or /ornin,V " = In the /ornin,, "dolfo Mercado #ent to /+ house and infor/ed /e that the+ alread+ arrested a suspect last 9une '1. P = "nd #hat did +ou do #ith that infor/ationV " = "t &=)) oRcloc; in the afternoon, 9une '$, I #ent to,ether #ith /+ brother to Puerto Police Station. P = Hhat did +ou doV " = The+ let /e see the suspect. P = Here +ou able to see the suspectV " = Ges, sir. P = Hhat #as +our reaction upon seein, the suspectV " = I #as so /ad because the person #ho/ I sa# at that ti/e #as the sa/e person.'0 333 "tt+. "8is Edefense counselF= Gou said that at about *=)) oRcloc; of the sa/e /ornin, there #ere operativeEsF fro/ the Puerto Police Station and +ou said the+ investi,ated +ou about the incidentV " = Ges, /aRa/. P = Hho a/on, the police officerEsFV " = PO1 E ddieF ";ut, PO1 Ruben and PO1 "chas. P = Gou onl+ described to the/ #hat +ou sa#, the description of the suspectV " = Ges, /aIa/. P = "bout his bein, sli/ builtV " = Ges, /aRa/. P = Gou could not deter/ine #hether he is a fair s;inEnedF or dar; personV " = I could not deter/ine.

P = In fact +ou could not deter/ine #hether there is /ar; on his faceV " = Ges, /aRa/. P = Gou said that on 9une '$, '))) +ou #ere infor/ed that there #as alread+ a suspect arrested b+ the policeV " = Ges, /aRa/. P = 2ut +ou #ere not or +ou did not acco/pan+ the police officer #here that suspect #as arrestedV " = No, /aRa/. P = So it #as not +ou #ho pointed to the suspect in order for hi/ to be arrestedV " = No /aIa/. P = "nd #hen +ou #ent to the Puerto Police Station t6e/ *0tro,5ce, to /o5 t6e s5s1ectB " = Ges /aRa/. P = Hhen did +ou first ;no# his na/eV " = Fro/ /+ brother. P = HhenV " = Hhen he #ent to the house on 9une '$ in the /ornin,. P = 96ere ,*, /o5 see t6e s5s1ect *0s*,e t6e 1o.*ce st-t*o0V " = %e C-s st*.. *0s*,e t6e ce.. C6e0 t6e/ .et +e see. P = !0 ot6er Cor,s, C6e0 /o5 s-C 6*+ 6e C-s *0s*,e t6e ce..V " = 'es, +-D-+. P = 2ut he #as alone at the ti/eV " = Ges, /aRa/. P = "nd the police officer pointed to +ou that that is Ruel 2acon,uisV " = Ges, /aRa/. P = "nd after pointin, to +ou the+ told +ou that he #as the suspectV " = Ges, /aRa/. P = "nd because of that, +ou #ere convinced that he #as the oneV " = I #as convinced because his face is the sa/e person #ho/ I sa# E:u/pF over the fence. '* - /phasis and underscorin, supplied. " sho#up, such as #hat #as underta;en b+ the police in the identification of appellant b+ 7+dia, has been held to be an underhanded /ode of identification for Kbein, pointedl+ su,,estive, ,eneratin, confidence #here there #as none, activatin, visual i/a,ination, and, all told, subvertin, their reliabilit+ as an e+e#itness.K'( 7+dia ;ne# that she #as ,oin, to identif+ a suspect, #hose na/e had priorl+ been furnished b+ her brother5police/an, #hen she #ent to the police station. "nd the police pointed appellant to her, and told her that he #as the suspect, #hile he #as behind bars, alone.1) The unusual, coarse and hi,hl+ sin,ular /ethod of identification, #hich revolts a,ainst accepted principles of scientific cri/e detection, alienates the estee/ of ever+ :ust /an, and co//ands neither respect nor acceptance.1&

In People v. Acosta,1' this !ourt re:ected the identification b+ a #itness of the accused #hile the latter #as alone in his detention cell. There, this !ourt held that the identification of the suspect, #hich #as tainted b+ the su,,estiveness of havin, the #itness identif+ hi/ #hile he #as incarcerated #ith no one else #ith hi/ #ith #ho/ he /i,ht be co/pared b+ the #itness, #as less than ob:ective to thus i/pair the trust#orthiness of their identification.11 >nder the circu/stances attendant to the identification of appellant, this !ourt is not prepared to hold that the prosecution had established that appellant #as the /an seen leavin, the house5scene of the cri/e soon after a ,unshot #as heard. "s for the positive paraffin findin,s on appellant, it is #ell settled that nitrates are also found in substances other than ,unpo#der.1$ Thus, in a nu/ber of cases,1' the !ourt ac<uitted the accused despite the findin, of ,unpo#der nitrates on his hand, notin, that= ESFcientific e3perts concur in the vie# that the result of a paraffin test is not conclusive. Hhile it can establish the presence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand, it does not al#a+s indubitabl+ sho# that said nitrates or nitrites #ere caused b+ the dischar,e of firear/. The person tested /a+ have handled one or /ore of a nu/ber of substances #hich ,ive the sa/e positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as e3plosives, fire#or;s, phar/aceuticals, and le,u/inous plants such as peas, beans, and alfalfa. " person #ho uses tobacco /a+ also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances are present in the products of co/bustion of tobacco. The presence of nitrates, therefore, should be ta;en onl+ as an indication of a possibilit+ but not of infallibilit+ that the person tested has fired a ,un.11 In fact, prosecution #itness Police Superintendent 7i8a Made:a Sabon,, #ho conducted the paraffin test on appellant, testified that a person #ho fires a ,un can transfer ,unpo#der fro/ his hands to so/eone standin, ver+ near hi/ even if the second person did not fire a ,un hi/self.1$ 2ut even assu/in, ar uendo that appellantIs bein, positive for ,unpo#der /a+ be credited as circu/stantial evidence indicatin, his culpabilit+, that is onl+ one circu/stance, and since no other circu/stance #as established b+ the prosecution, the first re<uire/ent for circu/stantial evidence to #arrant conviction of appellant has not been /et. The prosecution havin, failed to dischar,e its burden of provin, the ,uilt of appellant be+ond reasonable doubt, he /ust be ac<uitted. 9%ERE&ORE, the appealed decision of the Re,ional Trial !ourt, 2ranch &*, !a,a+an de Oro !it+ findin, appellant R> 7 2"!ON4>IS + INSON ,uilt+ of /urder is hereb+ R V RS D "ND S T "SID and appellant is "!P>ITT D thereof. 6e is ordered IMM DI"T 7G R 7 "S D fro/ confine/ent unless he is bein, held for so/e other le,al cause. The Director of Prisons is DIR !T D to forth#ith i/ple/ent this Decision i//ediatel+ and to infor/ this !ourt #ithin five da+s fro/ receipt hereof of the date appellant shall have actuall+ been released fro/ confine/ent. SO ORD R D. Davide, 9r., !.9., Puno, Vitu,, Pan,aniban, Puisu/bin,, Gnares5Santia,o, Sandoval54utierre8, !arpio, "ustria5Martine8, !orona, !alle:o, Sr., "8cuna, and Tin,a, 99., concur. &oot0otes
&

Infor/ation, Rollo at *.

'

Records at '0. Septe/ber &(, '))) at '*. 3d. 3d. at &*. 3hibit K"K, Records at &A1J TSN, Septe/ber &$, '))) at A5&1. Ma+ 0, '))& at 0*50(. Septe/ber &(, '))) at 1151$. Ma+ 0, '))& at 0*50(, (*5((. March &$, '))& at A$50&J TSN, March &(, '))& at 1%51*. 3hibit K K, !he/istr+ Report No. !5%%5'))), Records at &AA. 3bid.

1 TSN, $ % A

0 TSN, *

( TSN, &)

&& TSN, &' TSN, &1 &$ &% &A

Decision, Rollo at &(511. 3d. at 11. Records at '0.

People v. Lapita*e" @.R. No. 1,:+A:, Februar+ &(, '))1J People v. La arto" @.R. No. @.R. No. 11;;:;, Februar+ '(, '))), 1'A S!R" A(1, 0$(J People v. Nitcha, 4.R. No. &&1%&0, 9anuar+ &(, &((%, '$) S!R" '*1, '($J People v. Na(areno, 4.R. No. &)1(A$, "u,ust &, &((A, 'A) S!R" '%AJ People v. Llenaresas, 4.R. No. &))$A', Septe/ber '(, &((%, '$* S!R" A'(J People v. Man(ano, 4.R. No. &)*'(1, Septe/ber &%, &((%, '$* S!R" '1(.
&0 &* &( ') '&

People v. 7scordial" @.R. Nos. 1,;9,A?,B, 9anuar+ &A, '))', 101 S!R" %*%, A)A. Rule &11, Sec. $, Revised Rules of !ourt. People v. 8eehan4ee" #r., 4.R. No. &&&')A5)*, October A, &((%, '$( S!R" %$. 3d. at (%. People v. @amer" @.R. No. 11B9;A, Februar+ '(, '))), 1'A S!R" AA), A0'. Septe/ber &(, '))) at '051&. 3d. at '(. 3d. at '(51). 3d. at '05'*.

'' TSN, '1 '$ '% 'A

People v. Pere(" @.R. No. 1A:BB., Februar+ %, '))1J People v. Piedad" @.R. No. 1,19:,, Dece/ber %, '))'J 8apdasan v. People" @.R. No. 1A1,AA, Nove/ber '&, '))'J People v. Lubon " @.R. No. 1,::9B, Ma+ 1&, '))), 11' S!R" A0'J People v. Sala(ar, 4.R. No. &)(($1, Septe/ber '), &((%, '$* S!R" $A).
'0 TSN, '*

Septe/ber &(, '))) at ''5'$.

3d. at 1'51$.

'(

People v. 7scordial, supra at A&'J People v. NiCo" @.R. No. 1:1.:9, Ma+ &(, &((*, '() S!R" &%%J People v. Sal uero, 4.R. No. *(&&0, 9une &(, &((&, &(* S!R" 1%0J People v. Cru(, 4.R. No. 75'$$'$, March 1), &(0), 1' S!R" &*&.
1) TSN, 1& 1' 11 1$ 1'

Septe/ber &(, '))) at 1$.

People v. Cru(, supra, at &*AJ Natividad v. Court of Appeals, supra. People v. Acosta, 4.R. No. 0)&11, 9ul+ ', &((), &*0 S!R" 1(J vide People v. Cru(" supra. 3d. at $1. People v. 8eehan4ee, supra at &)1.

People v. 2e @u(man, 4.R. No. &&A01), Nove/ber &A, &((%, '%) S!R" &&*J People v. Abellanosa, 4.R. No. &'&&(%, Nove/ber '0, &((A, 'A$ S!R" 0''.
11

People v. Melchor" @.R. No. 1:A,+1, Ma+ &*, &(((, 1)0 S!R" &00, &*05&**. October (, '))) at &'5&1.

1$ TSN,

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila N 2"N! G.R. No. 150227 M-/ 19, 2007 PEOP$E O& T%E P%!$!PP!NES, appellee, vs. )OE$ ' T R -.*-s E: 9!TE, appellant. D PER CUR! M@ On auto/atic revie# is a Decision of the Re,ional Trial !ourt of 2ulanao, Tabu;, ?alin,a, 2ranch '%, sentencin, appellant 9oel Gatar alias K?a#itK to 2eath for the special co/ple3 cri/e of Rape #ith 6o/icide, and orderin, hi/ to pa+ the heirs of the victi/, ?ath+l+n D. >ba, civil inde/nit+ in the a/ount of P0%,))).)), /oral da/a,es in the a/ount of P')),))).)), e3e/plar+ da/a,es in the a/ount of P%),))).)), actual da/a,es in the a/ount of P&*A,$&).)), or total da/a,es a/ountin, to P%&&,$&).)), and costs of liti,ation.& "ppellant #as char,ed #ith Rape #ith 6o/icide under the follo#in, Infor/ation= That on or about the afternoon of 9une 1), &((* at 7i#an Hest, Ri8al, ?alin,a, and #ithin the :urisdiction of this 6onorable !ourt, the accused, in order to have carnal ;no#led,e of a certain ?"T6G7GN D. >2", did then and there #ilfull+, unla#full+, and feloniousl+, and #ith use of a bladed #eapon stab the latter inflictin, upon her fatal in:uries resultin, in the death of the victi/, and on the occasion or b+ reason thereof, accused, #ilfull+, unla#full+ and feloniousl+, and b+ /eans of force and violence had carnal ;no#led,e of said ?athl+n D. >ba a,ainst her #ill. !ONTR"RG TO 7"H.' The facts are= On 9une 1), &((*, at *=1) a./., 9udil+n Pas5a and her first cousin, seventeen +ear old ?ath+l+n >ba, #ere on the ,round floor of the house of their ,rand/other, Isabel Da#an,, in 7i#an Hest, Ri8al, ?alin,a. The+ #ere tal;in, about the letter sent b+ their aunt, 7u8 Gatar, to her husband, appellant 9oel Gatar, throu,h ?ath+l+nIs friend, !ecil !asin,an. ?ath+l+n handed the letter to appellant earlier that /ornin,.1 "t (=)) a./. of the sa/e da+, 9udil+n and her husband, to,ether #ith Isabel Da#an,, left for their far/ in Na,bita+an so/e t#o ;ilo/eters a#a+. 2efore 9udil+n and her husband departed, ?ath+l+n told 9udil+n that she intended to ,o to Tu,ue,arao, but in the event she #ould not be able to leave, she #ould :ust sta+ ho/e and #ash her clothes or ,o to the house of their aunt, "nita Hania. ?ath+l+n #as left alone in the house.$ 7ater, at &)=)) a./., "nita Hania and fifteen +ear old 2everl+ Denen, stopped b+ the house of Isabel. The+ sa# appellant at the bac; of the house. The+ #ent inside the house throu,h the bac; door of the ;itchen to have a drin; of #ater. "nita as;ed appellant #hat he #as doin, there, and he replied that he #as ,ettin, lu/ber to brin, to the house of his /other.% "t &'=1) p./., #hile 9udil+n #as on her #a+ ho/e fro/ Na,bita+an, she sa# appellant descend the ladder fro/ the second floor of the house of Isabel Da#an, and run to#ards the bac; of the house. A !ISION

She later noticed appellant, #ho #as #earin, a #hite shirt #ith collar and blac; pants, pacin, bac; and forth at the bac; of the house. She did not find this unusual as appellant and his #ife used to live in the house of Isabel Da#an,.0 "t &=1) p./., 9udil+n a,ain sa# appellant #hen he called her near her house. This ti/e, he #as #earin, a blac; shirt #ithout collar and blue pants. "ppellant told her that he #ould not be ,ettin, the lu/ber he had stac;ed, and that Isabel could use it. She noticed that appellantIs e+es #ere Kreddish and sharp.K "ppellant as;ed her #here her husband #as as he had so/ethin, i/portant to tell hi/. 9udil+nIs husband then arrived and appellant i//ediatel+ left and #ent to#ards the bac; of the house of Isabel.* In the evenin, of the sa/e da+, Isabel Da#an, arrived ho/e and found that the li,hts in her house #ere off. She called out for her ,randdau,hter, ?ath+l+n >ba. The door to the ,round floor #as open. She noticed that the #ater container she as;ed ?ath+l+n to fill up earlier that da+ #as still e/pt+. She #ent up the ladder to the second floor of the house to see if ?ath+l+n #as upstairs. She found that the door #as tied #ith a rope, so she #ent do#n to ,et a ;nife. Hhile she ,roped in the dar;, she felt a lifeless bod+ that #as cold and ri,id.( Isabel /oved her hand throu,hout the entire bod+. She found out that it #as the na;ed bod+ of her ,randdau,hter, ?ath+l+n. She called for help. 9udil+n and her husband arrived. Isabel #as ,iven a flashli,ht b+ 9udil+n. She focused the bea/ and sa# ?ath+l+n spra#led on the floor na;ed, #ith her intestines protrudin, out of her sto/ach. Mean#hile, nei,hbors had arrived to offer assistance. " dau,hter of Isabel, !ion, called the police.&) "t (=)) that evenin,, SP)$ Melchor Fanis#a received a report that a dead #o/an #as found in Isabel Da#an,Is house. To,ether #ith fello# police officers, Fanis#a #ent to the house and found the na;ed bod+ of ?ath+l+n >ba #ith /ultiple stab #ounds. The people in the vicinit+ infor/ed the police officers that appellant #as seen ,oin, do#n the ladder of the house of Isabel Da#an, at appro3i/atel+ &'=1) p./. The police discovered the victi/Is panties, brassiere, deni/ pants, ba, and sandals beside her na;ed cadaver at the scene of the cri/e, and the+ found a dirt+ #hite shirt splattered #ith blood #ithin %) /eters fro/ the house of Isabel. Hhen <uestioned b+ the police authorities, appellant denied an+ ;no#led,e of ?ath+l+nsIs death, && ho#ever, he #as placed under police custod+. On 9ul+ 1, &((*, appellant as;ed the police officers if he could relieve hi/self. Police Officer !esar "ba,an acco/panied hi/ to the toilet around seven to ten /eters a#a+ fro/ the police station. The+ suddenl+ heard so/eone shout in the Ilocano dialect, KNa,tara+XK -6eIs runnin, a#a+X.. Police Officer Orlando Manuel e3ited throu,h the ,ate of the Police Station and sa# appellant runnin, a#a+. "ppellant #as appro3i/atel+ 0) /eters a#a+ fro/ the station #hen Police Officer "ba,an recaptured hi/.&' 6e #as char,ed #ith Rape #ith 6o/icide. Hhen he #as arrai,ned on 9ul+ '&, &((*, appellant pleaded Knot ,uilt+.K "fter trial, appellant #as convicted of the cri/e of Rape %ith 'omicide, defined and penali8ed under "rticle 'AA5" of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended b+ R.". *1%1, other#ise ;no#n as the "nti5Rape 7a# of &((0, and #as accordin,l+, sentenced to 2eath. 6ence, this auto/atic revie# pursuant to "rticle $0 of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended. In his 2rief, appellant assi,ns the follo#in, errors= I T6 TRI"7 !O>RT 4R"V 7G RR D IN 4IVIN4 M>!6 H I46T TO T6 VID N!

PR S NT D 2G T6 PROS !>TION NOTHIT6ST"NDIN4 T6 IR DO>2TF>7N SS. II T6 TRI"7 !O>RT S RIO>S7G RR D IN NOT "!P>ITTIN4 T6 "!!>S D5 "PP 77"NT OF T6 S RIO>S !RIM !6"R4 D D> TO R "SON"27 DO>2T. "ppellantIs contentions are un/eritorious. The issue re,ardin, the credibilit+ of the prosecution #itnesses should be resolved a,ainst appellant. This !ourt #ill not interfere #ith the :ud,/ent of the trial court in deter/inin, the credibilit+ of #itnesses unless there appears in the record so/e fact or circu/stance of #ei,ht and influence #hich has been overloo;ed or the si,nificance of #hich has been /isinterpreted.&1 Hell5entrenched is the rule that the findin,s of the trial court on credibilit+ of #itnesses are entitled to ,reat #ei,ht on appeal unless co,ent reasons are presented necessitatin, a ree3a/ination if not the disturbance of the sa/eJ the reason bein, that the for/er is in a better and uni<ue position of hearin, first hand the #itnesses and observin, their deport/ent, conduct and attitude.&$ "bsent an+ sho#in, that the trial :ud,e overloo;ed, /isunderstood, or /isapplied so/e facts or circu/stances of #ei,ht #hich #ould affect the result of the case, the trial :ud,eIs assess/ent of credibilit+ deserves the appellate courtIs hi,hest respect.&% Hhere there is nothin, to sho# that the #itnesses for the prosecution #ere actuated b+ i/proper /otive, their testi/onies are entitled to full faith and credit.&A The #ei,ht of the prosecutionIs evidence /ust be appreciated in li,ht of the #ell5settled rule #hich provides that an accused can be convicted even if no e+e#itness is available, as lon, as sufficient circu/stantial evidence is presented b+ the prosecution to prove be+ond doubt that the accused co//itted the cri/e.&0 Reference to the records #ill sho# that a total of eleven -&&. #ounds, si3 -A. stab and five -%. incised, #ere found on the victi/Is abdo/en and bac;, causin, a portion of her s/all intestines to spill out of her bod+.&* Ri or mortis of the vicit/Is bod+ #as co/plete #hen Dr. 2artolo e3a/ined the victi/ at (=)) a./. on 9ul+ &, &((*. "ccordin, to hi/, the ti/e of death /a+ be appro3i/ated fro/ bet#een nine -(. to t#elve -&'. hours prior to the co/pletion of ri or mortis.&( In other #ords, the esti/ated ti/e of death #as so/eti/e bet#een (=)) a./. to &'=)) p./. on 9une 1), &((*. This #as #ithin the ti/efra/e #ithin #hich the lone presence of appellant lur;in, in the house of Isabel Da#an, #as testified to b+ #itnesses. It should also be noted that, althou,h the Post/orte/ Report b+ the attendin, ph+sician, Dr. Pe: van !. 2artolo, indicates that no h+/enal lacerations, contusions or he/ato/a #ere noted on the victi/, ') Dr. 2artolo discovered the presence of se/en in the va,inal canal of the victi/. Durin, his testi/on+, Dr. 2artolo stated that the introduction of se/en into the va,inal canal could onl+ be done throu,h se3ual intercourse #ith the victi/.'& In addition, it is apparent fro/ the pictures sub/itted b+ the prosecution that the se3ual violation of the victi/ #as /anifested b+ a bruise and so/e s#ellin, in her ri,ht forear/ indicatin, resistance to the appellantIs assault on her virtue.'' Si,nificantl+, subse<uent testin, sho#ed that the Deo3+ribonucleic acid -DN". of the sper/ speci/en fro/ the va,ina of the victi/ #as identical the se/en to be that of appellantIs ,ene t+pe. DN" is a /olecule that encodes the ,enetic infor/ation in all livin, or,anis/s. '1 " personIs DN" is the sa/e in each cell and it does not chan,e throu,hout a personIs lifeti/eJ the DN" in a personIs blood is the sa/e as the DN" found in his saliva, s#eat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, ear#a3, /ucus, urine, s;in tissue, and va,inal and rectal cells. '$ Most i/portantl+, because of pol+/orphis/s in hu/an ,enetic structure, no t#o individuals have the sa/e DN", #ith the notable e3ception of identical t#ins.'%

DN" print or identification technolo,+ has been advanced as a uni<uel+ effective /eans to lin; a suspect to a cri/e, or to e3onerate a #ron,l+ accused suspect, #here biolo,ical evidence has been left. For purposes of cri/inal investi,ation, DN" identification is a fertile source of both inculpator+ and e3culpator+ evidence. It can assist i//ensel+ in effectin, a /ore accurate account of the cri/e co//itted, efficientl+ facilitatin, the conviction of the ,uilt+, securin, the ac<uittal of the innocent, and ensurin, the proper ad/inistration of :ustice in ever+ case. DN" evidence collected fro/ a cri/e scene can lin; a suspect to a cri/e or eli/inate one fro/ suspicion in the sa/e principle as fin,erprints are used. 'A Incidents involvin, se3ual assault #ould leave biolo,ical evidence such as hair, s;in tissue, se/en, blood, or saliva #hich can be left on the victi/Is bod+ or at the cri/e scene. 6air and fiber fro/ clothin,, carpets, beddin,, or furniture could also be transferred to the victi/Is bod+ durin, the assault. '0 Forensic DN" evidence is helpful in provin, that there #as ph+sical contact bet#een an assailant and a victi/. If properl+ collected fro/ the victi/, cri/e scene or assailant, DN" can be co/pared #ith ;no#n sa/ples to place the suspect at the scene of the cri/e.'* The >.P. National Science Research Institute -NSRI., #hich conducted the DN" tests in this case, used the Pol+/erase chain reaction -P!R. a/plification /ethod b+ Short Tande/ Repeat -STR. anal+sis. Hith P!R testin,, tin+ a/ounts of a specific DN" se<uence can be copied e3ponentiall+ #ithin hours. Thus, ,ettin, sufficient DN" for anal+sis has beco/e /uch easier since it beca/e possible to reliabl+ a/plif+ s/all sa/ples usin, the P!R /ethod. In assessin, the probative value of DN" evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the follo#in, factors= ho# the sa/ples #ere collected, ho# the+ #ere handled, the possibilit+ of conta/ination of the sa/ples, the procedure follo#ed in anal+8in, the sa/ples, #hether the proper standards and procedures #ere follo#ed in conductin, the tests, and the <ualification of the anal+st #ho conducted the tests.'( In the case at bar, Dr. Maria !ora8on "bo,ado de >n,ria #as dul+ <ualified b+ the prosecution as an e3pert #itness on DN" print or identification techni<ues.1) 2ased on Dr. de >n,riaIs testi/on+, it #as deter/ined that the ,ene t+pe and DN" profile of appellant are identical to that of the e3tracts sub:ect of e3a/ination.1& The blood sa/ple ta;en fro/ the appellant sho#ed that he #as of the follo#in, ,ene t+pes= vH" &%D&(, T6)& 0D*, D6FRP' (D&) and !SF&PO &)D&&, #hich are identical #ith se/en ta;en fro/ the victi/Is va,inal canal. 1' Veril+, a DN" /atch e3ists bet#een the se/en found in the victi/ and the blood sa/ple ,iven b+ the appellant in open court durin, the course of the trial. "d/ittedl+, #e are :ust be,innin, to inte,rate these advances in science and technolo,+ in the Philippine cri/inal :ustice s+ste/, so #e /ust be cautious as #e traverse these relativel+ uncharted #aters. Fortunatel+, #e can benefit fro/ the #ealth of persuasive :urisprudence that has developed in other :urisdictions. Specificall+, the prevailin, doctrine in the >.S. has proven instructive. In 2aubert v. Merrell 2o%,11 it #as ruled that pertinent evidence based on scientificall+ valid principles could be used as lon, as it #as relevant and reliable. 9ud,es, under 2aubert, #ere allo#ed ,reater discretion over #hich testi/on+ the+ #ould allo# at trial, includin, the introduction of ne# ;inds of scientific techni<ues. DN" t+pin, is one such novel procedure. >nder Philippine la#, evidence is relevant #hen it relates directl+ to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its e3istence or non5e3istence.1$ "ppl+in, the 2aubert test to the case at bar, the DN" evidence obtained throu,h P!R testin, and utili8in, STR anal+sis, and #hich #as appreciated b+ the court a >uo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonabl+ based on scientificall+ valid principles of hu/an ,enetics and /olecular biolo,+. Independentl+ of the ph+sical evidence of appellantIs se/en found in the victi/Is va,inal canal, the

trial court appreciated the follo#in, circu/stantial evidence as bein, sufficient to sustain a conviction be+ond reasonable doubt= -&. "ppellant and his #ife #ere livin, in the house of Isabel Da#an, to,ether #ith the victi/, ?ath+l+n >baJ -'. In 9une &((*, appellantIs #ife left the house because of their fre<uent <uarrelsJ -1. "ppellant received fro/ the victi/, ?ath+l+n >ba, a letter fro/ his estran,ed #ife in the earl+ /ornin, on 9une 1), &((*J -$. "ppellant #as seen b+ "polonia Hania and 2everl+ Dennen, at &=)) p./. of 9une 1), &((* near the ;itchen of the house of Isabel Da#an,, actin, stran,el+ and #earin, a dirt+ #hite shirt #ith collarJ -%. 9udil+n Pas5a sa# appellant ,oin, do#n the ladder of the house of Isabel at &'=1) p./., #earin, a dirt+ #hite shirt, and a,ain at &=1) p./., this ti/e #earin, a blac; shirtJ -A. "ppellant hurriedl+ left #hen the husband of 9udil+n Pas5a #as approachin,J -0. Sal/alina Tanda,an sa# appellant in a dirt+ #hite shirt co/in, do#n the ladder of the house of Isabel on the da+ ?ath+l+n >ba #as found deadJ -*. The door leadin, to the second floor of the house of Isabel Da#an, #as tied b+ a ropeJ -(. The victi/, ?ath+l+n >ba, la+ na;ed in a pool of blood #ith her intestines protrudin, fro/ her bod+ on the second floor of the house of Isabel Da#an,, #ith her stained pants, bra, under#ear and shoes scattered alon, the peripher+J -&). 7aborator+ e3a/ination revealed sper/ in the victi/Is va,ina - 3hibit K6K and K9K.J -&&. The stained or dirt+ #hite shirt found in the cri/e scene #as found to be positive #ith bloodJ -&'. DN" of slide, 3hibit K9K and K6K, co/pared #ith the DN" profile of the appellant are identicalJ and -&1. "ppellant escaped t#o da+s after he #as detained but #as subse<uentl+ apprehended, such fli,ht bein, indicative of ,uilt.1% !ircu/stantial evidence, to be sufficient to #arrant a conviction, /ust for/ an unbro;en chain #hich leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the e3clusion of others, is the perpetrator of the cri/e. To deter/ine #hether there is sufficient circu/stantial evidence, three re<uisites /ust concur= -&. there is /ore than one circu/stanceJ -'. facts on #hich the inferences are derived are provenJ and -1. the co/bination of all the circu/stances is such as to produce a conviction be+ond reasonable doubt.1A In an atte/pt to e3clude the DN" evidence, the appellant contends that the blood sa/ple ta;en fro/ hi/ as #ell as the DN" tests #ere conducted in violation of his ri,ht to re/ain silent as #ell as his ri,ht a,ainst self5incri/ination under Secs. &' and &0 of "rt. III of the !onstitution. This contention is untenable. The ;ernel of the ri,ht is not a,ainst all co/pulsion, but a,ainst testi/onial co/pulsion.10 The ri,ht a,ainst self5 incri/ination is si/pl+ a,ainst the le,al process of e3tractin, fro/ the lips of the accused an ad/ission of ,uilt. It does not appl+ #here the evidence sou,ht to be e3cluded is not an incri/ination but as part of ob:ect evidence. He ruled in People v. Rondero1* that althou,h accused5appellant insisted that hair sa/ples #ere forcibl+ ta;en fro/ hi/ and sub/itted to the National 2ureau of Investi,ation for forensic e3a/ination, the hair sa/ples /a+ be ad/itted in evidence a,ainst hi/, for #hat is proscribed is the use of testi/onial co/pulsion or an+ evidence co//unicative in nature ac<uired fro/ the accused under duress. 6ence, a person /a+ be co/pelled to sub/it to fin,erprintin,, photo,raphin,, paraffin, blood and DN", as there is no testi/onial co/pulsion involved. >nder People v. @allarde,1( #here i//ediatel+ after the incident, the police authorities too; pictures of the accused #ithout the presence of counsel, #e ruled that there #as no violation of the ri,ht a,ainst self5incri/ination. The accused /a+ be co/pelled to sub/it to a ph+sical e3a/ination to deter/ine his involve/ent in an offense of #hich he is accused. It /ust also be noted that appellant in this case sub/itted hi/self for blood sa/plin, #hich #as conducted in open court on March 1), '))), in the presence of counsel. "ppellant further ar,ues that the DN" tests conducted b+ the prosecution a,ainst hi/ are

unconstitutional on the ,round that resort thereto is tanta/ount to the application of an e)?post facto la#. This ar,u/ent is specious. No e)?post facto la# is involved in the case at bar. The science of DN" t+pin, involves the ad/issibilit+, relevance and reliabilit+ of the evidence obtained under the Rules of !ourt. Hhereas an e)?post facto la# refers pri/aril+ to a <uestion of la#, DN" profilin, re<uires a factual deter/ination of the probative #ei,ht of the evidence presented. "ppellantIs t#in defense of denial and alibi cannot be sustained. The forensic DN" evidence and bloodied shirt, not#ithstandin, the e+e#itness accounts of his presence at Isabel Da#an,Is house durin, the ti/e #hen the cri/e #as co//itted, undeniabl+ lin; hi/ to the 9une 1), &((* incident. "ppellant did not de/onstrate #ith clear and convincin, evidence an i/possibilit+ to be in t#o places at the sa/e ti/e, especiall+ in this case #here the t#o places are located in the sa/e baran,a+. $) 6e lives #ithin a one hundred -&)). /eter radius fro/ the scene of the cri/e, and re<uires a /ere five /inute #al; to reach one house fro/ the other. This fact severel+ #ea;ens his alibi. "s to the second assi,n/ent of error, appellant asserts that the court a >uo co//itted reversible error in convictin, hi/ of the cri/e char,ed. 6e alle,es that he should be ac<uitted on reasonable doubt. "ppellantIs assertion cannot be sustained. 4enerall+, courts should onl+ consider and rel+ upon dul+ established evidence and never on /ere con:ectures or suppositions. The le,al relevanc+ of evidence denotes Kso/ethin, /ore than a /ini/u/ of probative value,K su,,estin, that such evidentiar+ relevance /ust contain a Kplus value.K $& This /a+ be necessar+ to preclude the trial court fro/ bein, satisfied b+ /atters of sli,ht value, capable of bein, e3a,,erated b+ pre:udice and hast+ conclusions. vidence #ithout Kplus valueK /a+ be lo,icall+ relevant but not le,all+ sufficient to convict. It is incu/bent upon the trial court to balance the probative value of such evidence a,ainst the li;el+ har/ that #ould result fro/ its ad/ission. The :ud,/ent in a cri/inal case can be upheld onl+ #hen there is relevant evidence fro/ #hich the court can properl+ find or infer that the accused is ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt. Proof be+ond reasonable doubt re<uires /oral certaint+ of ,uilt in order to sustain a conviction. Moral certaint+ is that de,ree of certaint+ that convinces and directs the understandin, and satisfies the reason and :ud,/ent of those #ho are bound to act conscientiousl+ upon it. It is certaint+ be+ond reasonable doubt.$' This re<uires that the circu/stances, ta;en to,ether, should be of a conclusive nature and tendenc+J leadin,, on the #hole, to a satisfactor+ conclusion that the accused, and no one else, co//itted the offense char,ed.$1 In vie# of the totalit+ of evidence appreciated thus far, #e rule that the present case passes the test of /oral certaint+. 6o#ever, as a /atter of procedure, and for the purpose of /eetin, the re<uire/ent of proof be+ond reasonable doubt, /otive is essential for conviction #hen there is doubt as to the identit+ of the culprit.$$ Pertinentl+, it /ust be noted that 9udil+n Pas5a, first cousin of the victi/, testified that she last sa# the victi/ alive in the /ornin, of 9une 1), &((* at the house of Isabel Da#an,. $% She #itnessed the appellant runnin, do#n the stairs of IsabelIs house and proceedin, to the bac; of the sa/e house. $A She also testified that a fe# da+s before the victi/ #as raped and ;illed, the latter revealed to her that K9oel Gatar atte/pted to rape her after she ca/e fro/ the school.K $0 The victi/ told 9udil+n about the incident or atte/pt of the appellant to rape her five da+s before her na;ed and violated bod+ #as found dead in her ,rand/otherIs house on 9une '%, &((*. $* In addition, 9udil+n also testified that #hen her auntie 7u8 Da#an, Gatar, #ife of appellant, separated fro/ her husband, Kthis 9oel Gatar threatened to ;ill our fa/il+.K$( "ccordin, to 9udil+n, #ho #as personall+ present durin, an ar,u/ent bet#een her

aunt and the appellant, the e3act #ords uttered b+ appellant to his #ife in the Ilocano dialect #as, KIf +ou leave /e, I #ill ;ill all +our fa/il+ and +our relatives 3 3 3.K %) These state/ents #ere not contradicted b+ appellant. Thus, appellantIs /otive to se3uall+ assault and ;ill the victi/ #as evident in the instant case. It is a rule in cri/inal la# that /otive, bein, a state of /ind, is established b+ the testi/on+ of #itnesses on the acts or state/ents of the accused before or i//ediatel+ after the co//ission of the offense, deeds or #ords that /a+ e3press it or fro/ #hich his /otive or reason for co//ittin, it /a+ be inferred.%& "ccordin,l+, #e are convinced that the appellant is ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the special co/ple3 cri/e of rape #ith ho/icide. "ppellant se3uall+ assaulted ?ath+l+n >ba, and b+ reason or on the occasion thereof, in order to conceal his lustful deed, per/anentl+ sealed the victi/Is lips b+ stabbin, her repeatedl+, thereb+ causin, her unti/el+ de/ise. The follo#in, are the ele/ents constitutive of rape #ith ho/icide= -&. the appellant had carnal ;no#led,e of a #o/anJ -'. carnal ;no#led,e of a #o/an #as achieved b+ /eans of force, threat or inti/idationJ and -1. b+ reason or on the occasion of such carnal ;no#led,e b+ /eans of force, threat or inti/idation, appellant ;illed the #o/an.%' 6o#ever, in rape co//itted b+ close ;in, such as the victi/Is father, step5father, uncle, or the co//on5la# spouse of her /other, it is not necessar+ that actual force or inti/idation be e/plo+ed. %1 Moral influence or ascendanc+ ta;es the place of violence and inti/idation.%$ The fact that the victi/Is h+/en is intact does not ne,ate a findin, that rape #as co//itted as /ere entr+ b+ the penis into the lips of the fe/ale ,enital or,an, even #ithout rupture or laceration of the h+/en, suffices for conviction of rape. %% The stren,th and dilatabilit+ of the h+/en are invariableJ it /a+ be so elastic as to stretch #ithout laceration durin, intercourse. "bsence of h+/enal lacerations does not disprove se3ual abuse especiall+ #hen the victi/ is of tender a,e.%A In the case at bar, appellant is the husband of the victi/Is aunt. 6e is seven +ears older than the victi/ ?ath+l+n >ba. 2efore he and his #ife separated, appellant lived in the house of his /other5in5la#, to,ether #ith the victi/ and his #ife. "fter the separation, appellant /oved to the house of his parents, appro3i/atel+ one hundred -&)). /eters fro/ his /other5in5la#Is house. 2ein, a relative b+ affinit+ #ithin the third civil de,ree, he is dee/ed in le,al conte/plation to have /oral ascendanc+ over the victi/. >nder "rticle 'AA52 of the Revised Penal !ode, the penalt+ of death is i/posed #hen b+ reason or on the occasion of the rape, ho/icide is co//itted. "lthou,h three -1. 9ustices of this !ourt /aintain their position that R.". 0A%( is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalt+, the+ nevertheless sub/it to the rulin, of the /a:orit+ that the la# is not unconstitutional, and that the death penalt+ can be la#full+ i/posed in the case at bar. "s to da/a,es, civil inde/nit+ e3 delicto of P&)),))).)), %0 actual da/a,es incurred b+ the fa/il+ of the victi/ that have been proved at the trial a/ountin, to P(1,&().)), %* and /oral da/a,es of P0%,))).))%( should be a#arded in the li,ht of prevailin, la# and :urisprudence. 3e/plar+ da/a,es cannot be a#arded as part of the civil liabilit+ since the cri/e #as not co//itted #ith one or /ore a,,ravatin, circu/stances.A) 9%ERE&ORE, in vie# of the fore,oin,, the Decision of the RT! of 2ulanao, Tabu;, ?alin,a, 2ranch '% in !ri/inal !ase No. 1%5(*, sentencin, appellant 9oel Gatar alias K?a#itK to Death for the special co/ple3 cri/e of Rape #ith 6o/icide is &&!RME" #ith the MO"!&!C T!ON that he be OR"ERE" to pa+ the fa/il+ of the victi/ ?ath+l+n >ba civil inde/nit+ e) delicto in the a/ount of P&)),))).)), P(1,&().)) in actual da/a,es and P0%,))).)) in /oral da/a,es. The a#ard of e3e/plar+ da/a,es is "E$ETE".

>pon the finalit+ of this Decision and in accordance #ith "rt. *1 of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended b+ Sec. '% of Rep. "ct No. 0A%(, let the records of this case be forth#ith for#arded to the President of the Philippines for the possible e3ercise of the pardonin, po#er. !osts de oficio. SO OR"ERE". 2avide" #r.D" PunoD" $itu " Pan aniban" !uisumbin " &nares?Santia o" Sandoval?@utierre(" Carpio" Austria?Martine(" Corona" Carpio?Morales" Calle*o" Sr." A(cuna" and 8in a" ##." concur. &oot0otes
Q & '

On official leave. Decision penned b+ 9ud,e Milnar T. 7a//a#in on '0 "u,ust '))&. Ori,inal Records, p. &. Direct 3a/ination of Isabel Da#an,, 1) Septe/ber &((*, pp. '(A51)A. Id. at 1&051&(.

1 TSN, $ %

TSN, Direct 3a/ination of 2everl+ Denen,, '0 9anuar+ &(((, pp. %1&5%$), %A*5%0A. See also 3hibit KHK, 9oint "ffidavit of "nita Hania and 2everl+ Denen, e3ecuted on 1 9ul+ &((*, Ori,inal Records, p. &0.
A TSN, 0 * (

!ross 3a/ination of 9udil+n Pas5a, 1) Septe/ber &((*, p. 100.

3d. at '0%51'$. See also TSN, supra note 0 at 1%A51%*. 3d. at 1&$51'1, 11(51$$. 3d. at 'A05'0). 3d. at '0&5'01.

&) &&

TSN, Direct 3a/ination of SPO$ Melchor Fanis#a, ( Septe/ber &((*, pp. (5'). See also TSN, !ross5 3a/ination of SPO$ Melchor Fanis#a, ( Septe/ber &((*, pp. '&51*.
&'

TSN, !ross5 3a/ination and Re5Direct 3a/ination of Police Officer Orlando Manuel, ( Septe/ber &((*, pp. 0A5*$. See also TSN, Direct and !ross5 3a/ination of SPO& Feli3 Turin,an, ( Septe/ber &((*, pp. **5(A.
&1 &$ &% &A &0 &*

People v. Re/udo, 4.R. No. &'0()%, 1) "u,ust '))&, 1A$ S!R" 0&. People v. Santos, 4.R. No. &10((1, && "pril '))', 1*) S!R" A)*, A&1. 3d. People v. Pa+ot, 4.R. No. &&(1%', * 9une &(((, 1)* S!R" $1, A'5A1. People v. !abu,, 4.R. No. &'1&$(, '0 March '))&, 1%% S!R" 1(&. See TSN, Direct 3a/ination of Dr. Pe: van !. 2artolo, &A Septe/ber &((*, pp. &)A5&%0. Direct 3a/ination of Dr. Re+ van !. 2artolo, &A Septe/ber &((*, pp. &&A5&&*. See TSN, Direct 3a/ination of Dr. Pe: van !. 2artolo, &A Septe/ber &((*, pp. 'AA51)$. 3d. at 'AA51)$.

&( TSN, ') '&

'' '1 '$

See 3hibits KF5&K, K4K, K6K, Ori,inal Records, pp. A"5A!. Peter Sudber+, 6u/an Molecular 4enetics -'nd ed. '))'.J &(((5'))) Poc;et Part, p. %&.

?.M. Tur/an, K>nderstandin, DN" vidence= " 4uide for Victi/ Service Providers,K OV! 2ulletin ->.S. Depart/ent of 9ustice, "pril '))&., p. &.
'% 'A '0 '* '( 1)

*$ "7R$th 1&1. 3d. 3d. 3d. at &5'. People v. Valle:o, 4.R. No. &$$A%A, ( Ma+ '))', 1*' S!R" &(', ')(.

Dr. de >n,ria is 6ead of the 4enetic n,ineerin, 7aborator+, >niversit+ of the Philippines, "ssistant Supervisor of the DN" "nal+sis 7aborator+, >niversit+ of the Philippines, and "ssistant Professor at the "teneo de Manila >niversit+. In Dece/ber &(((, Dr. de >n,ria #as a &((( 9ose Ri8al Goun, "#ardee for the Professional Sector for her participation in the identification of the bod+ of a victi/ of the Paco fire. She co//enced #or;in, as "ssistant Supervisor of the >.P. DN" 7aborator+ in Februar+ &((( after returnin, fro/ S+dne+, "ustralia. Prior to Februar+ &(((, she #or;ed as a DN" "nal+st. "n alu/na of the Philippine Science 6i,h School, Dr. de >n,ria obtained a 2achelor of Science -6onours. de,ree in 2iolo,+ at Mac<uarie >niversit+, and a Doctor of Philosoph+ de,ree in Molecular Microbiolo,+ at the >niversit+ of Ne# South Hales, in "ustralia. She is a /e/ber of the Philippine Societ+ of Microbiolo,+ and an associate /e/ber of the National Research !ouncil of the Philippines. See TSN, Direct 3a/ination of Dr. Ma. !ora8on "bo,ado de >n,ria, &* Februar+ '))), pp. 01(50$1.
1&

TSN, &* Februar+ '))), pp. 0*(50(). See 3hibits KLLK and KGG5&K, Ori,inal Records, p. &$$, &$(5&%). See also TSN, !ontinuation of Direct 3a/ination of Dr. de >n,ria, &* "pril '))), p. *$'.
1'

TSN, &* "pril '))), p. *$'. See also 3hibits KBK, KBBK and KBB5&K, Ori,inal Records, pp. &%'5&%$.
11 1$ 1% 1A

%)( >.S. %0( -&((1.J &'% 7. d. 'd $A(. Rules of !ourt, Rule &'*, sec. $. Decision, pp. $A5$*. See Rollo, pp. 1))51)'. Rules of !ourt, Rule &11, sec. $. v. !astro, 4.R. No. A($)&, '1 9une &(*0, &%& S!R" '0(. 4.R. No. &'%A*0, ( Dece/ber &(((, 1') S!R" 1*1. 4.R. No. &11)'%, '0 Februar+ '))), 1'% S!R" *1%. See People v. Man,uera, 4.R. No. &1(()A, % March '))1. I Hi,/ore on vidence T'*, at $)(5$&).

10 "lih 1* 1( $) $& $'

R.9. Francisco, vidence -1d d., &((A., p. %00, citin Sha#, !.9., !o//on#ealth v. Hebster, 2enisI Rep. Of the Trial, $A(J !o/. V. !ostle+, &&* Mass. &.

$1 Hords $$

and Phrases, KMoral !ertaint+K, citin, !o//on#ealth v. 4ood#in, *) Mass. -&$ 4ra+. %%, %0. People v. Ver8o, 4.R. No. 75''%&0, 'A Dece/ber &(A0, '& S!R" &$)1. !ross 3a/ination of 9udil+n Pas5a, 1) Septe/ber &((*, pp. 10A51*). 3d., p. 1'$. 3d. at 11'. See 3hibits KP,K KP5&K and KP5',K Ori,inal Records, pp. &15&$. 3d. at 11$. 3d. at 111. 3d. at 11A511*. 2arrio<uinto v. Fernande8, *' Phil. A$', A$( -&($(.. 'AA5" and 'AA52, Revised Penal !ode. People v. Re/udo, supra. People v. Serrano, 4.R. No. &10$*), '* Februar+ '))&, 1%1 S!R" &A&, &0'. People v. "Sonuevo, 4.R. No. &10*$1, &' October '))&, 1A0 S!R" '$(. People v. 7lanita, 4.R. No. &1$&)&, % Septe/ber '))&, 1A$ S!R" %&(.
$% TSN, $A $0 $* $( %) %&

%' "rticles %1 %$ %% %A %0

People v. Man,uera, supraJ People v. Seranilla, 4.R. Nos. &&1)''5'$, &% Dece/ber '))), 1$* S!R" ''0J People v. Pa+ot, 4.R. No. &&(1%', * 9une &(((, 1)* S!R" $1.
%*

"rts. '&(( and '')', !ivil !ode, "rt. '&((, states that KEeF3cept as provided b+ la# or b+ stipulation, one is entitled to an ade<uate co/pensation onl+ for such pecuniar+ loss suffered b+ hi/ as he has dul+ proved.K "rt. '')' provides that KEiFn cri/es and <uasi5delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all da/a,es #hich are the natural and probable conse<uences of the act or o/ission co/plained of. It is not necessar+ that such da/a,es have been foreseen or could have reasonabl+ been foreseen b+ the defendant.K
%(

People v. Ma,allanes, 4.R. No. &1A'((, '( "u,ust '))1. ''1), !ivil !ode.

A) "rticle

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 109144 August 19, 1994 PEOPLE OF T E P ILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. !ORENO L. TU!I!PAD, accused-appellant. T-e Solicitor ,eneral for plaintiff-appellee. /i$uel /. Lin$atin$ for accused-appellant. 3APUNAN, J.: Accused-appellant Consta3le &oreno G. Tu.i.pad and co-accused Consta3le Ruel C. Prieto were char,ed with the cri.e of rape co..itted a,ainst a (5-'ear old &on,oloid child in a co.plaint dated on &a' !4, ())(, si,ned 3' her .other, &rs. Pastora G. Salcedo, which reads$
That durin, the period 3etween the last week of &arch ()") and the first week of April ()"), in 2aran,a' Gower Ga.ac, %ro?uieta Cit', Philippines, and within the ;urisdiction of this Aonora3le Court, the said accused did then and there, wilfull', unlawfull' and feloniousl', have 9 sic: carnal knowled,e with Sandra Salcedo, co.plainant<s dau,hter, a wo.an who is a .on,oloid and so weak of .ind and in intellect as to 3e capa3le of ,ivin, rational and le,al consent. 1

Ipon arrai,n.ent, accused-appellant pleaded not ,uilt' to the cri.e char,ed and due trial ensued. The facts as esta3lished 3' evidence are as follows$ Sandra Salcedo at the ti.e of the incident was a (5-'ear old &on,oloid and dau,hter of Gt. Col. Teofisto Salcedo and Pastora Salcedo. She had a .ind of a five-'ear old child, who still needed to 3e fed and dressed up. Aer voca3ular' was li.ited and .ost of the ti.e she e8pressed herself 3' .otions. Col. Teofisto Salcedo was then Provincial Co..ander of &isa.is %ccidental. 5our securit' .en were assi,ned to hi., two of who. were accused Consta3le Ruel Prieto and accusedappellant &oreno Tu.i.pad. The Salcedo fa.il', co.posed of Col. Salcedo, his wife Pastora, his son Ale8ander and wife and dau,hter Sandra, lived in a two-store' officers< ?uarters inside Ca.p Gucas aran;o, Provincial Aead?uarters, in %ro?uieta Cit'. The upper store' of the house was occupied 3' Col. Salcedo, his wife and Sandra while the lower store' had two 9!: roo.s, one of which was occupied 3' the four securit' .en and the other 3' Ale8ander Salcedo and his wife. >t was on Au,ust H, ()"), when Sandra co.plained of constipation. &rs. Salcedo then 3rou,ht her to a doctor in %ro?uieta Cit' for a checkup. &edication was ,iven to Sandra 3ut her condition did not i.prove. Sandra 3eca.e irrita3le and .ood'. She felt sick and unhapp'. The followin, da', Au,ust ", ()"), Sandra saw &oreno Tu.i.pad co.in, out fro. the kitchen and told her .other, #&a.a, pata'in .o <'an, 3astos.# 2

&rs. Pastora Salcedo, worried of her dau,hter<s condition, 3rou,ht her to Re,ina Aospital. Sandra was a3le to relieve herself the followin, da' 3ut still re.ained .ood' and irrita3le. She refused to take a 3ath in spite of scoldin,s fro. her .other. She did not want to eat and whenever she did, she would vo.it. Sandra was 3rou,ht to a doctor in %ro?uieta Cit' for a second checkup. Br. Conol, the e8a.inin, ph'sician, ordered a urinal'sis. 4ose C. Gi., a &edical Technolo,ist, conducted the urinal'sis. The result revealed that Sandra was pre,nant. 0 &rs. Pastora Salcedo could not 3elieve that her dau,hter was pre,nant and so she 3rou,ht Sandra to &adonna and Child Aospital in Ca,a'an de %ro Cit'. Br. Jho, and %2-GK 7 Specialist, e8a.ined Sandra and su3;ected her to a pelvic ultra-sound e8a.ination. The results were positive. The fetus< ,estational a,e was e?uivalent to (H.( weeks. 4 Another ultra-sound e8a.ination at the Inited Boctors &edical Center 9IB&C: at -ue+on Cit' on Septe.3er ((, ()") confir.ed that she was indeed pre,nant. 1 %n 4anuar' ((, ())*, Sandra ,ave 3irth to a 3a3' 3o' who was na.ed 4aco3 Salcedo. Aence, the filin, of the co.plaint 6 3' &rs. Pastora Salcedo. Burin, the investi,ation conducted 3' the C>S, a3out thirt' 90*: pictures of different persons were laid on the ta3le and Sandra was asked to pick up the pictures of her assailants. Sandra sin,led out the pictures of &oreno Tu.i.pad and Ruel Prieto. 4 Gater, Sandra was 3rou,ht out of the investi,ation roo. to a police line-up of ten people, includin, &oreno Tu.i.pad and Ruel Prieto. She was a,ain asked to point to her assailants. @ithout hesitation, Sandra fin,ered &oreno Tu.i.pad and Ruel Prieto. 5 &rs. Pastora Salcedo testified that she re?uested her two dau,hters-in-law, 4o' Salcedo and Celsa Salcedo, to ask Sandra the identit' of the persons who se8uall' .olested her. 9 4o' confir.ed in her testi.on' that she asked Sandra who se8uall' .olested her. Sandra revealed that &oreno Tu.i.pad and Ruel Prieto were the ones who raped her. Sandra de.onstrated how she was raped. 5irst, her thi,hs were touched, then she was hu,,ed and her pant' was taken off. A push and pull .ove.ent followed. 10 Celsa testified that she was present when the victi. de.onstrated how she was se8uall' a3used 3' the two accused, includin, the wa' her nipples were touched sa'in, #dito hawak,# and holdin, her 3reasts to e.phasi+e. She likewise went throu,h the .otion of re.ovin, her pant', utterin, at the sa.e ti.e #hu3ad pant'.# Sandra identified in open court accused &oreno Tu.i.pad and Ruel Prieto as the persons who raped her and said she wished the. dead, as the' did so.ethin, 3ad to her. 11 She once a,ain de.onstrated how she was se8uall' a3used. She held her two thi,hs with her two hands ne8t to her se8ual or,an sa'in,, #pant'# and then placed her hand on her 3reast and ,estured as if she were suckin,. She also touched her private or,an and .ade a push and pull .ove.ent. 12 Burin, the trial, the accused .oved that a 3lood test, 3oth #&a;or 2lood Groupin, Test# and #Pheno 2lood T'pin,# 3e conducted on the offended part', her child 4aco3 and the two accused. The result of the test conducted 3' the &akati &edical Center showed that 4aco3 Salcedo has a t'pe #%# 3lood, Sandra Salcedo t'pe #2#, accused Ruel Prieto t'pe #A# and accused-appellant t'pe #%#. 2oth accused anchored their defense on .ere denial contendin, that it was i.possi3le for the. to have co..itted the cri.e of rape.

After trial on the .erits, the trial court convicted &oreno Tu.i.pad of the cri.e char,ed 3ut ac?uitted the other accused, Ruel Prieto, on reasona3le dou3t, statin, that he #has a different t'pe of 3lood with 9sic: the child 4aco3 Salcedo as his t'pe of 3lood is #A#, while that of child 4aco3 Salcedo is t'pe #%#. The dispositive portion of the decision reads$
@A7R75%R7, pre.ises considered, the Court finds the accused, P%( &oreno Tu.i.pad, ,uilt' 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t of the cri.e of Rape, as char,ed in the infor.ation, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 005 of the Revised Penal Code, as a.ended, there 3ein, no a,,ravatin, nor .iti,atin, circu.stance attendant in the co..ission of the cri.e, said accused &oreno Tu.i.pad is here3' sentenced to suffer the penalt' of RE)L0SIO. #ER#ET0A= to inde.nif' the offended ,irl, Sandra Salcedo, in the a.ount of P!*,***.**= and to suffer the other accessor' penalties provided for 3' laws= and to pa' the costs of the proceedin,s. %n reasona3le dou3t, accused Ruel Prieto is here3' declared AC-I>TT7B fro. the char,e. S% %RB7R7B. 10

Accused-appellant assi,ns the followin, as errors of the lower court$

(. The lower court erred in not appreciatin, the i.possi3ilit' of co..ittin, the offense char,ed without detection. !. The lower court erred in convictin, the accused-appellant 3ase on .a;or 3lood ,roupin, test known as A2% and RAS test, not a paternal test known as chro.oso.es or AGA test.

The appeal is devoid of .erit. Accused-appellant ar,ues that it was i.possi3le for hi. to have co..itted the cri.e of rape 3ecause .ost of the ti.e he and his co-accused Ruel Prieto were to,ether with Col. Salcedo on inspection tours while the victi. was alwa's in the co.pan' of her .other. Ae further contends that it was likewise i.possi3le for Sandra, if she had reall' 3een .olested, not to have shouted out of pain, she 3ein, a vir,in. As if addin, insult to in;ur', accused-appellant su,,ests that it was Sandra<s 3rother, Cristopher Salcedo, alle,edl' a dru, user, who could have raped her. @e are not convinced. >t is true that the accused usuall' went with Col. Salcedo durin, inspection tours 3ut so.eti.es the' were left 3ehind and would pla' pin,pon, or card ,a.es with Sandra at the ,round floor of the house. @hile Sandra was alwa's with her .other, there were ti.es when she was left alone in the house with the accused. 14 &rs. Pastora Salcedo testified$
- Aow .an' securit' .en re.ain if 'ou can recall when 'our hus3and reported for workL A Two 9!:. - @ho were these securit' .en who re.ainedL A &oreno Tu.i.pad and Ruel Prieto. - Aow a3out the ! other securit' .en Tan,,an and Colal;oL A &' hus3and sent 9sic: the. for an errand and so.eti.e the' used to ,o with .' hus3and to the office. - 7ver' ti.e when 'our hus3and is out what the' do while the' were 9 sic: at the head?uarterL

A > saw the. sleepin, and so.eti.e the' were pla'in, at the porch with .' dau,hter Sandra pla'in, pin,pon, and so.eti.e the' were listenin, .usic. - @here did the' pla' usuall' take placeL A Givin, roo.. 11 888 888 888 - 2' the sa', 9sic: &rs. Salcedo, 'ou said a while a,o when 'ou were at the head?uarters 'ou were a3le to do 'our choirs, 9 sic: doin, laundr' ;o3s in the second store' of 'our house. Bo 'ou know where is 'our dau,hter Sandra at that ti.eL A Kes, she spent her ti.e at the second floor. - @hat part of the ,round floor she used 9 sic: to sta'L A 2ecause she is found 9sic: of .usic she sta' in the livin, roo.. - Bid she has 9sic: an' pla'.atesL A &oreno and Prieto. - Aave 'ou seen actuall' the ! accused pla'in, with 'our dau,hterL A Kes, pla'in, pin,pon, and pla'in, cards. 16

The victi. .ore than once positivel' identified accused-appellant &oreno Tu.i.pad as one of the perpetrators of the cri.e. 5irst, durin, the investi,ation conducted 3' the C>S, Sandra sin,led out accused-appellant and his co-accused fro. a.on, the thirt' 90*: pictures of different persons shown to her. Second, at the police lineup of several persons, likewise conducted 3' the C>S, Sandra once a,ain unerrin,l' pointed accused-appellant and his coaccused as the ones who raped her. Third, in open court, Sandra without hesitation, pointed to accused- appellant as the perpetrator of the cri.e. The followin, is the victi.<s own testi.on'$
PR%S. RA&%S$ @ill 'ou please de.onstrate 3efore this Aonora3le Court what &oreno and Ruel did to 'ouL R7C%RB$ The witness when she stood up held 3oth her thi,hs 9 sic: with her two hand 9sic: down to her se8ual or,an sa'in, a word #pant'# and she placed her hand on her 3reast and did so.ethin, as if suckin, and held her private part 9 sic: and did a push and pull .ove.ent and she cried. - @hen 'ou said that there was a push and pull .ove.ent of the 3od' and when this was 3ein, done did 'ou feel painL A Kes pain. - @hat part of 'our 3od' is painfulL R7C%RB$ The witness touchin, her private parts. - Bid 'ou also see 3lood on 'our se8ual or,anL A Kes. - @here did 'ou see these 3loodL R7C%RB$

The witness touchin, her private parts. - @hen this push and pull .ove.ent was 3ein, .ade, did 'ou see a .an<s or,anL A Kes sir. - @here did 'ou see this .ale or,anL A @itness touchin, her private part. - @ho did this to 'ou, who re.oved 'our pant'L A &oreno and Ruel. - Bid 'ou see &oreno takin, off his pantsL A Kes. - Bid 'ou see his se8 or,anL A The witness touchin, her private parts. - Aow a3out this Ruel, did 'ou see if he taken 9 sic: off his pantsL A Kes. - Bid 'ou see his se8 or,anL A Kes, witness a,ain touchin, her private part. - 2oth of the.L A Kes. - @here did &oreno and Ruel re.oved 9sic: 'our pant'L A &oreno. - >n 'our houseL A Kes. - @hat part of 'our house did &oreno and Ruel re.ove 'our pant'L A Bownstairs &oreno and Ruel re.ove pant'. - @hat part of the ,round floor, was it outside or inside the roo.L A >n the roo.. - 1-en 2sic3 /oreno and Ruel are inside t-e courtroom now" can +ou point to t-em4 A 5es. - 1ill +ou please point to t-emL PR%S. RA&%S$ &a' we re?uest the accused to stand up 'our honorL R7C%RB$ 2oth accused stood up fro. where the' were sittin, inside the courtroo.. PR%S. RA&%S$ @ho is that person 9prosecutor Ra.os point to accused &oreno Tu.i.pad:L A &oreno. R7C%RB$ The witness pointin, to a certain person who is standin, and when asked what is his na.e, he readil' answered that he is &oreno Tu.i.pad.

PR%S. RA&%S$ @ho is that person standin, 3esides &orenoL A 4oel. PR%S. RA&%S$ >f 'our honor please, she could not pronounced 9 sic: well the word Ruel 3ut the wa' she called this na.e is 4oel which refers to the sa.e person who is one of the accused in this case. 14

&elinda 4o' Salcedo, the victi.<s sister-in-law, testified that Sandra de.onstrated to her how she was ravished 3' the two accused, thus$
- ow, will 'ou please tell us what did Sandra Salcedo told 9 sic: 'ou as to how she was a3usedL A 2' what she had stated there were also actions that she .ade. - @ill 'ou please de.onstrate to this Aonora3le Court how did Sandra Salcedo was a3used as narrated or de.onstrated to 'ou 3' Sandra SalcedoL A Accordin, to her she was held in her thi,h and then she was hu,,ed and then the pant' was taken off and .akin, a push and pull .ove.ent 9witness de.onstration 3' holdin, her thi,h:L - ow, after Sandra Salcedo told 'ou and de.onstrated to 'ou how she was a3used. @hat else did Sandra Salcedo tell 'ou if she had told 'ou an' .ore .atterL A She did not sa' an'thin, .ore. - ow, when Sandra Salcedo refused to talk or sa' an'thin, else. @hat happened ne8tL A Then it was Celsa who asked her. - @here were 'ou when Celsa asked Sandra SalcedoL A > was ;ust 3eside her. - Kou said that after Sandra Salcedo refused to talk, Celsa did the ?uestionin,, did 'ou hear the ?uestion 3ein, asked 3' Celsa to Sandra SalcedoL A Kes. - And what was the ?uestion 3ein, asked 3' Celsa to Sandra SalcedoL A Celsa asked Sandra Salcedo as to what other thin,s that these two had done to herL - And what if an' did Sandra Salcedo tell 'ou as to what was done to herL A 2' wa' of talkin, and action. - And what was the answer of Sandra SalcedoL A Ae 9sic: answered it 3' action and talkin,. - And what was the answer of Sandra Salcedo as related 3' her to Celsa throu,h words and actionL R7C%RB$ The witness de.onstrated 3' holdin, his 9sic: nipple ,oin, down to her thi,h. - @hat else had transpired ne8tL A o .ore. ow, whenever Sandra Salcedo .entioned the na.es of accused &oreno

Tu.i.pad and Ruel Prieto, have 'ou o3served whose na.es was usuall' .entioned first 3' Sandra SalcedoL A She .entioned first the na.e of &oreno Tu.i.pad and Ruel. - And what happened after thatL A > infor.ed .' .other-in-law of what Sandra Salcedo had told us. - @hen did 'ou tell 'our .other-in- law a3out what Sandra Salcedo told 'ou and CelsaL A That ver' evenin, sir. 15

Accused-appellant si.plisticall' and ?uite erroneousl' ar,ues that his conviction was 3ased on the .edical findin, that he and the victi. have the sa.e 3lood t'pe #%#. Accused-appellants< culpa3ilit' was esta3lished .ainl' 3' testi.onial evidence ,iven 3' the victi. herself and her relatives. The 3lood test was adduced as evidence onl' to show that the alle,ed father or an' one of .an' others of the sa.e 3lood t'pe .a' have 3een the father of the child. As held 3' this Court in %anice /arie %ao vs. )ourt of Appeals 19$
Paternit' M Science has de.onstrated that 3' the anal'sis of 3lood sa.ples of the .other, the child, and the alle,ed father, it can 3e esta3lished conclusivel' that the .an is not the father of a particular child. 2ut ,roup 3lood testin, cannot show onl' a possi3ilit' that he is. Statutes in .an' states, and courts in others, have reco,ni+ed the value and the li.itations of such tests. So.e of the decisions have reco,ni+ed the conclusive presu.ption of non-paternit' where the results of the test, .ade in the prescri3ed .anner, show the i.possi3ilit' of the alle,ed paternit'. This is one of the few cases in which the ;ud,.ent of the Court .a' scientificall' 3e co.pletel' accurate, and intolera3le results avoided, such as have occurred where the findin, is allowed to turn on oral testi.on' conflictin, with the results of the test. The findin,s of such 3lood tests are not ad.issi3le to prove the fact of paternit' as the' show onl' a possi3ilit' that the alle,ed father or an' one of .an' others with the sa.e 3lood t'pe .a' have 3een the father of the child.

@A7R75%R7, accused-appellant<s ,uilt of the cri.e of rape havin, 3een proven 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t, the decision appealed fro. is here3' A55>R&7B. S% %RB7R7B. 6avide" %r." &ellosillo and *uiason" %%." concur. )ruz" %." is on leave.
2Foot&ot#s

( Records, p. !. ! T.S. ., Au,ust (, ())(, p. ). 0 78hi3it #A#, 5older of 78hi3its, p. (. 4 78hi3it #2#, 5older of 78hi3its, p. 0. 5 78hi3it #C#, 5older of 78hi3its, p. 5. 1 Supra. H T.S. ., Au,ust H, ())(, p. ((. " Id., p. (!. ) T.S. ., Au,ust (, ())(, pp. (5-(1. (* T.S. ., Au,ust 5, ())(, p. ).

(( Id., p. !5. (! Id., p. !1. (0 Rollo, p. !0. (4 TS , Au,ust (, ())(, pp. 1, (*. (5 Id., p. 1. (1 Id., pp. (*-((. (H T.S. ., Au,ust 5, ())(, pp. 1"-H!. (" Id., pp. )-((. () (5! SCRA 05) 9()"H:.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION G.R. No. 97525. 1r*. 7, 199A. P OP7 OF T6 P6I7IPPIN S, plaintiff5appellee, vs. 9O 7 S"RT"4OD" + 2O!"N 4R", 9IMMG 2"S!>Y" + 7"B"RT , VI! NT ST". "N" + 4>TI RR B and 9O6N DO , accused5appellants. The Solicitor 4eneral for plaintiff5appellee. rnesto M. Mai<ue8 for accused5appellants. SG77"2>S &. R M DI"7 7"HJ VID N! J FIN4 RPRINTSJ "2S N! T6 R OF DO S NOT 7IMIN"T POSSI2I7ITG T6"T "!!>S D !O>7D 6"V 2 N "T S! N OF T6 !RIM . U "lthou,h He a,ree #ith their opinion that a positive findin, of /atchin, fin,erprints has ,reat si,nificance, He cannot sustain their theor+ that fro/ the ne,ative findin,s in the fin,erprint e3a/ination conducted in the course of the investi,ation in the instant case, it /ust be concluded that the+ could not have been at the scene of the cri/e. Ne,ative findin,s do not at all ti/es lead to a valid conclusion for there /a+ be lo,ical e3planations for the absence of identifiable latent prints other than their not bein, present at the scene of the cri/e. Onl+ latent fin,erprints found on s/ooth surface are useful for purposes of co/parison in a cri/e laborator+ because prints left on rou,h surfaces result in dotted lines or bro;en lines instead of co/plete and continuous lines. Such ;ind of speci/en cannot be relied upon in a fin,erprint e3a/ination. The latent fin,erprints are actuall+ oil+ substance adherin, to the surfaces of ob:ects that co/e in contact #ith the fin,ers. 2+ their ver+ nature, oil+ substances easil+ spread such that #hen the fin,ers slide a,ainst the surface the+ touch, no identifiable latent print is left, onl+ s/ud,es instead. Not all police investi,ators are a#are of the nature of latent fin,erprints so as to be ,uided accordin,l+ in decidin, #hich ob:ects to sub/it for fin,erprint liftin, and e3a/ination. Notin, the interpla+ of /an+ circu/stances involved in the successful liftin, and identification of proper latent fin,erprints in a particular cri/e scene, the absence of one does not i//ediatel+ eli/inate the possibilit+ that the accused5appellants could have been at the scene of the cri/e. The+ /a+ be there +et the+ had not left an+ identifiable latent fin,erprint. 2esides, in the case at bar, onl+ ten latent fin,erprints are involved. The findin,s in this particular fin,erprint e3a/ination are not sufficient to case even :ust a reasonable doubt in their findin, of ,uilt for the cri/e char,ed. '. ID.J ID.J ID NTIFI!"TION OF T6 "!!>S DJ PO7I! 7IN 5>P NOT R P>IR D 2G 7"H FOR PROP R ID NTIFI!"TIONJ F"! "ND 2ODG MOV M NT OF "SS"I7"NT !R "T 7"STIN4 IMPR SSION ON VI!TIM. U Hhether or not there #as a previous police line5up, the fact is that the+ #ere positivel+ identified at the trial. There is no la# re<uirin, a police line5up as essential to a proper identification. The co/plainantRs reco,nition of the accused5appellants as her attac;ers cannot be doubted for she had durin, the carnal acts a/ple opportunit+ to see the faces of the /en #ho rava,ed her. It is the /ost natural reaction for victi/s of cri/inal violence to strive to see the loo;s and faces of their assailants and observe the /anner in #hich the cri/e #as co//itted. Most often the face of the assailant and bod+ /ove/ent thereof, create a lastin, i/pression #hich cannot easil+ be erased fro/ their /e/or+.

1. ID.J ID.J NON5F7I46T NOT PROOF OF INNO! N! J !"S "T 2"R. U The+ clai/ that the fact that Vicente Sta. "na and 9i//+ 2ascuSa did not flee, even #hen the+ had all the opportunities to do so, prove their innocence. Hhen the+ #ere allo#ed to ,o ho/e after Vil/a failed to identif+ the/ durin, the first confrontation at the police station, the+ sta+ed ho/e and did not flee until the+ #ere a,ain re<uired to appear at the police station for the second ti/e. The accused5appellants in effect posit that if fli,ht is an indication of ,uilt, non5fli,ht or the decision not to flee, havin, the opportunit+ to do so, is a si,n of innocence. He do not a,ree. "lthou,h it is settled that une3plained fli,ht indicates ,uilt, it does not necessaril+ follo# that absence thereof proves innocence, speciall+ so #hen there is over#hel/in, evidence to establish their ,uilt. $. ID.J "PP "7J F"!T>"7 FINDIN4S OF TRI"7 9>D4 NTIT7 D TO 6I46 ST R SP !TJ L! PTION. U this !ourt finds no reversible error havin, been co//itted b+ the trial court in convictin, the three accused5appellants for the cri/e of robber+ #ith /ultiple rape under "rticle '($ par. ' of the Revised Penal !ode. He affir/ its findin,s of fact #hich are fir/l+ ,rounded on the evidence presented at the trial. He reiterate our rulin, thus= KThere is need to stress ane# that this !ourt has lon, been co//itted to the principle that the deter/ination b+ a trial :ud,e #ho could #ei,h and appraise the testi/on+ as to the facts full+ proved is entitled to the hi,hest respect, unless it could be sho#n that he i,nored or disre,arded circu/stances of #ei,ht or influence sufficient to call for a different findin,.K %. !RIMIN"7 7"HJ !IVI7 7I"2I7ITG OF P RSONS 4>I7TG OF !RIM S "4"INST !6"STITGJ IND MNITG TO VI!TIM FOR M>7TIP7 R"P "TT ND D 2G !ONSPIR"!GJ "!!>S D SO7ID"RI7G 7I"27 T6 R FOR. U Hith re,ard to the inde/nit+ to Vil/a de 2elen for /ultiple rape, there havin, been evidence of conspirac+, the act of one bein, the act of all, each /ust be liable for all the three rapes co//itted, the+ /ust be held solidaril+ liable for said inde/nit+ #hich the trial court fi3ed at P1),))).)) for each offender or a total of P(),))).)). A. ID.J ID.J IN M>7TIP7 R"P "!!>S D NOT R P>IR D TO R !O4NIB OFFSPRIN4. U This !ourt cannot uphold the trial courtRs rulin, orderin, each of the accused to Kreco,ni8e the offsprin, if there b+ an+.K In /ultiple rape, not one /a+be re<uired to reco,ni8ed the offsprin, of the offended #o/an. In a case #here three persons, one after another, raped a #o/an, neither of the accuse #as ordered to reco,ni8e the offsprin, si/pl+ because it #as i/possible to deter/ine the paternit+ thereof. D !ISION !"MPOS, 9R., 9 p= The Re,ional Trial !ourt, Fourth 9udicial Re,ion, 2ranch 1A, !ala/ba, 7a,una convicted all three accused5appellants in its decision QQ dated Nove/ber 0, &((), the dispositive portion of #hich reads= KH6 R FOR , the court hereb+ finds the accused 9oel Sarta,oda + 2ocane,ra, 9i//+ 2ascoSa -sic. + 7a8arte and Vicente Sta. "na + 4utierre8 all ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt as co5principals of the cri/e of Robber+ Hith Rape, defined and penali8ed in "rticle '($, para,raph ' of the Revised Penal !odeJ there bein, t#o a,,ravatin, circu/stances #ithout an+ /iti,atin, circu/stance to offset the sa/e, hereb+ sentences each of the said accused to suffer the penalt+ of Reclusion Perpetua #ith the accessories provided for b+ the la#. ach of the three accused is ordered to inde/nif+ the offended part+ Vil/a de 2elen the su/ of P1),))).)), and each of the/ shall reco,ni8e the offsprin, if there be an+. The said accused are li;e#ise ordered to return the personal properties stolen or pa+ its e<uivalent a/ount of P&0,$().)) to Ro,elio de 2elen, the la#ful o#ner thereof.

SO ORD R D.K & The facts of the case /a+ be su//ari8ed as follo#s= It #as the evenin, of 9ul+ ', &(** #hile Ro,elio de 2elen, his t#o dau,hters and his sister Vil/a de 2elen #ere sleepin, in their house at !ala/ba, 7a,una, #hen appellant bro;e in and #o;e hi/ up, po;in, a ;nife at hi/. The+ tied up his hands and /ade hi/ lie flat on his sto/ach and as;ed for the ;e+ to his cabinet. Fearin, for his life and that of his co/panions, he reluctantl+ told the/ #here the ;e+ #as ;ept. 9ust on the other roo/ #as Vil/a, #ho heard #hispers -;alus;os. but si/pl+ pla+ed possu/. Hhen the three sa# her on the bed, the+ approached her. One covered her /outh as another po;ed a ;nife at her nec;. The+ threatened to ;ill her if she should /a;e an outcr+. The+ raised her blouse and re/oved her under#ear. The+ tied both her hands so that she could offer no resistance. She #as at such a pitiful state #hen the accused 9i//+ 2ascuSa #ent on top of her, ;issin, her on different parts of her bod+, #hile Vicente Sta. "na held her le,s apart. 9i//+ finall+ inserted his se3 or,an inside her and satisfied his bestial desire. "fter 9i//+ #as over, Vicente too; his turn and then 9oel. "fter the three of the/ had successfull+ deflo#ered Vil/a, the+ left, carr+in, #ith the/ the /one+ and other personal belon,in,s of the de 2elen fa/il+. "fter the three /en left, Ro,elio, #ith his hands and feet still tied up, tried to ,et up fro/ the bed and s#itched the li,hts on and called to his nei,hbors for help. Vil/a, /ean#hile, had lost consciousness due to shoc;. Mean#hile, Petra 7a/ire, his sister5in5la# #ho lives ri,ht ne3t to his house responded to his cr+ for help. She #ent to their house and untied Ro,elio. She sa# Vil/a #ith her upper bod+ na;ed and sobbin, so she covered Vil/a #ith a blan;et. Soon after, his other sister5in5la# also arrived. The+ reported the incident to the 2aran,a+ !aptain. The+ had Vil/a e3a/ined b+ Dr. Danilo ". Ra/ire8 at Dr. 9ose Ri8al Me/orial 6ospital at about &)=)) that sa/e /ornin,. 6e conducted e3ternal and internal e3a/inations. 6is e3ternal e3a/ination sho#ed no ph+sical in:uries e3cept that he noted several abrasions at the ,enital area. 6is internal e3a/ination sho#ed fresh lacerations of the h+/en at (=)) and $=)) positions. The va,ina ad/itted t#o fin,ers #ith ease. In the present appeal the lone assi,ned error is= T6 7OH R !O>RT RR D IN NOT D !7"RIN4 -T6"T. T6 PROS !>TION >TT R7G F"I7 D TO PROV T6 4>I7T OF T6 R "SON"27 DO>2T 6 N! , T6 IR "!P>ITT"7 IS IN VIT"27 . This appeal has no /erit. The accused5appellants fault the trial court of i,norin, the fin,erprint e3a/ination report sub/itted b+ the !ri/e 7aborator+ of the P!DINP !a/p !ra/e #hich stated that none of the speci/en latent fin,erprints #ere found to be positive. It is their contention that since their fin,erprints #ere not found in the ob:ects found in the scene of the cri/e the+ cannot be held ,uilt+ of the cri/e char,ed be+ond reasonable doubt. "lthou,h He a,ree #ith their opinion that a positive findin, of /atchin, fin,erprints has ,reat si,nificance, He cannot sustain their theor+ that fro/ the ne,ative findin,s in the fin,erprint e3a/ination conducted in the course of the investi,ation in the instant case, it /ust be concluded that the+ could not have been at the scene of the cri/e. Ne,ative findin,s do not at all ti/es lead to a valid conclusion for there /a+ be lo,ical e3planations for the absence of identifiable latent prints other than VID N! OF T6 "!!>S D 2 GOND

their not bein, present at the scene of the cri/e. Onl+ latent fin,erprints found on s/ooth surface are useful for purposes of co/parison in a cri/e laborator+ because prints left on rou,h surfaces result in dotted lines or bro;en lines instead of co/plete and continuous lines. Such ;ind of speci/en cannot be relied upon in a fin,erprint e3a/ination. The latent fin,erprints are actuall+ oil+ substances adherin, to the surfaces of ob:ects that co/e in contact #ith the fin,ers. 2+ their ver+ nature, oil+ substances easil+ spread such that #hen the fin,ers slide a,ainst the surface the+ touch, no identifiable latent print is left, onl+ s/ud,es instead. Not all police investi,ators are a#are of the nature of latent fin,erprints so as to be ,uided accordin,l+ in decidin, #hich ob:ects to sub/it for fin,erprint liftin, and e3a/ination. Notin, the interpla+ of /an+ circu/stances involved in the successful liftin, and identification of proper latent fin,erprints in a particular cri/e scene, the absence of one does not i//ediatel+ eli/inate the possibilit+ that the accused5appellants could have been at the scene of the cri/e. The+ /a+ be there +et the+ had not left an+ identifiable latent fin,erprint. 2esides, in the case at bar, onl+ ten latent fin,erprints are involved. The findin,s in this particular fin,erprint e3a/ination are not sufficient to cast even :ust a reasonable doubt in their findin, of ,uilt for the cri/e char,ed. The accused5appellants li;e#ise contend that the police line5up had been irre,ularl+ conducted revealin, su,,estibilit+ to their pre:udice. The+ accused Pat. Re+es of coachin, co/plainant Vil/a de 2elen #hen she identified her three assailants. The+ clai/ that it #as Pat. Re+esR fault that Kthe+ #ere not allo#ed to select their positions at the line5upJ that the+ #ere not placed in line under a nu/eral a,ainst a #all /ar;ed to indicate their respective hei,ht in feet and inchesJ that there #as no record /ade of their descriptions and ph+sical characteristicsJ that the #itnessDvicti/ #as not out of vie# of the three -1. accused lined5up for identification purposes.K ' He find these clai/s of irre,ularities of little if not, of no si,nificance at all #hen considered in the li,ht of the natural desire in the victi/ to see; retribution not si/pl+ fro/ an+bod+ #ho /a+ be put before her but fro/ the ver+ sa/e offenders #ho actuall+ did violence a,ainst her. It #ould be /ost illo,ical for an outra,ed victi/ to direct her an,er a,ainst an+one other than her three offenders. He cannot accept the accused5appellantsR clai/ that it #as on Pat. Re+esR su,,estion that the victi/ pointed to the accused5appellants as her assailants. No a/ount of coachin, #ill be sufficient to counter the natural outra,e of a rape victi/ a,ainst her abuser #hen said abuser is presented before her in a police line5up. The outra,e displa+ed b+ the rape victi/ #as a spontaneous reaction. She identified her assailants because of no other reason e3cept to let people ;no# #ho hurt her. Hhether or not there #as a previous police line5up, the fact is that the+ #ere positivel+ identified at the trial. There is no la# re<uirin, a police line5up as essential to a proper identification. 1 The co/plainantRs reco,nition of the accused5appellants as her attac;ers cannot be doubted for she had durin, the carnal acts a/ple opportunit+ to see the faces of the /en #ho rava,ed her. It is the /ost natural reaction for victi/s of cri/inal violence to strive to see the loo;s and faces of their assailants and observe the /anner in #hich the cri/e #as co//itted. Most often the face of the assailant and bod+ /ove/ents thereof, create a lastin, i/pression #hich cannot easil+ be erased fro/ their /e/or+. $ The accused5appellants further clai/ that Kthe Medical Findin,s of Dr. Danilo Ra/ire8 concludes that the alle,ed victi/ of rape, Vil/a de 2elen /ust have had se3ual e3perienced -sic. five -%. to si3 -A. da+s before the alle,ed incident happened on 9ul+ ', &(** at about 1 to $ oRcloc; in the /ornin,K. % There is no truth to this clai/. In fact, there #as no cate,orical or positive assertion on the part of Dr. Ra/ire8 that the se3ual intercourse #ith Vil/a #as co//itted on the ver+ date #hen the alle,ed Krobber+ #ith rapeK too; place on 9ul+ ', &(**. This is a clear distortion of the testi/on+ of Dr. Ra/ire8 #ho on cross5e3a/ination testified as follo#s=

K"TTG. M"IP> B= P Gou cannot also deter/ine #hen #as the first and #hen #as the last intercourse as per +our e3a/inationV FIS!"7 Ob:ection, #itness is inco/petent. !O>RT Hitness /a+ ans#er. " The findin,s su,,est that because of h+/enal laceration the in:uries #as -sic. recent not /ore than one #ee;, sir. P Hhen +ou sa+ it is not /ore than one #ee;, could it be A or % da+sV " Possible, sir. P Hhen +ou sa+ it is possible that the victi/ could have e3perienced se3ual intercourse A to % da+s that #as indicated in +our e3a/ination /ar;ed as 3h. ", can +ou deter/ine as per +our findin,V " Hell, +es, sir, I placed fresh h+/enal laceration because laceration #ill deter/ine #hether it is fresh or old because of the characteristice -sic. of the laceration, sir. P "t the ti/e +ou e3a/ined the patient in +our /edical opinion it could have been % or A da+s had elapsedV " Ges, sir. "TTG. M"IP> B= That #ill be all.K A The trial court, in the e3ercise of its discretion to see; clarification in #itnessR testi/on+ proceeded as follo#s= K!O>RT= P Doctor, in +our findin,s +ou noted that there #as an abrasionV " Ges, +our 6onor. P Is that /ore than one abrasionV " I found 1 //., +our 6onor. HITN SS -continuin,.= U and on the lo#er openin, of the va,ina on the ri,ht side, that is the onl+ place, sir. !O>RT= P "side fro/ that in:ur+ or rater -sic. that portion there is no other in:ur+ #hich +ou foundV " None, +our 6onor. P 2ecause laceration stated in +our /edicole,al certificate that there #as fresh h+/enal laceration noted at ( and $ oRcloc; on the face of the cloc;V " Ges, +our 6onor. P Do #e ,ather it ri,ht #hen +ou stated in +our /edicole,al certificate fresh it is not +et healedV

" Ges, +our 6onor. P Fro/ that findin, of +ours re,ardin, the e3istence of fresh h+/enal laceration +ou said that it least one or ' da+s had elapsed before +ou have conducted the ph+sical e3a/inationV " Ges, +our 6onor. P In other #ords fro/ one to % da+sV " Ges, +our 6onor. !O>RT= P 2ut it is possible that it could be /ore than one or t#o da+sV. HITN SS= " Ges, +our 6onor.K 0 It is evident that Dr. Ra/ire8 never cate,oricall+ concluded that the se3ual intercourse causin, the fresh h+/enal lacerations too; place five to si3 da+s before the date of her e3a/ination. The accused5 appellantsR clai/ that the se3ual intercourse too; place on 9une 'A or '0, &(** is con:ectural and #ithout factual basis. The clai/ of the accused5appellants that the prosecution failed to present rebuttal evidence to refute the aver/ents of 9oel Sarta,oda that the+ tried in vain to persuade hi/ to ad/it the char,e a,ainst hi/ and to i/plicate his t#o -'. co5accused did not deserve the attention of the trial court nor does it deserve Ours, bein, per se unacceptable and unbelievable in the li,ht of hu/an e3perience. Finall+, the+ clai/ that the fact that Vicente Sta. "na and 9i//+ 2ascuSa did not flee, even #hen the+ had all the opportunities to do so, prove their innocence. Hhen the+ #ere allo#ed to ,o ho/e after Vil/a failed to identif+ the/ durin, the first confrontation at the police station, the+ sta+ed ho/e and did not flee until the+ #ere a,ain re<uired to appear at the police station for the second ti/e. The accused5appellants in effect posit that if fli,ht is an indication of ,uilt, non5fli,ht or the decision not to flee, havin, the opportunit+ to do so, is a si,n of innocence. He do not a,ree. "lthou,h it is settled that une3plained fli,ht indicates ,uilt, it does, not necessaril+ follo# that absence thereof proves innocence, speciall+ so #hen there is over#hel/in, evidence to establish their ,uilt. This !ourt finds no reversible error havin, been co//itted b+ the trial court in convictin, the three accused5appellants for the cri/e of robber+ #ith /ultiple rape under "rticle '($ par. ' of the Revised Penal !ode. He affir/ its findin,s of fact #hich are fir/l+ ,rounded on the evidence presented at the trial. He reiterate our rulin, thus= KThere is need to stress ane# that this !ourt has lon, been co//itted to the principle that the deter/ination b+ a trial :ud,e #ho could #ei,h and appraise the testi/on+ as to the facts dul+ proved is entitled to the hi,hest respect, unless it could be sho#n that he i,nored or disre,arded circu/stances of #ei,ht or influence sufficient to call for a different findin,.K * He are for the affir/ance of the conviction of the three accused5appellants. Hith re,ard to the inde/nit+ to Vil/a de 2elen for /ultiple rape, there havin, been evidence of conspirac+, the act of one bein, the act of all, each /ust be liable for all the three rapes co//itted, the+ /ust be held solidaril+ liable ( for said inde/nit+ #hich the trial court fi3ed at P1),))).)) for each offender or a total of P(),))).)). &) 6o#ever, this !ourt cannot uphold the trial courtRs rulin, orderin, each of the accused to Kreco,ni8e the offsprin, if there be an+K. In /ultiple rape, not one /a+be re<uired to reco,ni8ed the offsprin, of

the offended #o/an. In a case && #here three persons, one after another, raped a #o/an, neither of the accused #as ordered to reco,ni8e the offsprin, si/pl+ because it #as i/possible to deter/ine the paternit+ thereof. H6 R FOR , pre/ises considered, the appealed decision is "FFIRM D #ith the MODIFI!"TION that the accused5appellants are held :ointl+ and severall+ liable to inde/nif+ Vil/a de 2elen for /ultiple rape in the a/ount of P(),))).)), and that none of the accused is re<uired to reco,ni8e the offsprin,. SO ORD R D. Narvasa, ! .9 ., Padilla, Re,alado and Nocon, 99 ., concur. Footnotes QQ Penned b+ 9ud,e 9usto M. Sultan. &. Records, pp. 1%151%$. '. "ppellantsR 2rief, p. '1. 1. People vs. Sal,uero, et al., &(* S!R" 1%0 -&((&.. $. People vs. Selfaison, & S!R" '1% -&(A&.. %. "ppellantsR 2rief, p. '%. A. TSN, October &*, &(**, pp. &15&$. 0. Ibid., pp. &$5&A. *. People vs. !arandan,, %' S!R" '%(, 'A0 -&(01.J citin, People vs. "n,cap, $1 S!R" $10 -&(0'.. (. See= People vs. Selfaison, supra. &). In People vs. !ali3to, &(1 S!R" 1)1 -&((&., the !ourt ordered the accused to inde/nif+ the offended part+ in the su/ of P1),))).)) for each of the three rapes co//itted for a total of P(),))).)). &&. People vs. De 7eon, et al., 4.R. No. 75')($, "pril '), &(%).

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT 2a,uio !it+ N 2"N! 4.R. No. &1'A0A "pril $, '))& P OP7 OF T6 P6I7IPPIN S, plaintiff5appellee, vs. ) !ME C RPO, OSC R !# O, 9 R$!TO !# O -0, ROC%E !# O, accused5appellants. PER CUR! M@ The accused /i,ht as #ell have borro#ed the fa/ous line of Sha;espeare N K 'o% this %orld is iven to lyin XK& N #hen the+ i/pute error to the trial court for rel+in, on the testi/on+ of a sin,le #itness in convictin, the/ of /ultiple /urder co/ple3ed #ith atte/pted /urder for the death of Florentino Dula+, Nor#ela Dula+ and Nissan Dula+, and the #oundin, of Noe/i Dula+.' The challen,ed testi/on+ of #itness Ruben Meriales follo#s= 1 On '% "u,ust &((A at about *=)) oIcloc; in the evenin, #hile he #as #atchin, television #ith his fa/il+ his do,s bar;ed. 6is /other #ho #as apprehensive that their co# /i,ht be stolen prodded hi/ to chec; the disturbance. To alla+ her fears he stood up, too; his flashli,ht and trud,ed the unpaved path to#ards his co# that #as tied to a /an,o tree. Then the noise ,re# louder thus arousin, his suspicion that so/ethin, #as reall+ #ron,. "fter transferrin, his co# nearer to his house, he #ent inside the ;itchen, stood atop the concrete #ashbasin, hid hi/self behind the ba/boo slats and peeped outside to observe. The dar;ness helped conceal hi/ fro/ outside vie# #hile the li,ht fro/ the t#o -'. bulbs positioned at about three -1. /eters fro/ #here he stood filtered throu,h the slats and illu/ined the surroundin,s. There #as also /oon in the s;+. " fe# /inutes later, he sa# baran,a+ captain 9ai/e !arpo to,ether #ith Harlito Ibao suspiciousl+ stoopin, near his barn. 6e ;ne# 9ai/e and Harlito ver+ #ell. 9ai/e #as his uncle and Harlito lived in his nei,hborhood. HarlitoIs son Roche #as also thereJ he #as standin, b+ the /an,o tree. The+ #ere all loo;in, in the direction of Florentino Dula+Is house #hich #as about a /eter to the south fro/ #here he #as. 6e also sa# Oscar Ibao, another son of Harlito, stridin, to#ards Dula+Is hut. "s soon as he reached the hut Oscar lifted the sa%ali /at near the #all and hurled so/ethin, inside. Oscar then scurried off to#ards the nearb+ cree; #ith Roche follo#in, hi/. Seconds later, a loud e3plosion shoo; the entire nei,hborhood and Teresita Dula+Is screa/s bro;e into the ni,ht. Ruben Meriales rushed outside. 6e ran to#ards FlorentinoIs hut but #as deterred b+ dar;ness. 6e returned ho/e to ta;e his flashli,ht and raced bac; to lend aid to Teresita. Inside the hut he #as stunned b+ the terrif+in, ,ore that ,reeted hi/ N a bloodied Florentino cradled in the ar/s of his #eepin, #ido#, Nor#ela and Nissan l+in, side b+ side on a cot both doused in blood, and a /otionless Nor/a #hose head #as oo8in, #ith blood. Reali8in, the e3i,enc+ of the situation, he left the cri/e scene to borro# the :eepne+ of 1r y. Ea a%ad d,ardo Mar<ue8 for the hapless victi/s. The nei,hbors /illin, around at once ,ave up hope on Florentino so that onl+ Nor#ela, Nissan and Noe/i #ere loaded in the :eepne+ and rushed to the astern Pan,asinan District 6ospital. On their #a+, Nor#ela #ho had in:uries on her chest and lo#er appenda,e died. Nissan #ho #as five -%. +ears old and the +oun,est of the victi/s died later due to Kshoc; fro/ painsK caused b+ the shrapnel #ounds in her left shoulder, abdo/en and lo#er e3tre/ities.$ Noe/i luc;il+ survived. 6er attendin, ph+sician, Dr. /iliano Subido, testified that Noe/i #as se/i5conscious and vo/itin, althou,h a/bulator+ at the ti/e he e3a/ined her. 2ut due to

the seriousness of her #ounds and the hospitalIs lac; of facilities she #as ta;en to another hospital in Da,upan !it+.% In the course of their investi,ation, the police/en <uestioned the people #ho /i,ht have #itnessed the carna,e. Fearful ho#ever that the culprits #ould return, Ruben Meriales refused to ,ive an+ state/ent but inti/ated to Police Officer 4uiller/o Osio that he #ould ,o to the police station after the burial. On $ Septe/ber &((A, or a #ee; later, Ruben ;ept his pro/ise and #ent to the police station #here he ,ave his state/ent to Police Officer Osio. 6e na/ed 9ai/e !arpo, Harlito Ibao, Oscar Ibao and Roche Ibao as the perpetrators of the cri/e. 6e further said that Florentino #as ;illed because he #as about to testif+ a,ainst Roche Ibao for the /urder of his brother Delfin Meriales.A On 1 October &((A, solel+ on the basis of RubenIs testi/on+, a cri/inal co/plaint for the /urder of Florentino Dula+ and his t#o -'. dau,hters Nor#ela and Nissan as #ell as the frustrated /urder of his dau,hter Noe/i #as filed a,ainst 9ai/e !arpo, Harlito Ibao, Oscar Ibao and Roche Ibao. Harrants for their i//ediate arrest #ere issued b+ the /unicipal circuit trial court. On '% October &((A 9ai/e !arpo #as ta;en into custod+ b+ the police, #hile Roche Ibao eluded arrest until ( Dece/ber &((A #hen he #as apprehended b+ police officers in 7a >nion. Hith RocheIs arrest, Oscar and Harlito reali8ed the futilit+ of hidin, and surrendered the/selves to the National 2ureau of Investi,ation -N2I. in 7a >nion. "t the trial, the prosecution presented Ruben, Noe/i, Dr. Rosalina O. Victorio, Dr. /iliano Subido and Police Officers Vir,ilio dela !ru8, 9ovencio Tapac and 4uiller/o Osio as #itnesses. Police Officer Osio testified that on the ni,ht of '% "u,ust &((A after receivin, a report of an e3plosion in 1r y. 1ali ayan, he to,ether #ith Police Officers 9ulius "urora, Ricardo 7u,ares and 9ovencio Tapac i//ediatel+ responded. The+ #ere able to ,ather several ,renade shrapnels and a ,renade shiftin, lever fro/ the cri/e scene. 6e spo;e #ith the #eepin, Teresita Dula+ #ho told hi/ that she suspected the accused of havin, perpetrated the assault. 6e li;e#ise conferred #ith Ruben Meriales #ho na/ed the sa/e set of suspects and #ho pro/ised to ,ive his state/ent to the police after the funeral. "fter spea;in, #ith Teresita and Ruben, he su//oned his collea,ues to ,o #ith hi/ to Harlito IbaoIs house #hich #as :ust across the road. HarlitoIs house #as dar; and its front door #as loc;ed. 6e called out but there #as no ans#er. The+ then proceeded to OscarIs house #hich #as also padloc;ed and unoccupied. 6e #ent to RocheIs house and peeped inside before the+ left.0 ",ainst their positive identification b+ Ruben, the four -$. accused interposed alibi clai/in, that the+ #ere so/e#here else #hen the Dula+ hut #as blasted. The+ li;e#ise assailed RubenIs testi/on+ for bein, a fabrication and insisted that he lied to ,et bac; at the/ because Roche #as a suspect in the ;illin, of his brother Delfin Meriales. 9ai/e and his #ife Veronica !arpo #ere one in testif+in, that in the evenin, of '% "u,ust &((% 9ai/e #as at ho/e in 1r y. Libson , a hundred and fift+ -&%). /eters a#a+ fro/ the house of the Dula+s in 1r y. 1ali ayan. Hhen he heard the loud e3plosion, he su//oned his tanods to chec; #hether the blast happened #ithin their baran ay. Hhen he learned that the e3plosion occurred in the ad:oinin, 1r y. 1ali ayan, he #ent ho/e to sleep. 1r y. 1ali ayan is separated fro/ his baran ay b+ a cree; and could be reached in ten -&). /inutes. 6o#ever, on the ni,ht of the incident, the cree; #as nec; deep such that one had to /a;e a detour throu,h a /ountainous route for about thirt+ -1). /inutes to reach 1r y. 1ali ayan.* 9ai/e testified that Ruben i/plicated hi/ because the latter #as an,r+ at hi/. RubenIs ,rud,e supposedl+ started #hen 9ai/e sided #ith the Ibaos in the /urder case instituted b+ the Merialeses

a,ainst Roche for the death of Delfin Meriales. "s a /atter of fact, on &) Dece/ber &((A #hile he #as incarcerated at the 2alun,ao District 9ail, Ruben supposedl+ visited hi/ as;in, his for,iveness for havin, na/ed hi/ as one of the perpetrators of the cri/e. Ruben subse<uentl+ pleaded #ith hi/ to reveal the na/es of those responsible but #hen he clai/ed i,norance, Ruben left in a huff. Harlito, Oscar and Roche Ibao testified that on the ni,ht of the e3plosion their fa/il+ #as havin, a fare#ell part+ for the fa/il+Is onl+ ,irl Maribel Ibao #ho #as leavin, for 6on,;on,. The+ heard the blast but the+ did not bother to chec;. The+ denied havin, heard the police officers call for the/ an hour after the e3plosion. Roche further asserted that he did not have a house in 1r y. 1ali ayan as reported because he lived #ith his parents5in5la# in 1r y. Libson . 6o#ever, on the ni,ht of the blast, he slept at his parentsI house as all of his siblin,s and their fa/ilies #ere there. 6e onl+ learned of the bloodbath the follo#in, /ornin, #hen the+ #ent ho/e to his in5la#s. 6is #ife 9ovel+n corroborated his testi/on+ in the sa/e /anner that Re/edios supported the stor+ of her husband Harlito.( In convictin, 9ai/e !arpo, Harlito Ibao, Oscar Ibao and Roche Ibao of the /ultiple /urder of Florentino, Nor#ela and Nissan Dula+ and the atte/pted /urder of Noe/i Dula+ the trial court ,ave full credit to the testi/on+ of Ruben.&) It accepted his strai,htfor#ard testi/on+ and ruled that Kat no instance throu,hout the t#in testi/onies of Meriales did the !ourt notice a t#itch of falsehood on his lips.K&& "ccordin,l+, in accordance #ith Sec. A, R" 0A%(, and "rt. $* of 8he Revised Penal Code the trial court i/posed upon all of the accused the supre/e penalt+ of death and ordered the/ to solidaril+ inde/nif+ the heirs of the deceased as #ell as Noe/i Dula+ in the a/ount of PA)),))).)).&' Forth#ith, the case #as elevated to this !ourt for auto/atic revie#. "fter the filin, of briefs, the accused filed an Addendum to AppellantFs 1rief ur,in, that the favorable result of their lie detector tests #ith the N2I be ad/itted into the records.&1 " lie detector test is based on the theor+ that an individual #ill under,o ph+siolo,ical chan,es, capable of bein, /onitored b+ sensors attached to his bod+, #hen he is not tellin, the truth. The !ourt does not put credit and faith on the result of a lie detector test inas/uch as it has not been accepted b+ the scientific co//unit+ as an accurate /eans of ascertainin, truth or deception.&$ The e3plosion b+ /eans of a hand ,renade on the ni,ht of '% "u,ust &((A resultin, in the death of Florentino, Nor#ela and Nissan Dula+ and in the #oundin, of Noe/i Dula+ is an ad/itted fact. The identit+ of the perpetrators, as tenaciousl+ <uestioned b+ the accused, depends upon the credibilit+ of Ruben Meriales. In this appeal, accused5appellants challen,e the veracit+ of the testi/on+ of Ruben Meriales pri/aril+ on t#o -'. ,rounds= first, RubenIs testi/on+ in court is different fro/ and is contradictor+ to his affidavit of $ October &((AJ and second, Ruben is not a disinterested #itness because he has a ,rud,e a,ainst the Ibaos. !onsistent #ith ,ivin, due deference to the observations of the trial court on credibilit+ of #itnesses, #e a,ree #ith the court a >uo #hen it believed Ruben Meriales /ore than the defense #itnesses. &% Indeed, the trial court is best e<uipped to /a;e an assess/ent of #itnesses, and its factual findin,s are ,enerall+ not disturbed on appeal unless it has overloo;ed, /isunderstood or disre,arded i/portant facts,&A #hich is not true in the present case. The t#in ar,u/ents therefore raised b+ accused5appellants a,ainst the testi/on+ of Ruben Meriales are devoid of /erit. " scrutin+ of the records reveals that his testi/on+ is not inconsistent #ith his affidavit of $ October &((A inas/uch as the for/er /erel+ supplied the details of the event #hich the latter failed to disclose. 2ut assu/in, that there #as an+ inconsistenc+, it is settled that #henever an affidavit contradicts a testi/on+ ,iven in court the latter co//ands ,reater respect. &0 Such inconsistenc+ is

uni/portant and #ould not even discredit a fallible #itness.&* The /ere fact that Ruben ad/itted harborin, resent/ent a,ainst the Ibaos for the /urder of his brother Delfin does not confir/ that he fabricated his stor+. 6is fran;ness in ad/ittin, his resent/ent a,ainst the Ibaos should even be considered in his favor.&( There is li;e#ise nothin, unnatural in RubenIs attitude of concealin, hi/self behind the ;itchen #all instead of #arnin, the Dula+s of the loo/in, dan,er to their lives. It is a #ell5;no#n fact that persons react differentl+ to different situations N there /a+ be so/e #ho #ill respond violentl+ to an i/pendin, dan,er #hile there /a+ be others #ho #ill si/pl+ assu/e a cravenl+ de/eanor. In this case, Ruben #as ruled b+ his fear rather than b+ his reason, but for this alone, his credibilit+ should not be doubted. Apropos 9ai/eIs i/putation that Ruben had ad/itted to hi/ #hile in :ail that he lied in his testi/on+, #e find this accusation farcical as nothin, #as ever offered in support thereof. The lone corroborative testi/on+, #hich #as that of Roche, does not inspire belief since Roche hi/self ad/itted overhearin, the conversation #hile 9ai/e to,ether #ith other prisoners #as constructin, a hut outside of his cell at about three -1. /eters a#a+. "s correctl+ hinted b+ the prosecution, the noise ,enerated b+ the construction /ade it unli;el+ for Roche to hear conversations three -1. /eters a#a+.') The defense proffered b+ the accused is alibi. 2ut this is futile. 2+ his o#n ad/ission, 9ai/e #as onl+ a hundred and fift+ -&%). /eters a#a+ fro/ the scene of the cri/e. In fact, it #ould onl+ ta;e hi/ thirt+ -1). /inutes, at the /ost, to be at the place of the Dula+s. More so for the Ibaos #ho ac;no#led,ed that the+ #ere havin, a part+ :ust a stoneIs thro# a#a+ fro/ the cri/e scene at the ti/e of the e3plosion. !uriousl+ thou,h, if the+ #ere indeed revelin, inside their house on that fateful ni,ht, then #e cannot co/prehend #h+ the+ did not ,o out to investi,ate after hearin, the blast. 2esides, it #as rather stran,e for the Ibaos not to have :oined their nei,hbors #ho had instantaneousl+ /illed outside to vie# the /a+he/. Their conduct indeed betra+ed the/. Further, the i//ediate fli,ht and tarriance of the Ibaos to 7a >nion until RocheIs arrest cannot but de/onstrate their ,uilt and desire to evade prosecution.'& The trial court also correctl+ ruled that accused5appellants conspired in perpetratin, the offense char,ed. Fro/ the detailed account of Ruben, 9ai/e and Harlito positioned the/selves near the ha+ barn #hile Roche casuall+ stood b+ the /an,o tree. "s observed b+ the trial court, the present of 9ai/e, Harlito and Roche inescapabl+ ,ave encoura,e/ent and a sense of securit+ to Oscar, the ,roupIs preceptor. Surel+, the latter #as e/boldened to co//it the cri/e ;no#in, that his co5conspirators #ere not far behind. >nder the doctrine enunciated in People v. 8ayo,'' the cri/e co//itted /a+ other#ise be /ore appropriatel+ deno/inated as /urder <ualified b+ e3plosion rather than b+ treacher+. 6o#ever, since it #as treacher+ that is alle,ed in the Infor/ation and appreciated b+ the trial court, the e3plosion of the ,renade #hich resulted in the death of Florentino, Nor#ela and Nissan, and the #oundin, of Noe/i can onl+ be /ultiple /urder co/ple3ed #ith atte/pted /urder.'1 The cri/e co//itted a,ainst Noe/i Dula+ #as correctl+ deno/inated b+ the trial court as atte/pted /urder considerin, that none of her in:uries #as fatal. 6er attendin, ph+sician even /ade conflictin, state/ents in the assess/ent of her #ounds, to #it= althou,h he said that Noe/i could have died fro/ the shrapnel #ound in her head, he specificall+ ruled out the possibilit+ of Kintercerebral he/orrha,eK'$ and despite the seriousness of the possible co/plications of her in:uries she #ould suffer fro/ ph+sical incapacit+ for onl+ ten -&). to fourteen -&$. da+s. "s none of her #ounds #as severe as to cause her death, accused5appellants not havin, perfor/ed all the acts of e3ecution that #ould have brou,ht it about, the cri/e is onl+ atte/pted /urder.'%

Since the three -1. /urders and atte/pted /urder #ere produced b+ a sin,le act, na/el+, the e3plosion caused b+ the hurlin, of a ,renade into the bedroo/ of the Dula+s, the case co/es under "rt. $* of The Revised Penal !ode on co/ple3 cri/es. "rticle $* provides that the penalt+ for the /ore serious cri/e, #hich in the present case is reclusion perpetua to death, should be applied in its /a3i/u/ period. "s the cri/e #as co/ple3ed, the death penalt+ #as properl+ i/posed b+ the trial court. "t this point, #e ta;e e3ception to the court a <uoRs a#ard of da/a,es in the Kne,otiated a/ount of PA)),))).)).K It appears that under the auspices of the trial court counsel for the defense entered into an oral co/pro/ise #ith the public prosecutor, #hich #as subse<uentl+ ratified b+ the private co/plainant, li/itin, the a/ount of civil liabilit+ to PA)),))).)). He note the discourse bet#een the court and the counsel for both parties re,ardin, the a#ard= PROS. !ORP>B= case. !O>RT= !O>RT= !O>RT= !O>RT= !O>RT= "TTG. S"N47"G= "TTG. R"F" 7= PROS. !ORP>B= "TTG. S"N47"G= PROS. !ORP>B= 3 3 3 3 -H.e #ould li;e to enter into stipulation the civil aspect of the

"re the accused confident that the+ could be ac<uitted in this caseV "tt+ San,la+V I thin; so, +our 6onor. He are confident, +our 6onor. P&,'*',0$).)), +our 6onor 3 3 3 3 PA)),))).)), +our 6onor. Ges, +our 6onor. Hhat about "tt+. RafaelV "ll ri,ht. So +ou can easil+ stipulate. First of all, ho# /uch do +ou #ant FiscalV 3 3 3 3 ",ree ,entle/en of the defenseV Do +ou a,ree FiscalV

!O>RT= "ll ri,ht so PA)),))).)) is the a,reed li<uidated a/ount in case of conviction #ithout necessaril+ havin, to interpret this stipulation as ad/ission of ,uilt on the part of an+ of the accused. "ll ri,ht so #e #ill dispense #ith the testi/on+ on the civil aspect 3 3 3 3 !O>RT= 3 3 3 3 "re +ou the private co/plainant in this caseV Ges, sir. T R SIT" D>7"G=

!O>RT= If the accused ,et convicted and I #ill hold the/ severall+ liable for +ou of da/a,es in the li<uidated su/ of PA)),))).)) as a,reed upon b+ the counsel, #ill +ou be satisfiedV 3 3 3 3 T R SIT"= !O>RT= Ges, sir.1/%phi1.n0t So let that be of record. Hill +ou si,n the note so that there #ill be evidence.

-"t this :uncture private co/plainant Teresita Dula+ affi3ed her si,nature at the botto/ ri,ht /ar,in of the steno,raphic notes pa,e ' hereof..'A "rticle &*0* of the !ivil !ode and Sec. '1 of Rule &1* of the Rules of !ourt set forth the attorne+Rs po#er to co/pro/ise. >nder "rt. &*0* of the !ivil !ode, a special po#er of attorne+ is necessar+ Kto co/pro/ise, to sub/it <uestions to arbitration, to renounce the ri,ht to appeal fro/ a :ud,/ent, to #aive ob:ections to the venue of an action or to abandon a prescription alread+ ac<uired.K On the other hand, Sec. '1, Rule &1* of the Rules of !ourt provides, K-a.ttorne+s have authorit+ to bind their clients in an+ case b+ an+ a,ree/ent in relation thereto /ade in #ritin,, and in ta;in, appeal, and in all

/atters of ordinar+ :udicial procedure, but the+ cannot, #ithout special authorit+, co/pro/ise their clientsR liti,ation or receive an+thin, in dischar,e of their clientsR clai/s but the full a/ount in cash.K The re<uire/ents under both provisions are /et #hen there is a clear /andate e3pressl+ ,iven b+ the principal to his la#+er specificall+ authori8in, the perfor/ance of an act. '0 It has not escaped our attention that in the present case counsel for both parties had no special po#er of attorne+ fro/ their clients to enter into a co/pro/ise. 6o#ever, insofar as Teresita #as concerned, she #as apprised of the a,ree/ent and in fact had si,ned her na/e as instructed b+ the court, thereb+ tacitl+ ratif+in, the sa/e. "s for accused5appellants, the aforecited dialo,ue bet#een the court and counsel does not sho# that the+ #ere ever consulted re,ardin, the proposed settle/ent. In the absence of a special po#er of attorne+ ,iven b+ accused5appellants to their counsel, the latter can neither bind nor co/pro/ise his clientsR civil liabilit+. !onse<uentl+, since "tt+. San,la+ and "tt+. Rafael had no specific po#er to co/pro/ise the civil liabilit+ of all accused5appellants, its approval b+ the trial court #hich did not ta;e the precautionar+ /easures to ensure the protection of the ri,ht of accused5appellants not to be deprived of their propert+ #ithout due process of la#, could not le,ali8e it. For bein, violative of e3istin, la# and :urisprudence, the settle/ent should not be ,iven force and effect. In li,ht of the fore,oin,, the a#ard of da/a,es /ust be set aside and a ne# one entered #ith all the circu/stances of the case in /ind. For the death of Florentino, Nor#ela and Nissan Dula+, civil inde/nit+ at P%),))).)) each or a total a/ount of P&%),))).)) is a#arded to their heirs. This is in addition to the a#ard of /oral da/a,es at an a,,re,ate a/ount of P&%),))).)) for their e/otional and /ental an,uish. Hith respect to Noe/i, an inde/nit+ of P1),))).)) #ould be :ust and proper. "ll ta;en, an a#ard of P11),))).)) is ,ranted. Four -$. /e/bers of the !ourt /aintain their position that R" 0A%(, insofar as it prescribes the death penalt+, is unconstitutionalJ nevertheless the+ sub/it to the rulin, of the !ourt, b+ a /a:orit+ vote, that the la# is constitutional and that the death penalt+ should be accordin,l+ i/posed. H6 R FOR , the assailed Decision of the trial court findin, accused5appellants 9"IM !"RPO, OS!"R I2"O, H"R7ITO I2"O and RO!6 I2"O GU!$T' of the co/ple3 cri/e of /ultiple /urder #ith atte/pted /urder and sentencin, the/ to the supre/e penalt+ of death is &&!RME" #ith the MO"!&!C T!ON that the+ are ordered to pa+ the heirs of the deceased Florentino, Nor#ela and Nissan, all surna/ed Dula+, P%),))).)) as death inde/nit+ and P%),))).)) as /oral da/a,es for each death or an a,,re,ate a/ount of P1)),))).)). In addition, accused5appellants are ordered to pa+ Noe/i Dula+ P1),))).)) as inde/nit+ for her atte/pted /urder. !osts a,ainst accused5appellants. In accordance #ith Sec. '% of R" 0A%(, a/endin, "rt. *1 of The Revised Penal !ode, upon finalit+ of this Decision, let the records of this case be forth#ith for#arded to the Office of the President for possible e3ercise of e3ecutive cle/enc+ or pardonin, po#er. SO ORD R D. 2avide" #r." C.#." 1ellosillo" Melo" Puno" $itu " Eapunan" Mendo(a" Pan aniban" !uisumbin " 1uena" Pardo" @on(a a?Reyes" &nares?Santia o" 2e Leon" #r." Sandoval?@utierre(" ##." concur. &oot0ote
& '

Grom the Sha4espearean tra edy H'enry 3$H.

2ecision penned by #ud e 6lysses Raciles 1utuyan" R8C?1r. B1" 8ayu " Pan asinanI Rollo" pp. ,,?;..
1 8SN"

1A Gebruary 199-" pp. 1?;,I id." 1B April 199-" pp. :B-?:9+.

7)h. H2IH 5ri inal Records" p. 1B. :A March 199-" pp. 19,?:+1. 19 March 199-" pp. 1--?1-9. :, September and 1 5ctober 199-" pp. AA,?A.-I id." : 5ctober 199-" pp. A-9?A9A. 7)h. HAIH 5ri inal Records" pp. :1?::.

% 8SN" A

0 8SN" * 8SN" (

8SN" 1; Au ust 199-" pp. ,.1?,;:I id." :: #uly 199-" pp. ,;B?A+AI id." A and 1. September 199-" pp. A+;?AA+I id." :1 and :; #uly 199-" pp. ,,;?,B-I id." 1A #uly 199-" pp. ,1,?,,B.
&)

3n convictin the accused of the attempted murder of Noemi 2ulay the trial court held that the prosecution failed to sufficiently substantiate the char e of frustrated murderI Rollo" p. ;B.
&& &' &1

Rollo" p. ;,. See Note :.

8he lie detector reports state that %hen accused?appellants ans%ered HN5H to a series of >uestions related to the incident the Hpoly rams revealed <they had= no specific reactions indicative <of= deceptionIH Rollo" pp. :1+?:1-.
&$

People v. Rean(ares" @.R. No. 1,+.B." :9 #une :+++I People v. Adoviso" @.R. Nos. 11.19.? 9-" :, #une 1999" ,+9 SCRA 1.
&%

Accordin to the trial court" H3t %as not Meriales %ho lied on the %itness standI it %as the 3baos and the Carpos %ho didIH Rollo" p. ;A.
&A

People v. 'ernande(" @.R. No. 1,+;+9" 1B March :+++I People v. 2i(on" @.R. Nos. 1:.+AA? AB" : #uly 1999" ,+9 SCRA ..9I People v. Merino" @.R. No. 1,:,:9" 1- 2ecember 1999" ,:1 SCRA 199.
&0

People v. @e uira" @.R. No. 1,+-.9" 1, March :+++I People v. Antonio" @.R. No. 1:;9++" 1A #uly :+++.
&*

People v. !uinanola" @.R. No. 1:.1A;" B May 1999" ,+. SCRA -1+I People v. Ablo " @.R. No. 1:A++B" :; #une 1999" ,+9 SCRA :::.
&(

People v. Ramos" @.R. No. 11+.++" - Au ust 199." :.+ SCRA A+:. : 5ctober 199-" pp. A-B?A-..

') 8SN" '&

People v. Penaso" @.R. No. 1:19;+" :, Gebruary :+++I People v. Mendo(a" @.R. No. 1:;;9+" ,1 May :+++I People v. Surila" @.R. No. 1:91.A" :A #uly :+++.
''

@.R. No. B:-9;" 19 Gebruary 19;." 1A1 SCRA ,9,.

'1 As

the victims %ere sleepin %hen the renade %as suddenly thro%n into their bedroom" they %ere not iven a chance to defend themselves or repel the assault. 5bviously" the assault %as done %ithout any ris4 to any of the accused arisin from the defense %hich the victims may ma4e.
'$ '%

7)h. HG"H Medical Certificate" p. ;.

People v. Reducan" @.R. Nos. 1:.+9A?9B" :1 #anuary 1999" ,+1 SCRA B1.I People v. 8rinidad" @.R. Nos. -91:,?:B" 9 #anuary 19;9" 1.9 SCRA B1I People v. @arcia" No. L?A+1+." 1, March 19;+" 9. SCRA A9-I People v. Pilones" @.R. Nos. ,:-BA?BB" :1 #uly 19-;" ;A SCRA

1.-.
'A 8SN" '0

1A Gebruary 199-" pp. :?,.

Lim Pin v. Liao 8an" :++ Phil. .;B <19;:=.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 119255 August 15, 1994 REPU(LIC OF T E P ILIPPINES, "#6"#s#&t#% 7. T E DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. ON. COURT OF APPEALS )&% 'OSEFA GACOT, respondents. R7S%GIT>% 8ITUG, J.: The Repu3lic of the Philippines, represented 3' the Birector of Gands, pra's in the instant petition for review on certiorari for the annul.ent of the decision, dated !! 5e3ruar' ())5, of the Court of Appeals affir.in, the (!th Au,ust ())0 ;ud,.ent of the Re,ional Trial Court of Palawan 92ranch 5*-Puerto Princesa: which has ad;udicated Got o. 501H in Cadastral Case o. (0, GGR% Cadastral Record o. ((00, to herein private respondent, now deceased 4osefa Gacot, the clai.ant in the cadastral case. The antecedents are a.pl' su..ari+ed in the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals, viz$
The entire lot 501H is 3ein, clai.ed 3' 4osefa Gacot as per answer she filed on 4une H, ()H(. >t appears fro. the record that the lot is located in 2aran,a' Gos An,eles, &a,sa'sa', Palawan 3ut the area was not indicated. >t also appeared that Ceferino Sa3enacio is her co-owner. This case was set for hearin, on Au,ust ), ())* and the petitioner was represented 3' Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Re'naldo Gua'co and Ro,elio Pa,linawan, Co..unit' 7nviron.ent and atural Resources %fficer 9C7 R%: of Puerto Princesa Cit' while the clai.ant appeared without counsel. >n view thereof, the hearin, was reset to Au,ust (0, ())*. 2efore the scheduled hearin, on Au,ust (0, ())*, the Court received a report fro. the Gand Re,istration Authorit' callin, the Court<s attention of the decision rendered 3' 4ud,e Goren+o Garlitos on %cto3er !*, ()5* declarin, this lot as propert' of the Repu3lic of the Philippines. Bespite this declaration however, the petitioner nor the ,overn.ent did not 3ar the clai.ant fro. filin, her answer, possessin, and occup'in, the lot and in fact accepted her ta8 pa'.ents and issuin, her ta8 declaration on the sa.e. The clai.ant presented herself as witness as well as her son, Eicente Bantic, 4r. The witnesses testified that 4osefa Gacot was .arried to Eicente Bantic, Sr. in ()4* and were in actual possession of the propert' for .ore than 0* 'ears, havin, 3ou,ht the sa.e fro. Cipriana Bantic-Glanera as per deed of sale dated April !!, ()55 in Cu'ono dialect 978hi3it ( and (-A:. Since she ac?uired the propert' fro. Cipriana Glanera, she continued her occupation and introduced i.prove.ents thereon as well as declared Got 501H for ta8ation purposes in her na.e 978hi3it !: and paid the correspondin, ta8es thereon up to the present ti.e 978hi3it 0:. That clai.ant is now a widow and has 5 children na.el', Aernando Bantic, Antero Bantic, 5elipe Bantic, 5e Bantic and Eicente Bantic, 4r. Cipriano Sa3enacio, the alle,ed co-owner of clai.ant 4osefa Gacot appeared in Court and .anifested that he is waivin, his clai. over Got 501H in favor of 4osefa Gacot who is in actual possession of the propert' as he is onl' a 3oundar' owner. After the presentation of clai.ant and her son, the' offered their e8hi3its and rested their case. Thereafter, the petitioner thru counsel .anifested that it is not presentin, controvertin, evidence and is su3.ittin, the case for resolution. 1

%n *5 Septe.3er ())*, the trial court rendered ;ud,.ent ad;udicatin, Got Gacot, thus M

o. 501H to 4osefa

@A7R75%R7, this Court finds the clai. of 4osefa Gacot Bantic to 3e in order. Accordin,l', Got 501H is here3' ad;udicated to 4osefa Gacot-Bantic, widow and a resident of 2aran,a' Gos An,eles, &a,sa'sa', Palawan with all the i.prove.ents the, eon, su3;ect to the estate ta8 as provided 3' law. S% %RB7R7B. 2

The Repu3lic, throu,h the Solicitor General, elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. Burin, the pendenc' of the appeal, the %ffice of the Solicitor General was a3le to verif' that Got 501H was earlier declared to 3e the propert' of the Repu3lic in a decision rendered 3' 4ud,e Goren+o Garlitos on !* %cto3er ()5* followin, an order of ,eneral default. The Solicitor General thus filed a .otion with the appellate court to have the case reopened and re.anded to the court a 7uo to allow the Repu3lic of the Philippines to present the decision of 4ud,e Garlitos. >n its resolution, dated !1 Bece.3er ())(, the Court of Appeals ,ranted the .otion. @hat transpired thereafter was narrated 3' the trial court in its (!th Au,ust ())0 decision= viz$
This case was set for hearin, several ti.es for the ,overn.ent to present its evidence and for the parties to su3.it their respective .e.orandu. in support of their respective stand on the .atter. The clai.ant su3.itted her .e.orandu. while the ,overn.ent represented 3' the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor assi,ned to this sala has not presented an' witness to support the ,overn.ent<s clai., neither has he su3.itted an' .e.orandu. to support the ,overn.ent<s stand on this .atter. @ith the fore,oin, develop.ent, the Court is of the opinion that the su3se?uent application or clai. of 4osefa Gacot-Bantic on Got 501H which 3eca.e part of the pu3lic do.ain where her occupation thereto havin, 3een open to the whole world, pu3lic and notorious in the concept of an owner since 0" 'ears a,o was well taken and therefore entitled to the lawful ad;udication of Got 501H in her na.e. 2esides, the ,overn.ent represented 3' the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and the Co..unit' 7nviron.ent and atural Resources %fficer 9C7 R%: for Puerto Princesa Cit' and Cu'o, Palawan have not .ade an' protest nor interposed an' o3;ection on the clai. of 4osefa Gacot durin, the hearin,s. either was there a .anifestation of protest or clai. of ,overn.ent use co.in, fro. the .unicipal officials of &a,sa'sa', Palawan despite notice sent to the. of the cadastral hearin,. And the sad part was that the ,overn.ent had accepted without an' protest all the ta8es due the propert' paid 3' the clai.ant reli,iousl'. This is not to sa' that this order has 3een considered in the previous decision of this Court which is hereunder ?uoted as follows$ 888 888 888 @ith this findin, of the Court, it is its considered opinion and so holds, that there is no reason to distur3 its previous decision afore?uoted. 0

An appeal was taken 3' the Repu3lic fro. the decision of the trial court. >n its now assailed decision of !! 5e3ruar' ())5, the Court of Appeals affir.ed in toto the ;ud,.ent of the trial court. The appellate court ratiocinated$
>n its 3rief, the %ffice of the Solicitor General clai.s that #records of the re-hearin, show that on %cto3er !*, ()5*, an order was, indeed, issued 3' 4ud,e Goren+o C. Garlitos of the Court of 5irst >nstance of Palawan, Hth 4udicial Bistrict, declarin, that Got o. 501H was a.on, lots declared as propert' of the Repu3lic of the Philippines.# 9p. 0, Appellant<s 2rief, p. (), Rec.: >t now invokes Repu3lic Act o. )0(, approved on 4une 0*, ()50 and Repu3lic Act o. !*1(, which took effect on 4une 0*, ()5", 3oth laws settin, the ti.e li.its for the filin, of applications, a.on, other thin,s, for the reopenin, of ;udicial proceedin,s on certain lands which were declared pu3lic land. Inder R.A. !*1(, the ti.e for filin, an application shall not e8tend 3e'ond Bece.3er 0(, ()1". Thus, petitioner-appellant ar,ues that since clai.ant-appellee 4osefa Gacot filed her answer onl' on *H 4une ()H(, the court a 7uo did not ac?uire ;urisdiction over the instant clai. since she did not file her answer within the period fi8ed 3' R.A. o. !*1(.

This would 3e true, if the %rder dated !* %cto3er ()5* of 4ud,e Goren+o Garlitos declarin, Got o. 501H as propert' of the Repu3lic of the Philippines, was presented as evidence in the rehearin, of this case. Infortunatel', the Repu3lic of the Philippines failed to offer as its e8hi3it the said order. There is no 3asis for the appellant, therefore, to invoke R.A. !*1(, to support its clai. that clai.ant-appellee 4osefa Gacot filed her answer 3e'ond the period fi8ed 3' said law and therefore the court a 7uo did not ac?uire ;urisdiction over the case. Precisel', the purpose of the rehearin, was to ena3le the Repu3lic of the Philippines, thru the %ffice of the Solicitor General, to present in evidence the said order. The Solicitor General, in its &otion dated !( &a' ())(, pra'ed that with re,ards to Got o. 501H #the proceedin,s therein 8e ordered reopened and the sa.e 3e re.anded to the court a 7uo to ena8le t-e Repu8lic of t-e #-ilippines to present t-e 9ud$ment dated Octo8er :;" <'=; of 4ud,e Goren+o Garlitos declarin, Got o. 501H as ,overn.ent propert'.# 9pp. 0*-0(, Rollo: C7.phasis %ursD This Court ,ranted the .otion and ordered the records of the case re.anded to the court a 7uo for further proceedin,s #to ena8le t-e $overnment to present in evidence t-e 9ud$ment dated Octo8er :;" <'=;" declarin, Got o. 501H as ,overn.ent propert' . . .# 9p. 4!, Rollo: C7.phasis %ursD Burin, the rehearin,, however, the Govern.ent failed to present the said order of 4ud,e Garlitos in evidence. Thus, the court a 7uo said in its appealed decision$ This case was set for hearin, several ti.es for the ,overn.ent to present its evidence and for the parties to su3.it their respective .e.oranda in support of their respective stand on the .atter. The clai.ant su3.itted her .e.orandu. while t-e $overnment represented 8+ t-e Assistant #rovincial #rosecutor -as not presented an+ witness to present t-e $overnment>s claim neit-er -as -e su8mitted an+ memorandum to support t-e $overnment>s stand on t-is matter.# 9see p. )!, Rollo: C7.phasis %ursD >t is the rule that #The court shall consider no evidence which has not 3een for.all' offered.# 9Rule (0!, Sec. 04: >t is true that the %rder of !* %cto3er ()5* has 3een appended to the records of this case 9 see p. (), Rec.:. 2ut it is .isleadin, on the part of the Solicitor General to state that #Records of the rehearin, show that on %cto3er !*, ()5*, an order was, indeed, issued 3' 4ud,e Goren+o C. Garlitos . . . .# 5or, durin, the rehearin,, as reflected in the appealed decision, the ,overn.ent did not present an' evidence nor an' .e.orandu. despite havin, 3een ordered 3' the court a 7uo. # either can @e take ;udicial notice of the %rder of 4ud,e Garlitos. As a ,eneral rule, courts are not authori+ed to take ;udicial knowled,e of the contents of the record of other cases, in the ad;udication of cases pendin, 3efore the., even thou,h the trial ;ud,e in fact knows or re.e.3ers the contents thereof, or even when said other cases have 3een heard or are pendin, in the sa.e court and notwithstandin, the fact that 3oth cases .a' have 3een heard or are reall' pendin, 3efore the sa.e ;ud,e. 9&unicipal Council vs. Cole,io de San 4ose, et al., G.R. o. G-4541*= 0( C.4.S. 1!0-1!4= cited in p. !5, 7vidence, Second 7d.= R.4. 5rancisco: >ndeed, the Govern.ent .issed its opportunit' to have the clai. of 4osefa Gacot, the herein appellee, declared as a nullit', considerin, that no evidence was presented 3' it in opposition thereto. 4

>n the that M

instant

petition,

the

Repu3lic,

assi,nin,

sole

error,

contends

TA7 A% %RA2G7 C%IRT %5 APP7AGS 9AAS: 7RR7B > RIG> G TAAT TA7R7 >S % 2AS>S 5%R P7T>T>% 7R T% > E%J7 R.A. o. !*1( T% SIPP%RT >TS CGA>& TAAT 4%S75A GAC%T 5>G7B A7R A S@7R 27K% B TA7 P7R>%B 5>N7B 2K TA7 SA>B GA@ A B TA7R75%R7 TA7 TR>AG C%IRT B>B %T AC-I>R7 4IR>SB>CT>% %E7R TA7 CAS7, S> C7 >T 9AAS: 5A>G7B T% %557R AS >TS 7NA>2>T TA7 %RB7R, BAT7B %CT%27R !*, ()5* %5 4IBG7 G%R7 6% GARG>T%S. 1

The Solicitor General e8plains that the records of the reopened case would show that a certified cop' of the decision, dated !* %cto3er ()5*, of 4ud,e Garlitos has 3een appended to pa,e () thereof. >t is not evident, however, wh' the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and the Co..unit' 7nviron.ent and atural Resources %fficer 9#C7 R%#: for Puerto Princesa, representin, the ,overn.ent durin, the rehearin,, did not present it. The Solicitor General, nevertheless, invokes the rule that the Repu3lic is not estopped 3' the .istake or error on the

part of its officials or a,ents. >n the .eanti.e, 4osefa Gacot passed awa'. The Solicitor General thereupon .oved that the heirs of 4osefa Gacot 3e i.pleaded part' respondents in su3stitution for the deceased. The .otion was ,ranted, and the heirs were directed to co..ent on the ,overn.ent<s petition. To this da', private respondents have not su3.itted their co..ent. The Court, however, cannot allow the case to re.ain pendin, and unresolved indefinitel'. >t .ust now dispense, as it here3' dispenses, with such co..ent in order not to undul' dela' the re.and of the case to the trial court for further proceedin,s. Get it initiall' 3e said that, indeed, the Court reali+es the points o3served 3' the appellate court over which there should 3e no ?uarrel. irstl+, that the rules of procedure 6 and ;urisprudence, 4 do not sanction the ,rant of evidentiar' value, 5 in ordinar' trials, 9 of evidence which is not for.all' offered, and secondl+, that ad;ective law is not to 3e taken li,htl' for, without it, the enforce.ent of su3stantive law .a' not re.ain assured. The Court .ust add, nevertheless, that technical rules of procedure are not ends in the.selves 3ut pri.aril' devised and desi,ned to help in the proper and e8pedient dispensation of ;ustice. >n appropriate cases, therefore, the rules .a' have to 3e so 10 construed li3erall' as to .eet and advance the cause of su3stantial ;ustice. 5urther.ore, Section (, Rule (!), of the Rules of Court provides$
Sec. (. %udicial notice" w-en mandator+. M A court shall take ;udicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the e8istence and territorial e8tent of states, their political histor', for.s of ,overn.ent and s'.3ols of nationalit', the law of nations, the ad.iralt' and .ariti.e courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and histor' of the Philippines, the official acts of t-e le$islative, e8ecutive and 9udicial depart.ents of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the .easure of ti.e, and the ,eo,raphical divisions.

&r. 4ustice 7d,ardo G. Paras 11 opined$

A court will take ;udicial notice of its own acts and records in the sa.e case, of facts esta3lished in prior proceedin,s in the sa.e case, of the authenticit' of its own records of another case 3etween the sa.e parties, of the files of related cases in the sa.e court, and of pu3lic records on file in the sa.e court. >n addition ;udicial notice will 3e taken of the record, pleadin,s or ;ud,.ent of a case in another court 3etween the sa.e parties or involvin, one of the sa.e parties, as well as of the record of another case 3etween different parties in the sa.e court. 4udicial notice will also 3e taken of court personnel. 12

The re.and of the case would likewise see. to 3e unavoida3le. The area of Got o. 501H clai.ed and awarded to the late 4osefa Gacot had not 3een specified in the records. >ndeed, on the 3asis of the Certification of the 5orest &ana,e.ent Services of the Bepart.ent of 7nviron.ent and atural Resources, Got o. 501H, per Gand Classification 9GC: o. (!41 of (5 4anuar' ()01, would appear to contain an area of 0)4,*40 s?uare .eters, 0**,*** s?uare .eters of which were classified as Aliena3le and Bisposa3le land and )4,*40 s?uare .eters as Ti.3erland, which under Procla.ation o. !(5!, dated !) Bece.3er ()"(, had 3een included to for. part of the &an,rove Swa.p 5orest Reserve, closed for entr', e8ploitation and settle.ent. 10 >t 3ehooves all concerned that the a3ove .atters 3e carefull' looked into, al3eit with reasona3le dispatch, for the final resolution of this case. @A7R75%R7, the case is R7&A B7B to the trial court for further proceedin,s for it to ascertain and resolve the conflictin, clai.s of the parties confor.a3l' with the fore,oin, opinion of the Court. o costs.

S% %RB7R7B. #adilla" &ellosillo" ?apunan and Hermosisima" %r." %%." concur. Foot&ot#s
( Rollo, pp. 4-1. ! Rollo, p. 04. 0 Rollo, pp. 01-0". 4 Rollo, pp. 0*-0!. 5 Rollo, p. (). 1 Rule (0!, Section 04. H Eeran vs. Court of Appeals, (5H SCRA 40"= Be los Re'es vs. >AC, (H1 SCRA 0)4= People vs. Carino, et al., (15 SCRA 114. " Eda. Be 5lores vs. @CC, H" SCRA (H= Repu3lic vs. Court of Appeals and People vs. Court of Appeals, ((1 SCRA 5*5= ) Belos Re'es vs. >AC, (H1 SCRA 0)4. (* Sec. !. Construction. M These rules shall 3e li3erall' construed in order to pro.ote their o3;ect and to assist the parties in o3tainin, ;ust, speed', and ine8pensive deter.ination of ever' action and proceedin,. 9Rules of Court: (( Rules of Court Annotated, Eol. 4, ())( 7d., p. 5!. (! Citin, Graha. on 7vidence, ()"1 ed. (0 See Birector of 5orestr' vs. &uno+, !0 SCRA (("0.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila T6IRD DIVISION G.R. No. 110491 !)"9: 25, 1991 PEOPLE OF T E P ILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 'ESUS ESPINOSA, 'R. )&% RODNE; ESPINOSA, )99us#%. 'ESUS ESPINOSA, 'R., accused-appellant. !ELO, J.: Accused were char,ed with .urder in an >nfor.ation readin, as follows$
That on or a3out the (0th da' of 5e3ruar' ())0, in the Cit' of >loilo, Philippines and within the ;urisdiction of this Court, said accused 4esus 7spinosa alias 4in,;in, 7spinosa, ar.ed with a hand,un of unknown cali3er, conspirin, and confederatin, with Rodne' 7spinosa, workin, to,ether and helpin, one another, with evident pre.editation, 3' .eans of treacher' and with a decided purpose to kill, did then and there wilfull', unlawfull' and cri.inall' shot, hit and wound A,usto 7lon with the said hand,un, with which the herein accused was provided at the ti.e, there3' causin, upon said A,usto 7lon 3ulled wounds on his head, which cause his death few .o.ents thereafter. 9p. ", Rollo.:

After the, the court a 7uo rendered a decision dated

ove.3er (), ())0 disposin,$

@A7R75%R7, pre.ises considered, the accused 4esus 7spinosa, is here3' found ,uilt' 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t as principal, in the cri.e of .urder, defined and penali+ed under Art. !4" of the Revised Penal Code and there 3ein, no .iti,atin, or a,,ravatin, circu.stance, is here3' sentenced to suffer the penalt' of reclusion perpetua. The accused Rodne' 7spinosa, alias Rodne' Secuilan is ac?uitted on the ,round that the prosecution failed to prove his ,uilt 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t. The accused 4esus 7spinosa, 4r. is further ordered to pa' as civil lia3ilit' to the heirs of the deceased, the a.ount of P4,45*.**, as actual da.a,es= P5*,***.** for his wron,ful death and P!*,***.** as .oral da.a,es= and the costs of this suit. Said accused 4esus 7spinosa, 4r., who is detained, is accredited with the nu.3er of da's he spent under detention, if he is ?ualified, otherwise he shall 3e credited with onl' four-fifth 94/5: of his preventive i.prison.ent. The other accused, Rodne' 7spinosa, alias Rodne' Secuilan, who is also detained, is here3' ordered released i..ediatel'. 9pp. "H-"", Rollo.:

5ro. said decision accused 4esus 7spinosa, 4r. appealed, insistin, on his ali3i. The facts of the case as, su..ari+ed 3' the trial court and as 3orne out 3' the evidence, are as follows$
At a3out (($4* in the evenin, on 5e3ruar' (0, ())0, while the deceased A,usto 7lon, a deaf .ute, was urinatin, near the ,ate of the fence of the house of his sister, C'nthia Eillanueva, at 6a.ora 78tension Street, >loilo Cit', the accused 4esus 7spinosa, 4r. alias 4in,;in, 7spinosa, shot said A,usto 7lon at the 3ack of his head three ti.es, which caused his death. Rodne'

7spinosa, alias Rodne' Secuilan, was standin, a3out four feet awa' fro. 4esus 7spinosa, 4r., when the latter shot A,usto 7lon. The shootin, of A,usto 7lon was witnesses 3' his father 4uan 7lon 3ecause at that ti.e he was sleepin, in the house of his dau,hter C'nthia, which house is situated alon, the road, or alon, 6a.ora 78tension Street. Ae was re?uested 3' his dau,hter to sleep at her house, which is onl' fifteen 9(5: .eters awa' fro. his own house, as C'nthia<s hus3and was at Ge.er', >loilo, at that ti.e, and she and her children had no co.panion in their house. As earlier stated, the house of C'nthia 7lon Eillanueva is located alon, or a3out one 9(: foot fro. 6a.ora 78tension Street. The fence of her house which is .ade of hollow 3locks is at the sa.e ti.e the wall of the front of her house. The place where his son was shot at well li,hted and there was an electric li,ht at the post near the place of the incident. @hen 4esus 7spinosa, 4r. shot A,usto 7lon he was a3out three feet awa', .ore or less, fro. the deceased. The deceased was facin, the wall when he was shot and his 3ack turned towards the accused, 4esus 7spinosa, 4r. 4uan 7lon cried aloud when he saw his son 3ein, shot and ran downstairs, towards hi., 3ut he stu.3led at the .os?uito net of his ,randchildren. Ais wife who was sleepin, at their house, which is ver' near the house of his dau,hter, arrived first at the scene of the incident. @hen he reached his son, 4uan 7lon e.3raced hi.. Ae saw that the 3ullets were #3ul,in,# on his forehead and 3lood was oo+in, fro. his neck. Ae was alread' dead. Ae reco,ni+ed the accused 3ecause he worked as a #stevedore# at the pier, and had also worked with the ,randfather of the accused and had known the accused since the' were s.all. At the ti.e of his death, A,usto 7lon was onl' !( 'ears old. Althou,h a deaf .ute, his son was e.plo'ed at #2asic 5ruit Corporation# situated at Pavia, >loilo. Ais ;o3 was #peelin, 3anana#, to 3e .ade into #3anana chips# 3ut the does not know how .uch his son was earnin,. Ais son usuall' went ho.e at a3out (* to (( o<clock in the evenin,, 3ecause 3efore ,oin, ho.e he used to pass at the 3ack of the church at 4aro, >loilo, to visit his friends, who were also deaf .uted. After his son died, the cadaver was e.3la.ed and autops' was conducted. Ae paid funenaria Porras the a.ount of Three Thousand Si8 Aundred 9P0,1**.**: Pesos, for funeral services. Ae also hired 1 ;eepne's durin, the funeral at 5ift' 9P5*,**: Pesos. Ae 3ou,ht 9#6est-%# 4uice# durin, the funeral, for the .erienda of the deceased<s friends he spent a.ount of %ne Thousand 5our Aundred 9P(,4**.**: Pesos. Ae also 3ou,ht 3read and sandwich spread and spent %ne Thousand 9P(,***.**: Pesos. 5or the #pantheon# of his son he spent Si8 Aundred 9P1**.**: Pesos. 5or church services, Two hundred 9!**.**: Pesos, or a total a.ount of 5our Thousand 5our Aundred 5ift' 9P4,45*.**: Pesos. Ae also 3ou,ht 3read and sandwich spread and spent %ne Thousand 9P(,***.**: Pesos. 5or the #pantheon# of his son he spent Si8 Aundred 9P1**.**: Pesos. 5or church services, Two hundred 9!**.**: Pesos, or a total a.ount of 5our Thousand 5our Aundred 5ift' 9P4,45*.**: Pesos. The testi.on' of 4uan, the father of the deceased was corro3orated 3' another e'ewitness Ro.ualdo Ro3les. Ae testified that while he was on his wa' ho.e to 6a.ora 78tension Street, at around (($4* in the evenin, of 5e3ruar' (0, ())0, co.in, fro. Rotar' park and while he was across the street in front of the house of 4uan 7lon, he saw 4esus 7spinosa, 4r., shoot of A,usto 7lon of #Apa 7lon#, in front of their house at 6a.ora 78tension, >loilo Cit', Ae was a3out fifteen to twent' .eters awa' fro. the place of the incident and the place was well li,hted. At the ti.e of the shootin,, A,usto 7lon was urinatin, and the deceased was 3out three to four feet awa' fro. the assailant. Ae saw 4esus 7spinosa, 4r. shoot #Apa# 7lon three ti.es and the deceased feel on his face on the fence 9na,da.ha, sa kudal: and he fell on the ,round on his 3ack. 9pp. H*-H0, Rollo:

Accused-appellant .aintains that the prosecution failed in its task to identif' hi. positivel' as the perpetrator of the cri.e. The evidence does not support accused-appellant as the person

who shot the victi.. Prosecution witness Ro.ualdo Ro3les positivel' and une?uivoca3l' identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the cri.e. Ro3les testified thusl'$
ATTK. CASTR%$ @hile 'ou were on 'our wa' ho.e that evenin, of 5e3ruar' (0, ())0, at around (($4* in the evenin,, can 'ou recall whether there was an' untoward incident that happenedL @>T 7SS$ Kes, > witnessed the shootin, incident done 3' 4in,;in, 7spinosa to Apa 7lon. ATTK. CASTR%$ @ho is this Apa 7lon @>T 7SS$ The son of T'o 4uan 7lonL ATTK. CASTR%$ @hat is his na.e if 'ou knowL @>T 7SS$ A,usto 7lon. ATTK. CASTR%$ Kou said 'ou witnessed the shootin, of Apa 7lon, in what particular place was Apa 7lon shotL @>T 7SS$ >n front of their houseL ATTK. CASTR%$ >n what streetL @>T 7SS$ 6a.ora 78tension. ATTK. CASTR%$ >loilo cit'L @>T 7SS$ Kes, sir. ATTK. CASTR%$ Kou said 'ou saw the shootin, of Apa 7lon, how far were 'ou fro. the place where the shootin, took placeL @>T 7SS$ &' distance fro. the victi. is a3out fro. (5 to !* .eters. ATTK. CASTR%$ 5ro. where 'ou were situated, where is the shootin, incident, can 'ou tell whether the place of the incident is li,hted or notL @>T 7SS$ >n the house of T'o 4uan there was a li,ht and the place of the incident is so well li,hted. ATTK. CASTR%$

@ho is the T'o 4uan 'ou are referrin, toL @>T 7SS$ The father of Apa 7lon. ATTK. CASTR%$ Kou said 'ou saw the actual shootin, of Apa 7lon, what was the victi. doin, when he was the shotL @>T 7SS$ Ae was urinatin, and his 3ack turned down the assailant. ATTK. CASTR%$ Aow far was the assailant fro. the victi. when the victi. was shotL @>T 7SS$ Three to four feet fro. the 3ack. ATTK. CASTR%$ Kou said Apa 7lon was shot 3' 4in,;in, 7spinosa, do 'ou know the co.plete na.e of 4in,;in, 7spinosaL @>T 7SS$ 4esus 7spinosa. ATTK. CASTR%$ >f this person who. 'ou and who shot Apa 7lon is inside the courtroo., can 'ou point to hi.L @>T 7SS$ Kes, sir. ATTK. CASTR%$ Please point to hi.L @>T 7SS$ There 9witness is pointin, to one in the audience who. when asked answered 3' the na.e of 4esus 7spinosa. 9pp. H-(0, tsn, 4ul' !0, ())0:

The testi.on' of Ro.ualdo Ro3les was full' corro3orated 3' 4uan 7lon, the father of the victi., who testified as follows$
PR%S7CIT%R$ At a3out that ti.e (($4* 'ou said 'ou witnessed the shootin, of 'our son, where was 'our son situated insofar as 'ou are concerned in relation to 'ouL @>T 7SS$ 2eside the ,ate 3ecause he was urinatin,. PR%S7CIT%R$ @hile 'our son was urinatin, were 'ou also witnessin, the sa.eL @>T 7SS$ Kes, sir. PR%S7CIT%R$

@hat happened then when 'our son was urinatin,L @>T 7SS$ 4esus alias 4in,;in, and Rodne' 7spinosa passed 3' and without an' provocation the' shot .' son three ti.es. PR%S7CIT%R$ @h' did 'ou sa' that without the provocation the' shot 'our son three ti.es. @>T 7SS$ > do not know, 3ecause .' son was urinatin, and .' son is a deaf.ute. PR%S7CIT%R$ Bid 'ou see where 'our son was shotL @>T 7SS$ At the #tan,ku,o#. PR%S7CIT%R$ Aow .an' ti.es he was shotL @>T 7SS$ Three ti.es. PR%S7CIT%R$ @ho shot hi.L @>T 7SS$ 4esus 7spinosa, 4r. alias 4in,;in,. PR%S7CIT%R$ Bid 'ou see hi. holdin, a ,unL @>T 7SS$ Kes, sir. PR%S7CIT%R$ Bid 'ou see his face clearl' when he shoot 'our sonL @>T 7SS$ Kes, sir. PR%S7CIT%R$ @h' do 'ou sa' 'ou saw his face clearl'L @>T 7SS$ 2ecause the street was well-li,hted and there is a post-la.p and the li,ht at the houses were li,htin,. 9pp. (!-(5, I8id:.

Accused-appellant ?uestions veracit' of the testi.on' of 4uan 7lon, .aintainin, that 4uan 7lon was asleep at the ti.e that the victi. was shot. A,ain the evidence does not su3stantiate accused-appellantOs contention. 4uan 7lon une?uivoca3l' testified that he was full' awake when the shootin, place.
ATTK. &ACAA>G>G$ @hat ti.e did 'ou wake up after havin, ,one to sleepL

@>T 7SS$ > a. alread' old and .' sleep is not so heav' and its so li,ht that > can hear the noise and > hear the tr'skad that stopped and > saw .' son ali,hted fro. that tr'skad. 9p. !), tsn., 4ul' H, ())0:

>n the a3sence of an' ill .otive on the part of 4uan 7lon to point to accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the cri.e char,ed, 4uan 7lon<s testi.on' .ust 3e ,iven full faith and credit 9#eople vs. Tolentino, !(" SCRA 00H C())0D. A thorou,h search of the record fails to uncover an' such ill .otive. neither does not his relationship to the victi. i.pair his credi3ilit' 9 #eople vs. 6omin$uez, !(H SCRA (H* C())0D. 5urther, accused-appellant i.pu,ns the testi.on' of prosecution witness Ro.ualdo Ro3les. Accused-appellant asserts that the testi.on' of Ro3les Accused-appellant asserts that the testi.on' of Ro3les to the effect that 4uan 7lon and his wife went out of the house to,ether is inconsistent with the testi.on' of 4uan 7lon that his wife went out of their house first then followed 3' hi.. The ?uestion of who ,ot out of their respective houses first is o3viousl' a .inor, trivial, and inconse?uential .atter that cannot adversel' effect the testi.on' of Ro3les that he saw accused-appellant shoot the victi.. Accused-appellant also assails Ro3les for his failure to i..ediatel' report what he saw to the police.an who arrived at the scene of the cri.e. Such failure does not su3vert the credi3ilit' of Ro3les for as e8plained 3' hi. he i..ediatel' went ho.e after the shootin, 3ecause he was afraid that he .i,ht ,et involved 9p. H, tsn., 4ul' !0, ())0:.
The reticence of Ca3atas to i..ediatel' reveal the said state.ent to the police officers was satisfactoril' e8plained= he was then afraid. The natural reluctance of witnesses to volunteer infor.ation to the police authorities in cri.inal cases is a .atter of ;udicial notice. Ae .i,ht have dee.ed it the 3etter part of valor not to ,ive the na.e of the accused who was still at lar,e and who pro3a3l' reco,ni+e hi.. Such reluctance should not affect his testi.on'. The decisive factor is that he in fact identified the accused. 9#eople vs. @icente, !!5 SCRA 01(, 0H*.:

>n an atte.pt to destro' the credi3ilit' of Ro3les, accused-appellant presented a certification of Jila'ko 78press Services, >nc. to the effect that Ro3les had never 3een an e.plo'ee thereat, this to re3ut the state.ent of Ro3les that he was an errand 3o' of Jila'ko 78press, >nc. >n this re,ard, we full' a,ree with the followin, o3servation of the trial court$
The defense would like to assail the credi3ilit' of Ro.ualdo Ro3les, the second witness of the prosecution 3' presentin, a certification issued 3' the president or General of Jila'ko 78press, >nc., Eictor Jila'ko, that &r. Ro.ualdo Ro3les has not 3een an e.plo'ee of Jila'ko 78press, >nc. in whatever capacit' since ())* up to ())0. 3ut Ro.ualdo never asserted that he was an e.plo'ee of Jila'ko 78press, >nc. Ae .erel' testified that he was a #errand 3o'# or #.essen,er# 3ut not a re,ular e.plo'ee. he received no re,ular salar' accepted whatever a.ount that .i,ht 3e ,iven to hi. as an errand 3o'. As a .atter of fact, in his personal circu.stance, he stated that he was ;o3less. 9pp. !5-!1, Rollo.:

@e re;ect the defense of ali3i put up 3' accused-appellant not onl' 3ecause ali3i cannot prevail over the positive identification 3' the prosecution witnesses 9 #eople vs. 6omin$uez, !(H SCRA (H* C())0D:, 3ut also 3ecause accused-appellant has failed to esta3lish that it was ph'sicall' i.possi3le for hi. to have 3een present at the place where the cri.e was co..itted at the ti.e it happened, 9 #eople vs. lores, !(H SCRA 1(0 C())0D:. >n the case at

3ench, accused-appellant professes that he was in a fishpond situated at 2r,'. Ta,uan,in, A;u', >loilo at the ti.e of the co..ission of the cri.e. Aowever, said place is onl' "* kilo.eters awa' fro. >loilo Cit', and can 3e ne,otiated 3' 3us in a3out (-(/! to ! hours. Therefore, the ele.ent of ph'sical i.possi3ilit' of presence of accused-appellant at the scene and the ti.e of the cri.e does not o3tain. @e, however, a,ree with accused-appellant that the .iti,atin, circu.stance of a voluntar' surrender should 3e taken into consideration in fi8in, the penalt' The trial court itself stated that the record shows the act of voluntar' surrender 3ut refrained fro. takin, it into consideration 3ecause accordin, to the trial court, the report on the warrant of arrest was not offered in evidence. There was no need for said report to 3e su3.itted in evidence 3ecause the court can take co,ni+ance of it, the sa.e 3ein, part of the record.
>t is a settled rule that a tri3unal .a' at an' ti.e take ;udicial notice of the records of a case pendin, 3efore it. 90niversal TeAtile /ills" Inc. vs. )ourt of Industrial Relations = 01 SCRA 1(), 1!0 C()H*D:

@e nonetheless concur with the followin, findin,s of the trial court that the killin, of the victi. was characteri+ed 3' treacher'$
>n this case, it was clearl' shown 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t that the 3ack of the deceased was turned to the accused when he was shot three ti.es. Ae was urinatin, when shot and was defenseless. Ae was unaware what happened to hi.. Ae could not have put up an' defense at all. >n short, the accused in e8ecutin, the cri.e, e.plo'ed .eans , .ethods or for.s which tend directl' and speciall' to ensure its e8ecution, without risks to hi.self arisin, fro. the defense which the offended part' .i,ht .ake . There was no wa' the deceased should not defend hi.self under the circu.stances. 9p. "4, Rollo.:

>n view of the presence of the ?ualif'in, circu.stance of treacher', the cri.e co..itted 3' accused-appellant is .urder under article !4" of the Revised Penal Code. There 3ein, a .iti,atin, circu.stance, the penalt' for .urder prescri3ed 3' said Article !4", which is reclusion temporal. >n its .a8i.u. period to death, should 3e i.posed in its .ini.u. period, or (H 'ears, 4 .onths, and ( da', to !* 'ears. Appl'in, the >ndeter.inate Sentence Gaw, the proper penalt' is that ne8t lower in de,ree, which is prision ma+or in its .a8i.u. period to reclusion temporal in its .ediu. period, or (* 'ears and ( da' of prision ma+or, to (H 'ears and 4 .onths of reclusion temporal. 9#eople vs. Roel #ona+o + @illanueva , G.R o. (((5!0, Au,ust (*, ())4:, @A7R75%R7, the decision appealed fro. is A7R72K A55>R&7B, with the .odification that accused-appellant >S A7R72K S7 T7 C7B to an indeter.inate sentence of ten 9(*: 'ears and one 9(: da' of prision ma+or, as .ini.u., to seventeen. 9(H: 'ears and four 94: .onths of reclusion temporal, as .a8i.u.. >n all other respects, the decision appealed fro. is here3' affir.ed. o special pronounce.ent is .ade as to costs. S% %RB7R7B. eliciano" Romero" @itu$ and rancisco" %%." concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 100901 'u*. 16, 1995 T E PEOPLE OF T E P ILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 'AILON 3ULAIS, CARLOS FALCASANTOS < =Co>>)&%#" F)*9)s)&tos,= A?ALON 3A!LON ASSAN < =Co>>)&%#" 3)>*o&,= !A'ID SA!SON < =Co>>)&%#" (u&g$,= 'U!ATI;A A!LANI DE FALCASANTOS, NOR!A SA IDDAN DE 3ULAIS, SAL8ADOR !A!ARIL . !ENDOZA, AD'IRUL PLASIN . ALI , 'AINUDDIN ASSAN . A !AD, I!A! TARU3 ALA . SALI , 'ALINA ASSAN DE 3A!!ING, FREDDIE !ANUEL < =A@$%= )&% s#A#")* 'O N )&% 'ANE DOES, )99us#%, 'AILON 3ULAIS, appellant. PANGANI(AN, J.: The trial court<s erroneous takin, of ;udicial notice of a witness< testi.on' in another case, also pendin, 3efore it, does not affect the conviction of the appellant, whose ,uilt is proven 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t 3' other clear, convincin, and overwhel.in, evidence, 3oth testi.onial and docu.entar'. The Court takes this occasion also to re.ind the 3ench and the 3ar that reclusion perpetua is not s'non'.ous with life i.prison.ent. T-e )ase %n Au,ust !!, ())*, five >nfor.ations for kidnappin, for ranso. 9Cri.. Case os. (**1*, (**1(, (**1!, (**10 and (**14: and three >nfor.ations for kidnappin, 9Cri. Case os. (**15, (**11 and (**1H:, all dated Au,ust (4, ())*, were filed 1 3efore the Re,ional Trial Court of 6a.3oan,a Cit' a,ainst Carlos 5alcasantos, 4ailon Julais, 4u.ati'a A.lani, or.a Sahiddan de Julais, 4alina Aassan de Ja..in,, 2 Salvador &a.aril, Aad;irul Plasin, 4ai.uddin Aassan, >.a. 0 Taruk Alah, 5reddie &anuel alias #A;id,# and several 4ohn and 4ane Boes. The >nfor.ations for kidnappin, for ranso., which set forth identical alle,ations save for the na.es of the victi.s, read as follows$
That on or a3out the (!th da' of Bece.3er, ()"", in the Cit' of 6a.3oan,a, Philippines, and within the ;urisdiction of this Aonora3le Court, the a3ove-na.ed accused, 3ein, all private individuals, conspirin, and confederatin, to,ether, .utuall' aidin, and assistin, one another, with threats to kill the person of 57G>N R%SAR>% Cin Cri.inal Case o. (**1*D 4 and for the purpose of e8tortin, ranso. fro. the said 5eli8 Rosario or his fa.ilies or e.plo'er, did then and there, wilfull', unlawfull' and feloniousl', J>B AP the person of said 5eli8 Rosario, 1 a .ale pu3lic officer of the Cit' Govern.ent of 6a.3oan,a, who was then a3oard a Ci.arron vehicle with plate o. S26-)H1 which was 3ein, a.3ushed 3' the herein accused at the hi,hwa' of Sitio Ti,3ao Giso.o, 6a.3oan,a Cit', and 3rou,ht said 5eli8 Rosario 6 to different .ountainous places of 6a.3oan,a Cit' and 6a.3oan,a del Sur, where he was detained, held hosta,e and deprived of his li3ert' until 5e3ruar' !, ()"), the da' when he was released onl' after pa'.ent of the ranso. was .ade to herein accused, to the da.a,e and pre;udice of said victi.= there 3ein, present an a,,ravatin, circu.stance in that the aforecited offense was co..itted with the aid of ar.ed .en or persons who insure or afford i.punit'.

The three >nfor.ations for kidnappin,, also under Article !1H of the Revised Penal Code, likewise alle,ed identical facts and circu.stances, e8cept the na.es of the victi.s$
That on or a3out the (!th da' of Bece.3er, ()"", in the Cit' of 6a.3oan,a and within the ;urisdiction of this Aonora3le Court, the a3ove-na.ed accused, 3ein, all private individuals, conspirin, and confederatin, to,ether, .utuall' aidin, and assistin, one another, 3' .eans of threats and inti.idation of person, did then and there, wilfull', unlawfull' and feloniousl' J>B AP, take and dra, awa' and detain the person of &% >C% SAAE7BRA K G>&7 CCri.inal Case o. (**15D 4 a .ale pu3lic officer of the Cit' Govern.ent of 6a.3oan,a, a,ainst his will, there 3ein, present an a,,ravatin, circu.stance in that the aforecited offense was co..itted with the aid of ar.ed .en or persons who insure or afford i.punit'.

%f the twelve accused, onl' nine were apprehended, na.el', 4ailon 4ulais, 4u.ati'a A.lani, or.a Sahiddan de Julais, Salvador &a.aril Aad;irul Plasin, 4ainuddin Aassan, >.a. Taruk Alah, 4alina Aassan and 5reddie &anuel. 5 %n their arrai,n.ent on Septe.3er (0, ())*, all the accused pleaded not ,uilt'. 4oint trial on the .erits ensued. %n April ", ())(, 4ud,e Pela,io S. &andi rendered the assailed 01-pa,e Becision, the dispositive portion of which reads$
@A7R75%R7, a3ove pre.ises and discussion taken into consideration, this Court renders its ;ud,.ent, orderin, and findin,$ (. 5R7BB>7 &A I7G, alias #A4>B# and >&A& TARIJ AGAA ' SAG>A CnDot C,Duilt' of the ei,ht char,es of CkDidnappin, for CrDanso. and for CkDidnappin,, their ,uilt not havin, 3een proved 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t. Their i..ediate release fro. the Cit' 4ail, 6a.3oan,a Cit' is ordered, unless detained for so.e other offense 3esides these " cases 9Cri.. Cases os. (**1*-(**1H:. !. 4A> IBB> AASSA ' AA&AB, 4A>G% JIGA>S, SAGEAB%R &A&AR>G ' &7 B%6A and AAB4>RIG PGAS> ' AG>A C,Duilt' as principals 3' conspirac' in all these " cases for CkDidnappin, for CrDanso. and for CkDidnappin, 9Cri.. Cases os. (**1*-(**1H:. Their ,uilt is a,,ravated in that the' co..itted the " offenses with the aid of ar.ed .en who insured i.punit'. Therefore, the penalties i.posed on the. shall 3e at their .a8i.u. period. @A7R75%R7, for the five char,es of CkDidnappin, for CrDanso., and pursuant to Art. !1H of the Revised Penal Code, five life i.prison.ents are i.posed on 4ainuddin Aassan ' Ah.ad, 4ailon Julais, Salvador &a.aril ' &endo+a and Jad;irul Plasin ' Alih 9Cri.. Cases os. (**1*-(**14:. 5or kidnappin, &rs. Eir,inia San A,ustin-Gara, a fe.ale and pu3lic officer and pursuant to Art. !1H, Revised Penal Code 9par. 4.:, another life i.prison.ent is i.posed on 4ainuddin Aassan ' Ah.ad, 4ailon Julais, Salvador &a.aril ' &endo+a and Aad;irul Plasin ' Alih 9Cri.. Case o. (**11: 5or kidnappin, &onico Saavedra ' Gi.en, and Cali8to 5rancisco ' Gaspar, and their kidnappin, not havin, lasted .ore than five da's, pursuant to Art. !1", Revised Penal Code, and the >ndeter.inate Sentence Gaw, the sa.e four accused M 4ainuddin Aassan ' Ah.ad, 4ailon Julais, Salvador &a.aril ' &endo+a and Aad;irul Plasin ' Alih M are sentenced to serve two 9!: ;ail ter.s ran,in, fro. ten 9(*: 'ears of prision ma+or as .ini.u., to ei,hteen 9(": 'ears of reclusion temporal as .a8i.u. 9Cri.. Cases os. (**15 and (**1H:. 0. 4A&AT>KA A&GA > B7 5AGCASA T%S CnDot C,Duilt' in the three char,es of CkDidnappin, and she is ac?uitted of these char,es. 9Cri.. Cases os. (**15, (**11 and (**1H:. 2ut 4u.ati'a A.lani de 5alcasantos is C,Duilt' as acco.plice in the five char,es of CkDidnappin, for CrDanso.. @A7R75%R7, 4u.ati'a A.lani de 5alcasantos is sentenced to serve five 95: i.prison.ents, ran,in, fro. T7 9(*: K7ARS of prision ma+or as .ini.u. to 7>GAT77 9(": K7ARS of reclusion temporal as .a8i.u. 9Cri.. Cases os. (**1*-( **14:. 4. %R&A SAA>BBA B7 JIGA>S, (" 'ears old, and 4AG>AA AISS> 9char,ed as 4alina

Aassan de Ja..in,:, (5 'ears old, CnDot C,Duilt' in the three char,es for CkDidnappin, and are, therefore, AC-I>TT7B of these three char,es. 9Cri.. Cases os. (**15, (**11 P (**1H:. 2ut or.a Sahiddan de Julais and 4alina Aussin are found C,Duilt' as acco.plices in the five char,es for CkDidnappin, for CrDanso.. 2ein, .iners, the' are entitled to the privile,ed .iti,atin, circu.stance of .inorit' which lowers the penalt' i.posa3le on the. 3' one de,ree. @A7R75%R7, or.a Sahiddan de Julais and 4alina Aussin are sentenced to serve five i.prison.ents ran,in, fro. S>N 91: K7ARS of prision correccional as .ini.u. to T7 K7ARS A B % 7 9(: BAK %5 prision ma+or as .a8i.u. 9Cri.. Cases os. (**1*-(**14:. Bue to the re.oval of the suspension of sentences of 'outhful offenders #convicted of an offense punisha3le 3' death or life# 3' Presidential Becree o. ((H) and Presidential Becree o. (!(* 9of which CkDidnappin, for CrDanso. is such an offense: the sentences on or.a Sahiddan de Julais and 4aliha Aussin de Ja..in, are %T suspended 3ut .ust 3e served 3' the.. 4anuddin Aassan, 4ailon Julais, Salvador &a.aril and Aad;irul Plasin are sentenced further to return the followin, personal effects taken on Bece.3er (!, ()"", the da' of the kidnappin,, or their value in .one', their lia3ilit' 3ein, solidar'. To 4essica Calunod$ %ne 9(: Seiko wrist watchP P !5*.**

%ne 2racelet %ne Shoulder 2a,

P !,4**.** P !**.**

Cash To Ar.ado C. 2acarro$

P !**.**

%ne 9(: wrist watch %ne ecklace

P "**.** P 0**.**

%ne Calculator 7'e,lasses

P !)5.** P 5**.**

%ne Steel Tape To 7dil3erto S. Pere+$

P !5*.**

%ne 9(: Ra'3an

P (,***.**

%ne @rist @atchP Cash

P (,"**.** P 0**.**

To Eir,inia San A,ustin-Gara$ %ne 9(:@rist @atch P "5*.**

The 3enefit of Art. !), Revised Penal Code, on preventive suspension, shall 3e e8tended to those sentenced. The cases a,ainst &a;id Sa.son, alias #Co..ander 2un,i# Awalon Ja.lon a.k.a. #Co..ander Ja.lon# Carlos 5alcasantos and several #4ohn Boes# and 4ane #Boes# are ARCA>E7B until their arrest. Costs a,ainst the accused convicted. S% %RB7R7B. 9

%n &a' H, ())(, 4ailon Julais, 4u.ati'a A.lani de 5alcasantos, or.a Sahiddan de Julais and 4aliha Aussin filed their ;oint otice of Appeal. 10 >n a letter dated 5e3ruar' 1, ())H, the sa.e appellants, e8cept 4ailon Julais, withdrew their appeal 3ecause of their application for #a.nest'.# >n our &arch (), ())H Resolution, we ,ranted their .otion. Aence, onl' the appeal of Julais re.ains for the consideration of this Court. 11 T-e acts T-e @ersion of t-e #rosecution The solicitor ,eneral su..ari+ed, in this wise, the facts as viewed 3' the People$
%n Bece.3er (!, ()"", a ,roup of pu3lic officials fro. various ,overn.ent a,encies, or,ani+ed the.selves as a .onitorin, tea. to inspect ,overn.ent pro;ects in 6a.3oan,a Cit'. The ,roup was co.posed of Eir,inia Gara, as the head of the tea.= Ar.ando 2acarro, representin, the Co..ission on Audit= 5eli8 del Rosario, representin, the non-,overn.ent$ 7dil3erto Pere+, representin, the Cit' Assessor<s %ffice= 4essica Calunod and Allan 2asa of the Cit' 2ud,et %ffice and &onico Saavedra, the driver fro. the Cit' 7n,ineer<s %ffice. 9p. 0, TS , %cto3er !!, ())*.: %n that particular da', the ,roup headed to the Ginco.o 7le.entar' School to check on two of its classroo.s. After inspectin, the sa.e, the' proceeded to the Tala,a 5oot3rid,e. The ,roup was not a3le to reach the place 3ecause on their wa', the' were stopped 3' nine 9): ar.ed .en who pointed their ,uns at the. 9p. 4, TS , i8id.:. The ,roup ali,hted fro. their Ci.arron ;eep where the' were divested of their personal 3elon,in,s. The' were then ordered to walk to the .ountain 3' the leader of the ar.ed .en who introduced hi.self as Co..ander 5alcasantos 9p. 5, TS , i8id.:. @hile the ,roup was walkin, in the .ountain, the' encountered ,overn.ent troops which caused their ,roup to 3e divided. 5inall', the' were a3le to re,roup the.selves. Co..ander Ja.lon with his .en ;oined the others. 9pp. H-", TS , i8id.:. The kidnappers held their captives for fift'-four 954: da's in the forest. Burin, their captivit', the victi.s were a3le to reco,ni+e their captors who were at all ti.es ar.ed with ,uns. The wives of the kidnappers perfor.ed the 3asic chores like cookin,. 9pp. )-(*. TS , i8id.:

Co..ander 5alcasantos also ordered their victi.s to si,n the ranso. notes which de.anded a ranso. of P(**,***.** and P(4,***.** in e8chan,e for twent' 9!*: sets of unifor.. 9p. (5, TS , i8id.: %n 5e3ruar' 0, ()"), at around (!$** o<clock noonti.e, the victi.s were infor.ed that the' would 3e released. The' started walkin, until around H$** o<clock in the evenin, of that da'. At around (!$** o<clock .idni,ht, the victi.s were released after Co..ander 5alcasantos and Ja.lon received the ranso. .one'. 9p. (), TS , i8id.: The total a.ount paid was P(!!,***.**. The sa.e was reached after several ne,otiations 3etween &a'or Eitaliano A,an of 6a.3oan,a Cit' and the representatives of the kidnappers. 9pp. !, 1, TS , ov. ((, ())*: . . . 12

The prosecution presented fifteen witnesses, includin, so.e of the kidnap victi.s the.selves$ 4essica Calunod, Ar.ando 2acarro, 7dil3erto Pere+, Eir,inia San A,ustin-Gara, Cali8to 5rancisco, and &onico Saavedra. T-e @ersion of t-e 6efense The facts of the case, accordin, to the defense, are as follows$ 10
%n &a' !", ())*, at a3out (*$** o<clock in the .ornin,, while weedin, their far. in Sina3uran, 6a.3oan,a del Sur, accused-appellant 4u.ati'a A.lani was picked up 3' soldiers and 3rou,ht to a place where one ar.' 3attalion was stationed. Thereat, her five 95: co-accused, na.el' Salvador &a.aril, Aad;irul Plasin, 4ainuddin Aassin, >.a. Taruk Alah and 5reddie &anuel were alread' detained. >n the afternoon of the sa.e da', appellants spouses 4ailon Julais and or.a Sahiddan were 3rou,ht to the 3attalion station and likewise detained thereat. %n &a' 0*, ())*, the ei,ht 9": accused were transported to &etrodisco., 6a.3oan,a Cit'. Aere on the sa.e date, the' were ;oined 3' accused-appellant 4aliha Aussin. At the ti.e A.lani was picked up 3' the .ilitar', she had ;ust escaped fro. the captivit' of Carlos 5alcasantos and co.pan' who in ()"" kidnapped and 3rou,ht her to the .ountains. A,ainst their will, she sta'ed with 5alcasantos and his two wives for two .onths, durin, which she slept with 5alcasantos as aide of the wives and was .ade to cook food, wash clothes, fetch water and run other errands for ever'3od'. An ar.ed ,uard was assi,ned to watch her, so that, for so.eti.e, she had to 3ear the ill-treat.ent of 5alcasantos< other wives one of who. was ar.ed. After a3out two .onths, while she was cookin, and 5alcasantos and his two wives were 3athin, in the river, and while her ,uard was not lookin,, she took her chance and .ade a successful dash for freedo.. 9TS , 4anuar' !), ())!, pp. !-(5: Gikewise a kidnap victi. herself is accused-appellant 4aliha Aussin, who was thirteen 'ears old at the ti.e 9she was fifteen 'ears old when the trial of the instant cases co..enced:. She was kidnapped 3' Bain, Ja..in, and 3rou,ht to the .ountains where he slept with her. She sta'ed with hi. for less than a .onth sleepin, on forest ,round and otherwise perfor.in, housekeepin, errands for Ja..in, and his .en. She .ade ,ood her escape durin, an encounter 3etween the ,roup of Ja..in, and .ilitar' troops. She hid in the 3ushes and ca.e out at Gi,ui-an where she took a #3achelor# 3us in ,oin, 3ack to her .other<s house at Pudos, Guili,an, Tun,awan, 6a.3oan,a del Sur. %ne da', at around !$** o<clock in the afternoon, while she was harvestin, pala' at the nei,h3orin, villa,e of Ti,3alan,ao, .ilitar' .en picked her up to Tic3anuan, where there was an ar.' 3attalion detach.ent. 5ro. Tic3awuan,, she was 3rou,ht to Eitali, then to &etrodisco., 6a.3oan,a Cit', where on her arrival, she .et all the other accused for the first ti.e e8cept 5reddie &anuel. 9 I8id., pp. (1-!(: Another fe.ale accused is appellant or.a Sahiddan, a native of Sina3uran, Tun,awan, 6a.3oan,a del Sur. At a3out 0$** o<clock in the afternoon of a da' in &a', while she and her hus3and were in their far., soldiers arrested the.. The soldiers did not tell the. wh' the' were 3ein, arrested, neither were the' shown an' papers. The two of the. were ;ust .ade to 3oard a si8 3' si8 truck. There were no other civilians in the truck. The truck 3rou,ht the spouses to the ar.' 3attalion and placed the. inside the 3uildin, where there were civilians and soldiers. A.on, the civilians present were her si8 co-accused Aad;irul Plasin, Salvador &a.aril, 4ai.uddin Aassan, >.aC.D Taruk Alah, 5reddie &anuel and 4u.ati'a A.lani. That ni,ht, the

ei,ht of the. were 3rou,ht to Tictapul, 6a.3oan,a Cit'= then to Eitali= and, finall', to the &etrodisco., 6a.3oan,a Cit' where the' sta'ed for si8 da's and si8 ni,hts. %n the seventh da', the accused were 3rou,ht to the Cit' 4ail, 6a.3oan,a Cit'. 9TS , 4anuar' 0*, ())(, pp. 1((: The hus3and of or.a Sahiddan is 4ailon Julais who, as heretofore narrated, was arrested with his wife the da' the soldiers ca.e to their far. on &a' !", ())*. Ae has shared with his wife the ordeals that followed in the wake of their arrest and in the duration of their confine.ent up to the present. 9TS , 4anuar' !!, ())( pp. !-4:.

T-e Trial )ourt>s Rulin$ The trial court found Appellant Julais ,uilt' of five counts of kidnappin, for ranso. and one count of kidnappin, a wo.an and pu3lic officer, for which offenses it i.posed upon hi. si8 ter.s of #life i.prison.ent.# >t also found hi. ,uilt' of two counts of sli,ht ille,al detention for the kidnappin, of &onico Saavedra and Cali8to 5rancisco. The trial court ratiocinated as follows$
Principall', the issue here is one of credi3ilit' M 3oth of the witnesses and their version of what had happened on Bece.3er (!, ()"", to 5e3ruar' 0, ()"). %n this pivotal issue, the Court ,ives credence to CpDrosecution witnesses and their testi.onies. Prosecution evidence is positive, clear and convincin,. o taint of evil or dishonest .otive was i.puted or i.puta3le to CpDrosecution witnesses. To this Court, who saw all the witnesses testif', CpDrosecution witnesses testified onl' 3ecause the' were i.pelled 3' CaD sense of ;ustice, of dut' and of truth. Contraril', CdDefense evidence is weak, uncorro3orated and consisted onl' of ali3is. The individual testi.onies of the nine accused dwelCtD principall' on what happened to each of the. on &a' !H, !" and !), ())*. one of the accused e8plained where he or she was on and fro. Bece.3er (!, ()"", to 5e3ruar' 0, ()"), when CpDrosecution evidence showCedD positivel' seven of the nine accused were keepin, the five or si8 hosta,es na.ed 3' CpDrosecution evidence. The seven accused positivel' identified to have 3een present durin, the course of the captivit' of the five kidnap-victi.s-co.plainants are$ 9(: 4u.ati'a A.lani= 9!: 4aliha Aussin= 90: or.a Sahiddan= 94: 4ailon Julais= 95: Aad;irul Plasin= 91: Salvador &a.aril and 9H: 4ainuddin Aassan. The two accused not positivel' identified are$ 5reddie &anuel alias #A;id#, and >.a. Taruk Alah. These two .ust, therefore, 3e declared ac?uitted 3ased on reasona3le dou3t. The ne8t i.portant issue to 3e e8a.ined is$ Are these seven accused ,uilt' as conspirators as char,ed in the ei,ht >nfor.ations= or onl' as acco.plicesL Prosecution evidence shows that the kidnappin, ,roup to which the seven accused 3elon,ed had for.ed the.selves into an ar.ed 3and for the purpose of kidnappin, for ranso.. This ar.ed 3and had cut the.selves off fro. esta3lished co..unities, lived in the .ountains and forests, .oved fro. place to place in order to hide their hosta,es. The wives of these ar.ed 3and .oved alon, with their hus3ands, attendin, to their needs, ,ivin, the. .aterial and .oral support. These wives also attended to the needs of the kidnap victi.s, sleepin, with the. or co.fortin, the.. 888 888 888 >> T-e $uilt of %ainuddin Hassan" %ailon ?ulais" Salvador /amaril and Had9irul #lasin . The Court holds these four .en ,uilt' as conspirators in the " cases of kidnappin,. Inlike the three wo.en-accused, these .ale accused were ar.ed. The' activel' participated in keepin, their hosta,es 3' fi,htin, off the .ilitar' and CA5GIS, in transferrin, their hosta,es fro. place to place, and in ,uardin, the kidnap hosta,es. Salvador &a.aril and 4ailon Julais were positivel' identified as a.on, the nine ar.ed .en who had kidnapped the ei,ht kidnap victi.s on Bece.3er (!, ()"". The hi,her de,ree of participation found 3' the Court of the four accused is supported 3' the rulin,s of our Supre.e Court ?uoted 3elow. 9(: The ti.e-honored ;urisprudence is that direct proof is not essential to prove conspirac'. >t .a' 3e shown 3' a nu.3er of infinite acts, conditions and circu.stances which .a' var'

accordin, to the purposes to 3e acco.plished and fro. which .a' lo,icall' 3e inferred that there was a co..on desi,n, understandin, or a,ree.ent a.on, the conspirators to co..it the offense char,ed. 9People vs. Ca3rera, 40 Phil 14= People vs. Car3onel, 4" Phil. "1".: 9!: The cri.e .ust, therefore, in view of the solidarit' of the act and intent which e8isted 3etween the si8teen accused, 3e re,arded as the act of the 3and or part' created 3' the., and the' are all e?uall' responsi3le for the .urder in ?uestion. 9I.S. vs. 2undal, et. al. 0 Phil "), )".: 90: @hen two or .ore persons unite to acco.plish a cri.inal o3;ect, whether throu,h the ph'sical volition of one, or all, proceedin, severall' or collectivel', each individual whose evil will activel' contri3ute to the wron,doin, is in law responsi3le for the whole, the sa.e as thou,h perfor.ed 3' hi.self alone. 9People vs. Peralta, et. al. !5 SCRA H5), HH! 9()1":.: 14

T-e Assi$ned Errors The trial court is faulted with the followin, errors, viz$
> The trial court erred in takin, ;udicial notice of a .aterial testi.on' ,iven in another case 3' Gt. &el?uiades 5eliciano, who alle,edl' was the tea. leader of the ,overn.ent troops which alle,edl' captured the accused-appellants in an encounter= there3', deprivin, the accusedappellants their ri,ht to cross-e8a.ine hi.. >> %n the assu.ption that Gt. 5eliciano<s testi.on' could 3e validl' taken ;udicial notice of, the trial court, nevertheless, erred in not disre,ardin, the sa.e for 3ein, hi,hl' i.pro3a3le and contradictor'. >>> The trial court erred in findin, that accused-appellants 4u.ati'a A.lani, 4aliha Aussin and or.a Sahiddan provided Carlos 5alcasantos, et. al., with .aterial and .oral co.fort, hence, are ,uilt' as acco.plices in all the kidnappin, for ranso. cases. >E The trial court erred in den'in, to accused-appellant 4aliha Aussin and or.a Sahiddan the 3enefits of suspension of sentence ,iven to 'outh offenders considerin, that the' were .inors at the ti.e of the co..ission of the offense. 11

As earlier noted, 4u.ati'a A.lani, 4aliha Aussin and or.a Sahiddan had withdrawn their appeal, and as such, the third and fourth assi,ned errors, which pertain to the. onl', will no lon,er 3e dealt with. %nl' the followin, issues pertainin, to Appellant 4ailon Julais will 3e discussed$ 9(: ;udicial notice of other pendin, cases, 9!: sufficienc' of the prosecution evidence, and 90: denial as a defense. >n addition, the Court will pass upon the propriet' of the penalt' i.posed 3' the trial court. T-e )ourt>s Rulin$ The appeal is 3ereft of .erit. irst Issue$ %udicial .otice and 6enial of 6ue #rocess Appellant Julais ar,ues that he was denied due process when the trial court took ;udicial notice of the testi.on' ,iven in another case 3' one Gt. &el?uiades 5eliciano, who was the tea. leader of the ,overn.ent troops that captured hi. and his purported cohorts. 16 2ecause he was alle,edl' deprived of his ri,ht to cross-e8a.ine a .aterial witness in the person of Gieutenant 5eliciano, he contends that the latter<s testi.on' should not 3e used a,ainst hi.. 14

True, as a ,eneral rule, courts should not take ;udicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedin,s, even if these have 3een tried or are pendin, in the sa.e court, or have 3een heard and are actuall' pendin, 3efore the sa.e ;ud,e. 15 This is especiall' true in cri.inal cases, where the accused has the constitutional ri,ht to confront and cross-e8a.ine the witnesses a,ainst hi.. Aavin, said that, we note, however, that even if the court a 7uo did take ;udicial notice of the testi.on' of Gieutenant 5eliciano, it did not use such testi.on' in decidin, the cases a,ainst the appellant. Aence, Appellant Julais was not denied due process. Ais conviction was 3ased .ainl' on the positive identification .ade 3' so.e of the kidnap victi.s, na.el', 4essica Calunod, Ar.ando 2acarro and 7dil3erto Pere+. These witnesses were su3;ected to .eticulous cross-e8a.inations conducted 3' appellant<s counsel. At 3est, then, the trial court<s .ention of Gieutenant 5eliciano<s testi.on' is a decisional surplusa,e which neither affected the outco.e of the case nor su3stantiall' pre;udiced Appellant Julais. Second Issue$ Sufficienc+ of #rosecution Evidence Appellant was positivel' identified 3' Calunod, as shown 3' the latter<s testi.on'$
CP CA4AK% B &S$ - And how lon, were 'ou in the custod' of these personsL A @e sta'ed with the. for fift'-four da's. - And durin, those da's did 'ou co.e to know an' of the persons who were with the ,roupL A @e ca.e to know al.ost all of the. considerin, we sta'ed there for fift'-four da's. - And can 'ou please na.e to us so.e of the. or how 'ou know the.L A 5or e8a.ple, aside fro. Co..ander 5alcasantos and Co..ander Ja.lon we ca.e to know first our foster parents, those who were assi,ned to ,ive us so.e food. - Kou .ean to sa' that the captors assi,ned 'ou so.e .en who will take care of 'ouL A Kes. - And to who. were 'ou assi,nedL A To >la A3durasa. - And other than 'our foster CparentsD or the parents who. 'ou are assi,ned to, who else did 'ou co.e to knowL A Pa,al and his wife= Tan$Bon$ and his wife ana= the two 9!: wives of Co..ander 5alcasantos M &atin, and 4anira M another 3rother in-law of Co..ander Ja.lon, Is.an, the wife of Ja.lon, Tira. 888 888 888 - ow, 'ou said that 'ou were with these .en for fift'-four da's and 'ou reall' ca.e to know the.. @ill 'ou still 3e a3le to reco,ni+e these persons if 'ou will see theC.D a,ainL A Kes, .a<a.. - ow will 'ou look around this Aonora3le Court and see if an' of those 'ou .entioned are hereL

A Kes, the' are here. - So.e of the. are hereL A So.e of the. are here. 888 888 888 - @here is Tan,kon,L @hat is he wearin,L A @hite t-shirt with oran,e collar. 9witness pointin,.: He was one of t-ose nine armed men w-o tooB us from t-e -i$-wa+. RTC > T7RPR7T7R$ @itness pointed to a .an sittin, in court and when asked of his na.e, he ,ave his na.e as 4A>G% JIGA>S. CP CA4AK% B &S$ - Aside fro. 3ein, with the ar.ed .en who stopped the vehicle and .ade 'ou ali,ht, what else was he doin, while 'ou were in their captivit'L A Ae was the foster parent of Ar.ando 2acarro and the hus3and of C%IRT$ - @hoL A Tan$Bon$. 888 888 888 19 ana.

Gikewise clear and strai,htforward was 2acarro<s testi.on' pointin, to appellant as one of the culprits$
5>SCAG CA4AK% $ 888 888 888 - And what happened thenL A So.e of the ar.ed .en assi,ned who will 3e the host or who will 3e the one CtoD ,CiDve food to us. - CToD who. were 'ou assi,nedL A I was assi$ned to a certain Tan$Bon$ and C-isD wife .ana . 888 888 888 - ow, 'ou said 'ou were assi,ned to Tan,kon, and his wife. CBDo 'ou re.e.3er how he looks likeL A Kes. - ow, will 'ou please look around this Court and tell us if that said Tan,kon, and his wife are hereL A Kes, .a<a.. - Could 'ou please point this Tan,kon, to usL A 1itness pointed to a person in )ourt . C1D-en asBed -is name -e identified C-imselfD as %ailon ?ulais. - @h' did 'ou sa' his na.e is Tan,kon,L @here did 'ou ,et that na.eL A @ell, that is the na.e C3' which he isD usuall' called in the ca.p. 888 888 888 ATTK. 5A2>A 9counsel for accused Julais:

- @hen did 'ou first .eet Tan,kon,L A That was on Bece.3er ((, 3ecause I remem8er -e was t-e one w-o tooB us. - @hen 'ou were ?uestioned 3' the fiscal a while a,o, 'ou stated that &r. &a.aril was one of those who stopped the 3us and took 'ou to the hill and 'ou did not .ention Tan,kon,L A > did not .ention 8ut I can remem8er -is face. 888 888 888 - And 3ecause Tan,kon, was alwa's with 'ou as 'our host even if he did not tell 'ou that he CwasD one of those who stopped 'ou, 'ou would not reco,ni+e hi.L A o, > can reco,ni+e hi. 3ecause he was the one who took .' shoes. C%IRT$ - @hoL A Tan$Bon$" +our Honor. 888 888 888 20

Also strai,htforward was 7rnesto Pere+< candid narration$

5>SCAG CA4AK% $ 888 888 888 - @ho elseL A The last .an. - Bid 'ou co.e to know his na.eL A Onl+ -is nicBname" Tan$Bon$. 9@itness pointed to a .an in Court who identified hi.self as 4ailon Julais.: - And what was Tan,kon, doin, in the .ountainL A T-e same" $uardin$ us. CR%SS-7NA&> AT>% 2K ATTK. SAAAJ. - 7n,r. Pere+, 'ou stated that 'ou were a.3ushed 3' nine ar.ed .en on 'our wa' fro. CtheD Gico.o to CtheD Tala,a 5oot 2rid,e. C@Dhat do 'ou .ean 3' a.3ushedL A > .ean that the' 3locked our wa' and stopped. - The' did not fire an' shotsL A 2ut the' were pointin, their ,uns at us. - And a.on, the ) ar.ed .en who held 'ou on 'our wa' to CtheD Tala,a 5oot3rid,e, 'ou stated CthatD one of the. CwasD Co..ander 5alcasantosL A Kes. - Could 'ou also reco,ni+e an'one of the accused in that ,roupL A Kes. - @ill 'ou please identif'L A T-at one" Tan$Bon$. 9The witness pointed to a .an sittin, in court who identified hi.self as 4ailon Julais.: 888 888 888

CR%SS-7NA&> AT>% 5>SCAG CA4AK% $

2K ATTK. 5A2>A .

- Kou said 4ailon Julais was a.on, those who ,uarded the ca.pL Kour Aonor, please, he does not know the na.e of 4ulais, he used the word Tan,kon,. ATTK. 5A2>A - Kou said Tan,kon, ,uarded 'ouC. @Dhat do 'ou .eanL A Ae ,uarded us like prisonersC. ADfter ,uardin, us the' have their ti.e two hours another will 3e on dut' ,uardin, us. - @here did 'ou .eet Tan,kon,L A He was one of t-e armed men w-o Bidnapped us . 888 888 888 21

>t is evident fro. the fore,oin, testi.onies of Calunod, 2acarro and Pere+ that kidnappin, or detention did take place$ the five victi.s were held, a,ainst their will, for fift'-three da's fro. Bece.3er (!, ()"" to 5e3ruar' !, ()"). >t is also evident that Appellant Julais was a .e.3er of the ,roup of ar.ed .en who sta,ed the kidnappin,, and that he was one of those who ,uarded the victi.s durin, the entire period of their captivit'. Ais participation ,ives credence to the conclusion of the trial court that he was a conspirator. ?idnappin$ for Ransom That the kidnappin, of the five was co..itted for the purpose of e8tortin, ranso. is also apparent fro. the testi.on' of Calunod, who was ?uite e.phatic in identif'in, the accused and narratin, the circu.stances surroundin, the writin, of the ranso. letters.
CP CA4AK% B &S$ - ow, 'ou were in their captivit' for 54 da's and 'ou said there were these .eetin,s for possi3le ne,otiation with the Cit' Govern.ent. @hat do 'ou .ean 3' thisL @hat were 'ou supposed to ne,otiateL A &ecause t-e+ told us t-at t-e+ will 8e releasin$ us onl+ after t-e terms . 22 - And what were the ter.sL Bid 'ou co.e to know the ter.sL A I came to Bnow t-e terms 8ecause I was t-e one ordered 8+ )ommander alcasantos to write t-e letter" t-e ransom letter. - At this point of ti.e, 'ou re.e.3er how .an' letters were 'ou asked to write for 'our ranso.L A > could not re.e.3er as to how .an', 3ut > can identif' the.. - @h' will 'ou a3le to identif' the sa.eL A &ecause I was t-e one w-o wrote it . - And 'ou are fa.iliar, of course, with 'our pen.anshipL A Kes. - ow we have here so.e letters which were turned over to us 3' the Aonora3le Cit' &a'or Eitaliano A,an. (,!,0,4,5 M there are five letters all handwritten. C%IRT$

%ri,inalL CP CA4AK% B &S$ %ri,inal, 'our Aonor. - And we would like 'ou to ,o over these and sa', tell us if an' of these were the ones 'ou were asked to write. A 9@itness ,oin, over ClettersD: This one M ! pa,es. This one M ! pa,es. o .ore. - Aside fro. the fact that 'ou identified 'our pen.anship in these letters, what else will .ake 'ou re.e.3er that these are reall' the ones 'ou wrote while thereL A The si,nature is there. - There is a printed na.e hereC,D 4essica Calunod. A And over it is a si,nature. - That is 'our si,natureL A Kes, .a<a.. - Aow a3out in the other letter, did 'ou si,n it alsoL A Kes, there is the other si,nature. - There are na.es M other na.es here M 7ddie Pere+, Allan 2asa, Ar.ando 2acarro, 5eli8 Rosario, 4o;ie %rtuoste and there are si,natures a3ove the sa.e. Bid 'ou co.e up to know who si,ned this oneL A Those whose si,natures there were si,ned 3' the persons. C sicD. - And we have here at the 3otto., Co..ander Ja.lon Aassan, and there is the si,nature a3ove the sa.e. Bid 'ou co.e to know who si,ned itL A C>t wasD Co..ander Ja.lon Aassan who si,ned that. 888 888 888 - 4essica, > a. ,oin, over this letter . . . Could 'ou please read to us the portion here which sa's the ter.sL . . . A 9@itness readin,: #&ao ilan, ,usto n,a anda.un na nin'o an, kantidad n,a P(**,*** u, P(4,*** 3a'lo sa !* sets n,a unifor.s sa 2i'ernes 9Pe3rero 0, ()"):. 20 888 888 888 > T7RPR7T7R 9Translation:$ This is what the' like 'ou to prepareC$D the a.ount of P(**,***.** and P(4,***.** in e8chan,e CforD !* sets of unifor. on 5rida', 5e3ruar' 0, ()"). 888 888 888 ow 'ou also earlier identified this other letter and this is dated 4anuar' !(, ()"". 24 ow, could 'ou please e8plain to us wh' it is dated 4anuar' !(, ()"" and the other one 7nero 0(, ()") or 4anuar' 0(, ()")L A > did not reali+e that > placed ()"), ()"", 3ut it was ()"). - 4anuar' !(, ()")L A Kes. 888 888 888

- ow, in this letter, were the ter.s also .entionedL Please ,o over this. A 9Goin, over the letter: Kes, .a<a.. - Could 'ou please read it aloud to usL A 9@itness readin,: Gusto nila and P(**,***.** n, kapinan nu u, !* sets n,a co.pleton, unifor.er 9H colors .arine t'pe wala na' la3ot an, sapatos:, tun,a .ediu. u, tun,a lar,e si+e. 21 888 888 888 > T7RPR7T7R$ The' like the P(**,***.** and an addition of !* sets of co.plete unifor. 9H colors, .arine-t'pe not includin, the shoes:, one half .ediu., one half lar,e. 888 888 888 - After havin, written these letters, did 'ou co.e to know after Cthe' wereD si,ned 3' 'our co.panions and all of 'ou, do 'ou know if these letters were sentL >f 'ou know onl'. A > would like to .ake it clear. The first letter was ordered to .e 3' 5alcasantos to infor. the Cit' &a'or that initial as P5**,***.**, and when we were alread' M > was asked a,ain to write, we were ordered to affi8 our si,nature to serve as proof that all of us are alive. 26 CsicD

Calunod<s testi.on' was su3stantiall' corro3orated 3' 3oth Ar.ando 2acarro 24 and 7dil3erto Pere+. 25 The receipt of the ranso. letters, the efforts .ade to raise and deliver the ranso., and the release of the hosta,es upon pa'.ent of the .one' were testified to 3' 6a.3oan,a Cit' &a'or Eitaliano A,an 29 and Tedd' &e;ia. 00 The ele.ents of kidnappin, for ranso., as e.3odied in Article !1H of the Revised Penal Code, 01 havin, 3een sufficientl' proven, and the appellant, a private individual, havin, 3een clearl' identified 3' the kidnap victi.s, this Court thus affir.s the trial court<s findin, of appellant<s ,uilt on five counts of kidnappin, for ranso.. ?idnappin$ of #u8lic Officers Eicti.s Eir,inia San A,ustin-Gara, &onico Saavedra and Cali8to 5rancisco were .e.3ers of the ,overn.ent .onitorin, tea. a3ducted 3' appellant<s ,roup. The three testified to the fact of kidnappin,= however, the' were not a3le to identif' the appellant. 7ven so, appellant<s identit' as one of the kidnappers was sufficientl' esta3lished 3' Calunod, 2acarro and Pere+, who were with Gara, Saavedra and 5rancisco when the a3duction occurred. That Gara, Saavedra and 5rancisco were detained for onl' three hours 02 does nor .atter. >n #eople vs. 6omasian, 00 the victi. was si.ilarl' held for three hours, and was released even 3efore his parents received the ranso. note. The accused therein ar,ued that the' could not 3e held ,uilt' of kidnappin, as no enclosure was involved, and that onl' ,rave coercion was co..itted, if at all. 04 Convictin, appellants of kidnappin, or serious ille,al detention under Art. !1H 94: of the Revised Penal Code, the Court found that the victi., an ei,ht-'ear-old 3o', was deprived of his li3ert' when he was restrained fro. ,oin, ho.e. The Court ;ustified the

conviction 3' holdin, that the offense consisted not onl' in placin, a person in an enclosure, 3ut also in detainin, or deprivin, hi., in an+ manner, of his li3ert'. 01 Gikewise, in #eople vs. Santos, 06 the Court held that since the appellant was char,ed and convicted under Article !1H, para,raph 4, it was not t-e duration of the deprivation of li3ert' which was i.portant, 3ut the fact that the victi., a minor, was locked up. Thus, in the present case, the detention of Gara, Saavedra and 5rancisco for onl' a few hours is i..aterial. The clear fact is that the victi.s were pu3lic officers 04 U Gara was a fiscal anal'st for the Cit' of 6a.3oan,a, Saavedra worked at the Cit' 7n,ineer<s %ffice, and 5rancisco was a 3aran,a' council.an at the ti.e the kidnappin, occurred. Appellant Julais should 3e punished, therefore, under Article !1H, para,raph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, and not Art, !1", as the trial court held. The present case is different fro. #eople vs. Astor$a, 05 which held that the cri.e co..itted was not kidnappin, under Article !1H, para,raph 4, 3ut onl' ,rave coercion. The appellant in that case had tricked his seven-'ear-old victi. into ,oin, with hi. to a place he alone knew. Ais plans, however, were foiled when a ,roup of people 3eca.e suspicious and rescued the ,irl fro. hi.. The Court noted that the victi.<s testi.on' and the other pieces of evidence did not indicate that the appellant wanted to detain her, or that he actuall' detained her. >n the present case, the evidence presented 3' the prosecution indu3ita3l' esta3lished that the victi.s were detained, al3eit for a few hours. There is proof 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t that kidnappin, took place, and that appellant was a mem8er of the ar.ed ,roup which a3ducted the victi.s. T-ird Issue$ 6enial and Ali8i The appellant<s 3are denial is a weak defense that 3eco.es even weaker in the face of the prosecution witnesses< positive identification of hi.. 4urisprudence ,ives ,reater wei,ht to the positive narration of prosecution witnesses than to the ne,ative testi.onies of the defense. 09 2etween positive and cate,orical testi.on' which has a rin, of truth to it on the one hand, and a 3are denial on the other, the for.er ,enerall' prevails. 40 4essica Calunod, Ar.ando 2acarro and 7dil3erto Pere+ testified in a clear, strai,htforward and frank .anner= and their testi.onies were co.pati3le on .aterial points. &oreover, no ill .otive was attri3uted to the kidnap victi.s and none was found 3' this Court. @e a,ree with the trial court<s o3servation that the appellant did not .eet the char,es a,ainst hi. head on. Ais testi.on' dwelt on what happened to hi. on the da' he was arrested and on su3se?uent da's thereafter. Appellant did not e8plain where he was durin, the ?uestioned dates 9Bece.3er (!, ()"" to 5e3ruar' 0, ()"):= neither did he re3ut Calunod, 2acarro and Pere+, when the' identified hi. as one of their kidnappers. Reclusion #erpetua" .ot Life Imprisonment The trial court erred when it sentenced the appellant to si8 ter.s of life i.prison.ent. The penalt' for kidnappin, with ranso., under the Revised Penal Code, is reclusion perpetua to death. Since the cri.es happened in ()"", when the capital penalt' was proscri3ed 3' the Constitution, the .a8i.u. penalt' that could have 3een i.posed was reclusion perpetua. Gife i.prison.ent is not s'non'.ous with reclusion perpetua. Inlike life i.prison.ent, reclusion perpetua carries with it accessor' penalties provided in the Revised Penal Code and has a definite e8tent or duration. Gife i.prison.ent is invaria3l' i.posed for serious

offenses penali+ed 3' special laws, while reclusion perpetua is prescri3ed in accordance with the Revised Penal Code. 41 @A7R75%R7, the conviction of Appellant 4ailon Julais as principal in five counts of kidnappin, for ranso. and in three counts of kidnappin, is A55>R&7B, 3ut the penalt' i.posed is here3' &%B>5>7B as follows$ Appellant is sentenced to five ter.s of reclusion perpetua, one for each of his five convictions for kidnappin, for ranso.= and to three ter.s of reclusion perpetua, one each for the kidnappin, of Pu3lic %fficers Eir,inia Gara, &onico Saavedra and Cali8to 5rancisco. Gike the other accused who withdrew their appeals, he is R7-I>R7B to return the personal effects, or their .onetar' value, taken fro. the kidnap victi.s. Additionall', he is %RB7R7B to pa' the a.ount of P(!!,*** representin, the ranso. .one' paid to the kidnappers. Costs a,ainst appellant. S% %RB7R7B. 6avide" %r." &ellosillo" @itu$ and *uisum8in$" %%." concur.
2

Foot&ot#s
( These >nfor.ations were si,ned 3' 6a.3oan,a Cit' 5irst Assistant Prosecutor &anuel Tatel and approved 3' Cit' Prosecutor @ilfredo &. Ku. ! Referred to as #4aliha Aussin# in the Becision. 0 Also referred to as #>.an.# 4 Record, p. (= AGGA 2ASA in Cri.. Case o. (**1(, record, p. (= 7B>G27RT% P7R76 ' SAGEAB%R in Cri.. Case o. (**1!, record, p. (= 47SS>CA S. CAGI %B in Cri.. Case o. (**10, record, p. (= AR&A B% %. 2ACARR% in Cri.. Case o. (**14, record, p. (. 2rackets supplied. 5 I8id. 1 I8id. H Record, p. (= E>RG> >A SA AGIST> GARA, a fe.ale pu3lic officer, in Cri.. Case o. (**11, record, p. (= CAG>NT% 5RA C>SC% in Cri.. Case o. (**1H, record, p. (. 2rackets supplied. " See Becision, p. 0. Althou,h the trial court listed the nine arrested accused, it erroneousl' wrote that there were onl' ei,ht of the.. ) Becision, pp. 00-01= rollo, pp. 5!-55. (* Throu,h Att'. Catherine P.C. 5a3ian of the Pu3lic Attorne'<s %ffice, who represented the. durin, the trial. (( The case was dee.ed su3.itted for resolution on 5e3ruar' !(, ())H, when the Court received a letter fro. the 2ureau of Corrections confir.in, the confine.ent of Appellant 4ailon Julais at the 2P. (! Appellee<s 2rief, pp. "-(*= rollo, pp. (4)h-(4);. (0 Appellant<s 2rief, prepared 3' the Pu3lic Attorne'<s %ffice and si,ned 3' Pu3lic Attorne' >>> 2artolo.e P. Reus and Pu3lic Attorne' >> Rector 7. &acapa,al, pp. "-((= rollo, pp. )!-)5. (4 Becision, pp. !)-00. (5 Appellant<s 2rief, pp. (-!= rollo, pp. "5-"1. (1 Appellant<s 2rief, p. ((= rollo, p. )5. (H I8id., p. (!= rollo, p. )1. (" Ta3uena vs. Court of Appeals, ()1 SCRA 15*, &a' 1, ())(. See also %ccidental Gand Transportation Co., >nc. vs. Court of Appeal, !!* SCRA (1H, &arch (), ())0.

() TS , %cto3er !!, ())*, pp. "-((. 7.phasis supplied. !* TS , %cto3er !0, ())*, pp. ) and !5. 7.phasis supplied. !( TS , %cto3er !4, ())*, pp. ("-!0. 7.phasis supplied. !! TS , %cto3er !!, ())*, p. (0. 7.phasis supplied. !0 This letter, dated 4anuar' 0(, ()") and consistin, of two pa,es, was .arked 78h. #A# and #A-(#= 4essica Calunod<s si,nature thereon was .arked 78h. #A-!.# This ?uoted portion was .arked 78h. #A-0.# !4 This letter, dated 4anuar' !(, ()"), was .arked 78h. #2#= the second pa,e thereof, 78h. #2(, and 4essica Calunod<s si,nature, 78h. #2-!.# !5 This portion was .arked 78h. #2-0.# !1 TS , %cto3er !!, ())*, p. (0. !H TS , %cto3er !0, ())*, pp. (*-((. Burin, his testi.on', 2acarro confir.ed that 4essica Calunod and 7n,ineer Pere+ were .ade to write ranso. letters, and that he, alon, with the other hosta,es, was .ade to si,n the letters. Ae also identified another letter, .arked as 78h. #B,# dated 4anuar' (5, ()"" and addressed to &a'or Eitaliano A,an. @ritten in response to the .a'or<s re?uest to reduce the ranso. .one' fro. P5**,*** to P05*,***, this letter stated that Co..ander 5alcasantos did not want to reduce the aforesaid a.ount, 3ut he a,reed to the reduced a.ount of P45*,***, as he took pit' on the pli,ht of the hosta,es. !" TS , %cto3er !4, ())* pp. (0-(5. Pere+ stated that he also wrote a ranso. letter and identified the sa.e= he also confir.ed that 4essica Calunod likewise wrote ranso. notes, and that he and all the other hosta,es were asked to si,n the.,. !) TS , Bece.3er ((, ())*. &a'or A,an testified that he received ranso. letters= that he facilitated their deliver' to the kidnappers= and that upon pa'.ent of the ranso. .one', the kidnap victi.s were released. 0* TS , ove.3er H, ())*, pp. !-H. &r. &e;ia testified that he was one of those who delivered the .one' to the kidnappers and witnessed the release of the victi.s. 0( #Art !1H. ?idnappin$ and serious ille$al detention . An' private individual who shall detain or kidnap another, or in an' other .anner, deprive hi. of his li3ert', shall suffer the penalt' of reclusion perpetua to death$ (. If t-e Bidnappin$ or detention s-all -ave lasted more t-an five da+s . !. >f it shall have 3een co..itted si.ulatin, pu3lic authorit'. 0. >f an' serious ph'sical in;uries shall have 3een inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained= or if threats to kill hi. shall have 3een .ade. 4 If t-e person Bidnappin$ or detained s-all 8e a minor" female or pu8lic officer. The penalt' shall 3e death where the kidnappin, or detention was co..itted for the purpose of e8tortin, ranso. fro. the victi. or an' other person, even if none of the circu.stances a3ove-.entioned were present in the co..ission of the offense. 9This definition has 3een a.ended 3' Section ", RA o. H15), effective Bece.3er 0(, ())0. The cri.es happened in ()"".: 0! TS , ove.3er 1, ())*, p. ). 00 !() SCRA !45, &arch (, ())0. 04 I8id., p. !5*. 05 I8id., p. !50. 01 GR o. ((H"H0, Bece.3er !!, ())H. )itin$ Ra.on C. A?uino, T-e Revised #enal )ode, ()"" ed., Eol. >>>, pp. (-!, the Court said that the Spanish version of Art. !1H of the Revised Penal Code uses the ter.s #lock-up# 9encerrar: rather than #kidnap# 9se7uestar or raptar:. #Gockup# is included in the 3roader ter. #detention,# which refers not onl' to the placin, of a

person in an enclosure which he cannot leave, 3ut also to an' other deprivation of li3ert'. 0H Art. !*0, Revised Penal Code, provides$ Art. !*0. 1-o are pu8lic officers. 5or the purpose of appl'in, the provisions of this and the precedin, titles of this 3ook, an' person who, 3' direct provision of law, popular election or appoint.ent 3' co.petent authorit', shall take part in the perfor.ance of pu3lic functions in the Govern.ent of the Philippine >slands, or shall perfor. in said Govern.ent or in an' of its 3ranches pu3lic duties as an e.plo'ee, a,ent or su3ordinate official, of an' rank or class, shall 3e dee.ed to 3e a pu3lic officer. >n definin, #pu3lic officers,# for.er Chief 4ustice Ra.on C. A?uino cited &anie,o vs. People, in which the Court held$ #The definition of pu3lic officer in Art. !*0 is ?uite co.prehensive, e.3racin, as it does ever' pu3lic servant fro. the lowest to the hi,hest. >t o3literates the distinction 3etween officer and e.plo'ee in the law of pu3lic officers, it does not distin,uish 3etween per.anent and te.porar' e.plo'ees . . .# Ae likewise presented a list of persons held to 3e pu3lic officers in various cases, e.$. a custo.s secret service a,ent, a pu3lic works inspector, a sanitar' officer, a 3arrio lieutenant, a la3orer dischar,in, clerical functions, an e.er,enc' helper in the 2ureau of 5orestr' on a dail' wa,e 3asis, perfor.in, the duties of ;anitor and .essen,er. See Ra.on C. A?uino, Revised #enal )ode, ())H ed., Eol. >>, pp. 4*)-4(*. 0" GR o. ((**)H, Bece.3er !!, ())H. 0) People vs. An,eles, !(" SCRA 05!, 5e3ruar' !, ())0= People vs. Gui3ao !(H SCRA 14, 4anuar' (5, ())0= People vs. &endo+a, !(* SCRA 5(H, 4une !1, ())!= People vs. 2ausin,, ()) SCRA 055, 4ul' (", ())(= People vs. 2acatcat, ("" SCRA (H5, 4ul' 0(, ())*. 4* People vs. @a,,a', !(" SCRA H4!, 5e3ruar' ), ())0= People vs. Andasa, !*1 SCRA 101, 5e3ruar' !H, ())!. 4( People vs. Ga'no, GR o. ((*"00, ove.3er !(, ())1= People vs. &a,ana, GR o. (*51H0, 4ul' !1, ())1= People vs. Gre,orio, !55 SCRA 0"*, &arch !), ())1= People vs. &a,alon,, !44 SCRA ((H, &a' (!, ())5. See People vs. Sa.son, !44 SCRA (41, &a' (1, ())5. .OTA &E.E$ >t is noteworth' that Appellant Julais was also the appellant in this cited case. Ae appealed the Becision of the Re,ional Trial Court of 6a.3oan,a Cit', 2ranch (!, presided 3' 4ud,e Pela,io S. &andi who penned the Becision appealed in the present case. >n that case, Julais was convicted of kidnappin, with ranso. for the a3duction of one Air.an Ru3en &onteverde, co..itted on 4anuar' 0*, ())*. The persons he was char,ed with were the same ones he was char,ed and convicted with in the case at 3ar. See also People vs. Ra.os, 4r., !*0 SCRA !0H, %cto3er !", ())(= and People vs. 2a,uio, ()1 SCRA 45), April 0*, ())(.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila N 2"N! A.!. No. RT'-92-546 S#6t#>7#" 19, 1994 STATE PROSECUTORS, co.plainants, vs. 'UDGE !ANUEL T. !URO, R#g$o&)* T"$)* Cou"t, (")&9: 14, !)&$*), respondent. PER CURIA!B >n assa'in, the re?uisite nor.s for ?ualifications and e.inence of a .a,istrate, le,al authorities place a pre.iu. on how he has co.plied with his continuin, dut' to know the law. A ?ualit' thus considered essential to the ;udicial character is that of #a .an of learnin, who spends tirelessl' the wear' hours after .idni,ht ac?uaintin, hi.self with the ,reat 3od' of traditions and the learnin, of the law= is profoundl' learned in all the learnin, of the law= and knows how to use that learnin,.# 1 %3viousl', it is the pri.ar' dut' of a ;ud,e, which he owes to the pu3lic and to the le,al profession, to know the ver' law he is supposed to appl' to a ,iven controvers'. Ae is called upon to e8hi3it .ore than ;ust a cursor' ac?uaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. Part' liti,ants will have ,reat faith in the ad.inistration of ;ustice if ;ud,es cannot ;ustl' 3e accused of apparent deficienc' in their ,rasp of the le,al principles. 5or, service in the ;udiciar' .eans a continuous stud' and research on the law fro. 3e,innin, to end. 2 >n a letter-co.plaint 0 dated Au,ust (), ())!, respondent 4ud,e &anuel T. &uro of the Re,ional Trial Court 9RTC: of &anila, 2ranch 54, was char,ed 3' State Prosecutors ilo C. &ariano, Geor,e C. Bee and Paterno E. Tac-an with i,norance of the law, ,rave .isconduct and violations of Rules !.*(, 0.*( and 0.*! of the Code of 4udicial Conduct, co..itted as follows$
(. That on Au,ust (0, ())!, respondent ;ud,e issued an %rder dis.issin, eleven 9((: cases 9docketed as Cri.. Cases os. )!-(*()5) to )!- (*()1), inclusive: filed 3' the undersi,ned co.plainant prosecutors 9.e.3ers of the B%4 Panel of Prosecutors: a,ainst the accused &rs. >.elda Ro.ualde+ &arcos, for Eiolation of Central 2ank 5orei,n 78chan,e Restrictions, as consolidated in C2 Circular o. )1*, in relation to the penal provisions of Sec. 04 of R.A. !15, as a.ended, . . .= !. That respondent 4ud,e issued his %rder solel' on the 3asis of newspaper reports 9Au,ust ((, ())! issues of the Philippine Bail' >n?uirer and the Bail' Glo3e: concernin, the announce.ent on Au,ust (*, ())! 3' the President of the Philippines of the liftin, 3' the ,overn.ent of all forei,n e8chan,e restrictions and the arrival at such decision 3' the &onetar' 2oard as per state.ent of Central 2ank Governor 4ose Cuisia= 0. That clai.in, that the reported announce.ent of the 78ecutive Bepart.ent on the liftin, of forei,n e8chan,e restrictions 3' two newspapers which are reputa3le and of national circulation had the effect of repealin, Central 2ank Circular o. )1*, as alle,edl' supported 3' Supre.e Court decisions . . ., the Court contended that it was deprived of ;urisdiction, and, therefore, .otu, prop9r:io had to dis.iss all the eleven cases afore.entioned #for not to do so opens this Court to char,es of tr'in, cases over which it has no .ore ;urisdiction=# 4. That in dis.issin, aforecited cases on Au,ust (0, ())! on the 3asis of a Central 2ank

Circular or &onetar' 2oard Resolution which as of date hereof, has not even 3een officiall' issued, and 3asin, his %rder/decision on a .ere newspaper account of the advance announce.ent .ade 3' the President of the said fact of liftin, or li3erali+in, forei,n e8chan,e controls, respondent ;ud,e acted pre.aturel' and in indecent haste, as he had no wa' of deter.inin, the full intent of the new C2 Circular or &onetar' 2oard resolution, and whether the sa.e provided for e8ception, as in the case of persons who had pendin, cri.inal cases 3efore the courts for violations of Central 2ank Circulars and/or re,ulations previousl' issued on the .atter= 5. That respondent 4ud,e<s arro,ant and cavalier posture in takin, ;udicial notice purportedl' as a .atter of pu3lic knowled,e a .ere newspaper account that the President had announced the liftin, of forei,n e8chan,e restrictions as 3asis for his assailed order of dis.issal is hi,hl' irre,ular, erroneous and .isplaced. 5or the respondent ;ud,e to take ;udicial notice thereof even 3efore it is officiall' released 3' the Central 2ank and its full te8t pu3lished as re?uired 3' law to 3e effective shows his precipitate action in utter disre,ard of the funda.ental precept of due process which the People is also entitled to and e8poses his ,ross i,norance of the law, there3' tarnishin, pu3lic confidence in the inte,rit' of the ;udiciar'. Aow can the Aonora3le 4ud,e take ;udicial notice of so.ethin, which has not 'et co.e into force and the contents, shape and tenor of which have not 'et 3een pu3lished and ascertained to 3e the 3asis of ;udicial actionL The Aonora3le 4ud,e had .isera3l' failed to #endeavor dili,entl' to ascertain the facts# in the case at 3ar contrar' to Rule 0.*! of the Code of 4udicial Conduct constitutin, Grave &isconduct= 1. That respondent 4ud,e did not even ha9ve: the prudence of re?uirin, first the co..ent of the prosecution on the effect of aforesaid Central 2ank Circular/&onetar' 2oard resolution on the pendin, cases 3efore dis.issin, the sa.e, there3' den'in, the Govern.ent of its ri,ht to due process= H. That the li,htnin, speed with which respondent 4ud,e acted to dis.iss the cases .a' 3e ,leaned fro. the fact that such precipitate action was undertaken despite alread' scheduled continuation of trial dates set in the order of the court 9the prosecution havin, started presentin, its evidence . . .: dated Au,ust ((, ())! to wit$ Au,ust 0(, Septe.3er 0, (*, !(, P !0 and %cto3er (, ())!, all at )$0* o<clock in the .ornin,, in 3ra+en disre,ard of all notions of fair pla', there3' deprivin, the Govern.ent of its ri,ht to 3e heard, and clearl' e8posin, his 3ias and partialit'= and ". That, in fact, the .otive of respondent 4ud,e in dis.issin, the case without even waitin, for a .otion to ?uash filed 3' the counsel for accused has even placed his dis.issal %rder suspect.

Pursuant to a resolution of this Court dated Septe.3er ", ())!, respondent ;ud,e filed his co..ent, 4 contendin,, inter alia, that there was no need to await pu3lication of the Central 2ank 9C2: circular repealin, the e8istin, law on forei,n e8chan,e controls for the si.ple reason that the pu3lic announce.ent .ade 3' the President in several newspapers of ,eneral circulation liftin, forei,n e8chan,e controls was total, a3solute, without ?ualification, and was i..ediatel' effective= that havin, acted onl' on the 3asis of such announce.ent, he cannot 3e 3la.ed for rel'in, on the erroneous state.ent of the President that the new forei,n e8chan,e rules rendered .oot and acade.ic the cases filed a,ainst &rs. &arcos, and which was corrected onl' on Au,ust (H, ())! 3ut pu3lished in the newspapers on Au,ust (", ())!, and onl' after respondent ;ud,e had issued his order of dis.issal dated Au,ust (0, ())!= that the President was ill-advised 3' his advisers and, instead of rescuin, the Chief 78ecutive fro. e.3arrass.ent 3' assu.in, responsi3ilit' for errors in the latter<s announce.ent, the' chose to toss the 3la.e for the conse?uence of their failures to respondent ;ud,e who .erel' acted on the 3asis of the announce.ents of the President which had 3eco.e of pu3lic knowled,e= that the #savin, clause# under C2 Circular o. (050 specificall' refers onl' to pendin, actions or investi,ations involvin, violations of C2 Circular o. (0(", whereas the eleven cases dis.issed involved char,es for violations of C2 Circular o. )1*, hence the accused cannot 3e tried and convicted under a law different fro. that under which she was char,ed= that assu.in, that respondent ;ud,e erred in issuin, the order of dis.issal, the

proper re.ed' should have 3een an appeal therefro. 3ut definitel' not an ad.inistrative co.plaint for his dis.issal= that a .istake co..itted 3' a ;ud,e should not necessaril' 3e i.puted as i,norance of the law= and that a #court can reverse or .odif' a doctrine 3ut it does not show i,norance of the ;ustices or ;ud,es whose decisions were reversed or .odified# 3ecause #even doctrines initiated 3' the Supre.e Court are later reversed, so how .uch .ore for the lower courtsL# Ae further ar,ued that no hearin, was necessar' since the prosecution had nothin, to e8plain 3ecause, as he theori+ed, #@hat e8planation could have 3een ,ivenL That the President was talkin, <throu,h his hat< 9to use a collo?uialis.: and should not 3e 3elievedL That > should wait for the pu3lication 9as now alle,ed 3' co.plainants:, of a still then non-e8istent C2 circularL . . . As it turned out, C2 Circular o. 0(50 9sic: does not affect .' dis.issal order 3ecause the said circular<s so-called savin, clause does not refer to C2 Circular )1* under which the char,es in the dis.issed cases were 3ased=# that it was discretionar' on hi. to take ;udicial notice of the facts which are of pu3lic knowled,e, pursuant to Section ! of Rule (!)= that the contention of co.plainants that he acted pre.aturel' and in indecent haste for 3asin, his order of dis.issal on a .ere newspaper account is contrar' to the wordin,s of the newspaper report wherein the President announced the liftin, of controls as an acco.plished fact, not as an intention to 3e effected in the future, 3ecause of the use of the present perfect tense or past tense #has lifted,# not that he #intends to lift,# forei,n e8chan,e controls. 5inall', respondent ;ud,e asseverates that co.plainants who are officers of the Bepart.ent of 4ustice, violated Section 1, Rule (4* of the Rules of Court which provides that #proceedin,s a,ainst ;ud,es of first instance shall 3e private and confidential# when the' caused to 3e pu3lished in the newspapers the filin, of the present ad.inistrative case a,ainst hi.= and he e.phasi+es the fact that he had to i..ediatel' resolve a si.ple and pure le,al .atter in consonance with the ad.onition of the Supre.e Court for speed' disposition of cases. >n their repl' 1 and supple.ental repl', 6 co.plainants aver that althou,h the savin, clause under Section (1 of C2 Circular o. (050 .ade specific reference to C2 Circular o. (0(", it will 3e noted that Section ((( of Circular o. (0(", which contains a savin, clause su3stantiall' si.ilar to that of the new circular, in turn refers to and includes Circular o. )1*. Aence, whether under Circular o. (0(" or Circular o. (050, pendin, cases involvin, violations of Circular o. )1* are e8cepted fro. the covera,e thereof. 5urther, it is alle,ed that the precipitate dis.issal of the eleven cases, without accordin, the prosecution the opportunit' to file a .otion to ?uash or a co..ent, or even to show cause wh' the cases a,ainst accused >.elda R. &arcos should not 3e dis.issed, is clearl' reflective of respondent<s partialit' and 3ad faith. >n effect, respondent ;ud,e acted as if he were the advocate of the accused. %n Bece.3er ), ())0, this Court issued a resolution referrin, the co.plaint to the %ffice of the Court Ad.inistrator for evaluation, report and reco..endation, pursuant to Section H, Rule (4* of the Rules of Court, as revised, there 3ein, no factual issues involved. The correspondin, report and reco..endation, 4 dated 5e3ruar' (4, ())4, was su3.itted 3' Beput' Court Ad.inistrator 4uanito A. 2ernad, with the approval of Court Ad.inistrator 7rnani Cru+-PaQo. The ?uestioned order 5 of respondent ;ud,e reads as follows$
These eleven 9((: cases are for Eiolation of Central 2ank 5orei,n 78chan,e Restrictions as consolidated in C2 Circular o. )1* in relation to the penal provision of Sec. 04 of R.A. !15, as

a.ended. The accused &rs. >.elda R. &arcos pleaded not ,uilt' to all these cases= apparentl' the other accused in so.e of these cases, Ro3erto S. 2enedicto, was not arrested and therefore the Court did not ac?uire ;urisdiction over his person= trial was co..enced as a,ainst &rs. &arcos. Ais 78cellenc', the President of the Philippines, announced on Au,ust (*, ())! that the ,overn.ent has lifted all forei,n e8chan,e restrictions and it is also reported that Central 2ank Governor 4ose Cuisia said that the &onetar' 2oard arrived at such decision 9issue of the Philippine Bail' >n?uirer, Au,ust ((, ())! and issue of the Bail' Glo3e of the sa.e date:. The Court has to ,ive full confidence and credit to the reported announce.ent of the 78ecutive Bepart.ent, speciall' fro. the hi,hest official of that depart.ent= the Courts are char,ed with ;udicial notice of .atters which are of pu3lic knowled,e, without introduction of proof, the announce.ent pu3lished in at least the two newspapers cited a3ove which are reputa3le and of national circulation. Per several cases decided 3' the Supre.e Court 9People vs. Alcaras, 51 Phil. 5!*, People vs. 5rancisco, 51 Phil. 5H!, People vs. Pastor, HH Phil. (***, People vs. Crisanto Ta.a'o, 1( Phil. !!5:, a.on, others, it was held that the repeal of a penal law without re-enact.ent e8tin,uishes the ri,ht to prosecute or punish the offense co..itted under the old law and if the law repealin, the prior penal law fails to penali+e the acts which constituted the offense defined and penali+ed in the repealed law, the repealed law carries with it the deprivation of the courts of ;urisdiction to tr', convict and sentence persons char,ed with violations of the old law prior to its repeal. Inder the aforecited decisions this doctrine applies to special laws and not onl' to the cri.es punisha3le in the Revised Penal Code, such as the >.port Control Gaw. The Central 2ank Circular o. )1* under which the accused &rs. &arcos is char,ed is considered as a penal law 3ecause violation thereof is penali+ed with specific reference to the provision of Section 04 of Repu3lic Act !15, which penali+es violations of Central 2ank Circular o. )1*, produces the effect cited in the Supre.e Court decisions and since accordin, to the decisions that repeal deprives the Court of ;urisdiction, this Court motu proprio dis.isses all the eleven 9((: cases as a forestated in the caption, for not to do so opens this Court to char,es of tr'in, cases over which it has no .ore ;urisdiction.

This order was su3se?uentl' assailed in a petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals, entitled #People of the Philippines vs. Aon. &anuel T. &uro, 4ud,e, RTC of &anila, 2r. 54 and >.elda R. &arcos,# docketed as CA-G.R. SP o. !)04). @hen re?uired to file her co..ent, private respondent &arcos failed to file an'. Gikewise, after the appellate court ,ave due course to the petition, private respondent was ordered, 3ut a,ain failed despite notice, to file an answer to the petition and to show cause wh' no writ of preli.inar' in;unction should issue. 7ventuall', on April !), ())0, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision 9 settin, aside the order of Au,ust (0, ())!, and reinstatin, Cri.inal Cases os. )!-(*()5) to )!-(*()1). >n findin, that respondent ;ud,e acted in e8cess of ;urisdiction and with ,rave a3use of discretion in issuin, the order of dis.issal, the appellate court held that$
The order was issued motu proprio, i.e., without an' .otion to dis.iss filed 3' counsel for the accused, without ,ivin, an opportunit' for the prosecution to 3e heard, and solel' on the 3asis of newspaper reports announcin, that the President has lifted all forei,n e8chan,e restrictions. The newspaper report is not the pu3lication re?uired 3' law in order that the enact.ent can 3eco.e effective and 3indin,. Gaws take effect after fifteen da's followin, the co.pletion of their pu3lication in the %fficial Ga+ette or in a newspaper of ,eneral circulation unless it is otherwise provided 9Section (, 78ecutive %rder o. !**:. The full te8t of C2 Circular (050, series of ())!, entitled #5urther Gi3erali+in, 5orei,n 78chan,e Re,ulation# was pu3lished in the Au,ust !H, ())! issue of the &anila Chronicle, the Philippine Star and the &anila 2ulletin. Per certification of the C2 Corporate Affairs %ffice, C2 Circular o. (050 took effect on Septe.3er ! . . . . Considerin, that respondent ;ud,e ad.ittedl' had not seen the official te8t of C2 Circular o. (050, he was in no position to rule ;udiciousl' on whether C2 Circular o. )1*, under which the accused &rs. &arcos is char,ed, was alread' repealed 3' C2 Circular o. (050. . . .

888 888 888 A cursor' readin, of the . . . provision would have readil' shown that the repeal of the re,ulations on non-trade forei,n e8chan,e transactions is not a3solute, as there is a provision that with respect to violations of for.er re,ulations that are the su3;ect of pendin, actions or investi,ations, the' shall 3e ,overned 3' the re,ulations e8istin, at the ti.e the cause of action 9arose:. Thus his conclusion that he has lost ;urisdiction over the cri.inal cases is precipitate and hast'. Aad he awaited the filin, of a .otion to dis.iss 3' the accused, and ,iven opportunit' for the prosecution to co..ent/oppose the sa.e, his resolution would have 3een the result of deli3eration, not speculation.

>. The doctrine of ;udicial notice rests on the wisdo. and discretion of the courts. The power to take ;udicial notice is to 3e e8ercised 3' courts with caution= care .ust 3e taken that the re?uisite notoriet' e8ists= and ever' reasona3le dou3t on the su3;ect should 3e pro.ptl' resolved in the ne,ative. 10 Generall' speakin,, .atters of ;udicial notice have three .aterial re?uisites$ 9(: the .atter .ust 3e one of co..on and ,eneral knowled,e= 9!: it .ust 3e well and authoritativel' settled and not dou3tful or uncertain= and 90: it .ust 3e known to 3e within the li.its of the ;urisdiction of the court. 11 The provincial ,uide in deter.inin, what facts .a' 3e assu.ed to 3e ;udiciall' known is that of notoriet'. 12 Aence, it can 3e said that ;udicial notice is li.ited to facts evidenced 3' pu3lic records and facts of ,eneral notoriet'. 10 To sa' that a court will take ;udicial notice of a fact is .erel' another wa' of sa'in, that the usual for. of evidence will 3e dispensed with if knowled,e of the fact can 3e otherwise ac?uired. 14 This is 3ecause the court assu.es that the .atter is so notorious that it will not 3e disputed. 11 2ut ;udicial notice is not ;udicial knowled,e. The .ere personal knowled,e of the ;ud,e is not the ;udicial knowled,e of the court, and he is not authori+ed to .ake his individual knowled,e of a fact, not ,enerall' or professionall' known, the 3asis of his action. 4udicial co,ni+ance is taken onl' of those .atters which are #co..onl'# known. 16 Thin,s of #co..on knowled,e,# of which courts take ;udicial notice, .a' 3e .atters co.in, to the knowled,e of .en ,enerall' in the course of the ordinar' e8periences of life, or the' .a' 3e .atters which are ,enerall' accepted 3' .ankind as true and are capa3le of read' and un?uestioned de.onstration. 14 Thus, facts which are universall' known, and which .a' 3e found in enc'clopedias, dictionaries or other pu3lications, are ;udiciall' noticed, provided the' are of such universal notoriet' and so ,enerall' understood that the' .a' 3e re,arded as for.in, part of the co..on knowled,e of ever' person. 15 Respondent ;ud,e, in the ,uise of e8ercisin, discretion and on the 3asis of a .ere newspaper account which is so.eti.es even referred to as hearsa' evidence twice re.oved, took ;udicial notice of the supposed liftin, of forei,n e8chan,e controls, a .atter which was not and cannot 3e considered of co..on knowled,e or of ,eneral notoriet'. @orse, he took co,ni+ance of an ad.inistrative re,ulation which was not 'et in force when the order of dis.issal was issued. 4urisprudence dictates that ;udicial notice cannot 3e taken of a statute 3efore it 3eco.es effective. 19 The reason is si.ple. A law which is not 'et in force and hence, still ine8istent, cannot 3e of co..on knowled,e capa3le of read' and un?uestiona3le de.onstration, which is one of the re?uire.ents 3efore a court can take ;udicial notice of a fact. 7videntl', it was i.possi3le for respondent ;ud,e, and it was definitel' not proper for hi., to have taken co,ni+ance of C2 Circular o. (050, when the sa.e was not 'et in force at the ti.e the i.provident order of dis.issal was issued.

>>. Central 2ank Circular o. (050, which took effect on Septe.3er (, ())!, further li3erali+ed the forei,n e8chan,e re,ulations on receipts and dis3urse.ents of residents arisin, fro. non-trade and trade transactions. Section (1 thereof provides for a savin, clause, thus$
Sec. (1. inal #rovisions of )& )ircular .o. <E<F. - All the provisions in Chapter N of C2 Circular o. (0(" insofar as the' are not inconsistent with, or contrar' to the provisions of this Circular, shall re.ain in full force and effect$ #rovided" -owever, that an' re,ulation on non-trade forei,n e8chan,e transactions which has 3een repealed, a.ended or .odified 3' this Circular, violations of which are the su3;ect of pendin, actions or investi,ations, shall not 3e considered repealed insofar as such pendin, actions or investi,ations are concerned, it 3ein, understood that as to such pendin, actions or investi,ations, the re,ulations e8istin, at the ti.e the cause of action accrued shall ,overn.

Respondent ;ud,e contends that the savin, clause refers onl' to the provisions of Circular o. (0(", whereas the eleven cri.inal cases he dis.issed involve a violation of C2 Circular o. )1*. Aence, he insists, Circular o. )1* is dee.ed repealed 3' the new circular and since the for.er is not covered 3' the savin, clause in the latter, there is no .ore 3asis for the char,es involved in the cri.inal cases which therefore warrant a dis.issal of the sa.e. The contention is patentl' un.eritorious. 5irstl', the second part of the savin, clause in Circular o. (050 e8plicitl' provides that # an+ re,ulation on non-trade forei,n transactions which has 3een repealed, a.ended or .odified 3' this Circular, violations of w-ic- are t-e su89ect of pendin$ actions or investi$ations" shall not 3e considered repealed insofar as such pendin, actions or investi,ations are concerned, it 3ein, understood that as to such pendin, actions or investi,ations, the re$ulations eAistin$ at t-e time t-e cause of action accrued s-all $overn .# The ter.s of the circular are clear and una.3i,uous and leave no roo. for interpretation. >n the case at 3ar, the accused in the eleven cases had alread' 3een arrai,ned, had pleaded not ,uilt' to the char,es of violations of Circular o. )1*, and said cases had alread' 3een set for trial when Circular o. (050 took effect. Conse?uentl', the trial court was and is supposed to proceed with the hearin, of the cases in spite of the e8istence of Circular o. (050. Secondl', had respondent ;ud,e onl' 3othered to read a little .ore carefull' the te8ts of the circulars involved, he would have readil' perceived and known that Circular o. (0(" also contains a su3stantiall' si.ilar savin, clause as that found in Circular o. (050, since Section ((( of the for.er provides$
Sec. (((. Repealin$ clause. - All e8istin, provisions of Circulars 015, )1* and (*!", includin, a.end.ents thereto, with the e8ception of the second para,raph of Section 1" of Circular (*!", as well as all other e8istin, Central 2ank rules and re,ulations or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with or contrar' to the provisions of this Circular, are here3' repealed or .odified accordin,l'$ Provided, however, that re,ulations, violations of which are the su3;ect of pendin, actions or investi,ations, shall 3e considered repealed insofar as such pendin, actions or investi,ations are concerned, it 3ein, understood that as to such pendin, actions or investi,ations, the re,ulations e8istin, at the ti.e the cause of action accrued shall ,overn.

>t une?uivocall' appears fro. the section a3ove ?uoted that althou,h Circular o. (0(" repealed Circular o. )1*, the for.er specificall' e8cepted fro. its purview all cases covered 3' the old re,ulations which were then pendin, at the ti.e of the passa,e of the new re,ulations. Thus, an' reference .ade to Circular o. (0(" necessaril' involves and affects Circular o. )1*. >>>. >t has 3een said that ne8t in i.portance to the dut' of renderin, a ri,hteous ;ud,.ent is that of doin, it in such a .anner as will 3e,et no suspicion of the fairness and inte,rit' of the ;ud,e. 20 This .eans that a ;ud,e should not onl' render a ;ust, correct and i.partial decision

3ut should do so in such a .anner as to 3e free fro. an' suspicion as to its fairness and i.partialit' and as to his inte,rit'. @hile a ;ud,e should possess proficienc' in law in order that he can co.petentl' construe and enforce the law, it is .ore i.portant that he should act and 3ehave in such a .anner that the parties 3efore hi. should have confidence in his i.partialit'. Thus, it is not enou,h that he decides cases without 3ias and favoritis.. or is it sufficient that he in fact rids hi.self of prepossessions. Ais actuations should .oreover inspire that 3elief. Gike Caesar<s wife, a ;ud,e .ust not onl' 3e pure 3ut 3e'ond suspicion. 21 &oreover, it has alwa's heretofore 3een the rule that in disposin, of controverted cases, ;ud,es should show their full understandin, of the case, avoid the suspicion of ar3itrar' conclusion, pro.ote confidence in their intellectual inte,rit' and contri3ute useful precedents to the ,rowth of the law. 22 A ;ud,e should 3e .indful that his dut' is the application of ,eneral law to particular instances, that ours is a ,overn.ent of laws and not of .en, and that he violates his dut' as a .inister of ;ustice under such a s'ste. if he seeks to do what he .a' personall' consider su3stantial ;ustice in a particular case and disre,ards the ,eneral law as he knows it to 3e 3indin, on hi.. Such action .a' have detri.ental conse?uences 3e'ond the i..ediate controvers'. Ae should ad.inister his office with due re,ard to the inte,rit' of the s'ste. of the law itself, re.e.3erin, that he is not a depositor' of ar3itrar' power, 3ut a ;ud,e under the sanction of the law. 20 These are i..uta3le principles that ,o into the ver' essence of the task of dispensin, ;ustice and we see no reason wh' the' should not 3e dul' considered in the present case. The assertion of respondent ;ud,e that there was no need to await pu3lication of Circular o. (050 for the reason that the pu3lic announce.ent .ade 3' the President in several newspapers of ,eneral circulation liftin, forei,n e8chan,e controls is total, a3solute, without ?ualification, and i..ediatel' effective, is 3e'ond co.prehension. As a ;ud,e of the Re,ional Trial Court of &anila, respondent is supposed to 3e well-versed in the ele.entar' le,al .andates on the pu3lication of laws 3efore the' take effect. >t is inconceiva3le that respondent should insist on an alto,ether different and illo,ical interpretation of an esta3lished and well-entrenched rule if onl' to suit his own personal opinion and, as it were, to defend his indefensi3le action. >t was not for hi. to indul,e or even to ,ive the appearance of caterin, to the at-ti.es hu.an failin, of 'ieldin, to first i.pressions. 24 Ae havin, done so, in the face of the fore,oin, pre.ises, this Court is hard put to 3elieve that he indeed acted in ,ood faith. >E. This is not a si.ple case of a .isapplication or erroneous interpretation of the law. The ver' act of respondent ;ud,e in alto,ether dis.issin, sua sponte the eleven cri.inal cases without even a .otion to ?uash havin, 3een filed 3' the accused, and without at least ,ivin, the prosecution the 3asic opportunit' to 3e heard on the .atter 3' wa' of a written co..ent or on oral ar,u.ent, is not onl' a 3latant denial of ele.entar' due process to the Govern.ent 3ut is palpa3l' indicative of 3ad faith and partialit'. The avowed desire of respondent ;ud,e to speedil' dispose of the cases as earl' as possi3le is no license for a3use of ;udicial power and discretion, 21 nor does such professed o3;ective, even if true, ;ustif' a deprivation of the prosecution<s ri,ht to 3e heard and a violation of its ri,ht to due process of 26 law. The li,htnin, speed, to 3orrow the words of co.plainants, with which respondent ;ud,e resolved to dis.iss the cases without the 3enefit of a hearin, and without reasona3le notice to the prosecution inevita3l' opened hi. to suspicion of havin, acted out of partialit' for the

accused. Re,ardless of how carefull' he .a' have evaluated chan,es in the factual situation and le,al standin, of the cases, as a result of the newspaper report, the fact re.ains that he ,ave the prosecution no chance whatsoever to show or prove that it had stron, evidence of the ,uilt of the accused. To repeat, he there3' effectivel' deprived the prosecution of its ri,ht to due process. 24 &ore i.portantl', notwithstandin, the fact that respondent was not sure of the effects and i.plications of the President<s announce.ent, as 3' his own ad.ission he was in dou3t whether or not he should dis.iss the cases, 25 he nonetheless deli3eratel' refrained fro. re?uirin, the prosecution to co..ent thereon. >n a puerile defense of his action, respondent ;ud,e can 3ut rhetoricall' ask$ #@hat e8planation could have 3een ,ivenL That the President was talkin, <throu,h his hat< and should not 3e 3elievedL That > should wait for the pu3lication of a still then non- e8istent C2 CircularL# The pretended co,enc' of this ratiocination cannot stand even the .inutest le,al scrutin'. >n order that 3ias .a' not 3e i.puted to a ;ud,e, he should have the patience and circu.spection to ,ive the opposin, part' a chance to present his evidence even if he thinks that the oppositor<s proofs .i,ht not 3e ade?uate to overthrow the case for the other part'. A displa' of petulance and i.patience in the conduct of the trial is a nor. of conduct which is inconsistent with the #cold neutralit' of an i.partial ;ud,e.# 29 At the ver' least, respondent ;ud,e acted in;udiciousl' and with un;ustified haste in the outri,ht dis.issal of the eleven cases, and there3' rendered his actuation hi,hl' du3ious. E. >t 3ears stressin, that the ?uestioned order of respondent ;ud,e could have seriousl' and su3stantiall' affected the ri,hts of the prosecution had the accused invoked the defense of dou3le ;eopard', considerin, that the dis.issal was ordered after arrai,n.ent and without the consent of said accused. This could have spawned le,al co.plications and inevita3le dela' in the cri.inal proceedin,s, were it not for the holdin, of the Court of Appeals that respondent ;ud,e acted with ,rave a3use of discretion a.ountin, to lack of ;urisdiction. This saved the da' for the People since in the a3sence of ;urisdiction, dou3le ;eopard' will not set in. To stress this point, and as a caveat to trial courts a,ainst fallin, into the sa.e ;udicial error, we reiterate what we have heretofore declared$
>t is settled doctrine that dou3le ;eopard' cannot 3e invoked a,ainst this Court<s settin, aside of the trial court<s ;ud,.ent of dis.issal or ac?uittal where the prosecution which represents the soverei,n people in cri.inal cases is denied due process. . . . . @here the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunit' to prosecute and prove its case, its ri,ht to due process is there3' violated. The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of 3asic constitutional ri,hts, courts are ousted of their ;urisdiction. Thus, the violation of the State<s ri,ht to due process raises a serious ;urisdictional issue . . . which cannot 3e ,lossed over or disre,arded at will. @here the denial of the funda.ental ri,ht of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disre,ard of that ri,ht is void for lack of ;urisdiction . . . . 00

>t is also si,nificant that accused &arcos, despite due notice, never su3.itted either her co..ent on or an answer to the petition for certiorari as re?uired 3' the Court of Appeals, nor was dou3le ;eopard' invoked in her defense. This serves to further underscore the fact that the order of dis.issal was clearl' un;ustified and erroneous. 5urther.ore, considerin, that the accused is a pro.inent pu3lic fi,ure with a record of influence and power, it is not eas' to alla' pu3lic skepticis. and suspicions on how said dis.issal order ca.e to 3e, to the conse?uent althou,h undeserved discredit of the entire ;udiciar'. E>. To hold a ;ud,e lia3le for renderin, a .anifestl' un;ust order throu,h ine8cusa3le ne,li,ence or i,norance, it .ust 3e clearl' shown that althou,h he has acted without .alice,

he failed to o3serve in the perfor.ance of his dut' that dili,ence, prudence and care which the law is entitled to e8act in the renderin, of an' pu3lic service. e,li,ence and i,norance are ine8cusa3le if the' i.pl' a .anifest in;ustice which cannot 3e e8plained 3' a reasona3le interpretation, and even thou,h there is a .isunderstandin, or error of the law applied, it nevertheless results lo,icall' and reasona3l', and in a ver' clear and indisputa3le .anner, in the notorious violation of the le,al precept. 01 >n the present case, a cursor' perusal of the co..ent filed 3' respondent ;ud,e reveals that no su3stantial ar,u.ent has 3een advanced in plausi3le ;ustification of his act. Ae utterl' failed to show an' le,al, factual, or even e?uita3le ;ustification for the dis.issal of the eleven cri.inal cases. The e8planation ,iven is no e8planation at all. The strained and fallacious su3.issions therein do not speak well of respondent and cannot 3ut further depreciate his pro3it' as a ;ud,e. %n this point, it is 3est that pertinent unedited e8cerpts fro. his co..ent 02 3e ?uoted 3' wa' of ,raphic illustration and e.phasis$
%n the alle,ed i,norance of the law i.puted to .e, it is said that > issued the %rder dis.issin, the eleven 9((: cases a,ainst &rs. >.elda R. &arcos on the 3asis of newspaper reports referred to in para,raph ! of the letter co.plaint without awaitin, the official pu3lication of the Central 2ank Circular. %rdinaril' a Central 2ank Circular/Resolution .ust 3e pu3lished in the %fficial Ga+ette or in a newspaper of ,eneral circulation, 3ut the liftin, of #all forei,n e8chan,e controls# was announced 3' the President of the Philippines @>TA%IT -IAG>5>CAT>% S= as pu3lished in the Bail' Glo3e, Au,ust ((, ())!# the ,overn.ent has lifted AGG forei,n e8chan,e controls,# and in the words of the Philippine Bail' >n?uirer report of the sa.e date #The ,overn.ent 'esterda' G>5T7B the GAST re.ainin, restrictions on forei,n e8chan,e transactions, . . .# 9e.phasis in 3oth ?uotations supplied: not onl' the President .ade the announce.ent 3ut also the Central 2ank Governor 4ose Cuisia ;oined in the announce.ent 3' sa'in, that #the &onetar' 2oard arrived at the decision after notin, how the #partial li3erali+ation# initiated earl' this 'ear worked.# Therefore, 3ecause of the A2S%GIT7 liftin, of AGG restrictions on forei,n e8chan,e transactions, there was no need to await the pu3lication of the repealin, circular of the Central 2ank. The purpose of re?uirin, pu3lication of laws and ad.inistrative rules affectin, the pu3lic is to infor. the latter as to how the' will conduct their affairs and how the' will confor. to the laws or the rules. >n this particular case, with the total liftin, of the controls, there is no need to await pu3lication. >t would have 3een different if the circular that in effect repealed Central 2ank Circular o. )1*, under which the accused was char,ed in the cases dis.issed 3' .e, had provided for penalties and/or .odified the provisions of said Circular o. )1*. The Co.plainants state that the liftin, of controls was not 'et in force when > dis.issed the cases 3ut it should 3e noted that in the report of the two 9!: newspapers afore?uoted, the President<s announce.ent of the liftin, of controls was stated in the present perfect tense 9Glo3e: or past tense 9>n?uirer:. >n other words, it has alread' 3een lifted= the announce.ent did not sa' that the ,overn.ent > T7 BS to lift all forei,n e8chan,e restrictions 3ut instead sa's that the ,overn.ent #has G>5T7B all forei,n e8chan,e controls,# and in the other newspaper cited a3ove, that #The ,overn.ent 'esterda' lifted the last re.ainin, restrictions on forei,n e8chan,e transactions#. The liftin, of the last re.ainin, e8chan,e re,ulations effectivel' cancelled or repealed Circular o. )1*. The President, who is the Chief 78ecutive, pu3licl' announced the liftin, of all forei,n e8chan,e re,ulations. The President has within his control directl' or indirectl' the Central 2ank of the Philippines, the Secretar' of 5inance 3ein, the Chair.an of the &onetar' 2oard which decides the policies of the Central 2ank. o official 3othered to correct or ?ualif' the President<s announce.ent of Au,ust (*, pu3lished the followin, da', nor .ade an announce.ent that the liftin, of the controls do not appl' to cases alread' pendin,, not until Au,ust (H 9the fourth da' after .' %rder, and the third da' after report of said order was pu3lished: and after the President said on Au,ust (H, reported in the > -I>R7R<s issue of Au,ust (", ())!, that the #new forei,n e8chan,e rules have nullified

,overn.ent cases a,ainst >.elda R. &arcos, tellin, reporters that the char,es a,ainst the widow of for.er President &arcos #have 3eco.e .oot and acade.ic# 3ecause of new rulin,9s: which allow free flow of currenc' in and out of the countr'# 9 ote, parentheticall', the reference to #new rules# not to #rules still to 3e drafted#:. The > -I>R7R report continues$ #A few hours later, presidential spokeswo.an Anna3elle A3a'a said, RA&%S 9sic: had #corrected hi.self<.# #Ae had 3een 3elatedl' advised 3' the Central 2ank Governor 4ose Cuisia and 4ustice Secretar' 5ranklin Brilon that the &onetar' 2oard Re,ulation e8cluded fro. its covera,e all cri.inal cases pendin, in court and such a position shall stand le,al scrutin'<, &rs. A3a'a, said.# > will ela3orate on two points$ (. >f the President was wron, in .akin, the Au,ust (* announce.ent 9pu3lished in Au,ust ((, ())!, newspapers: and in the Au,ust (H announce.ent, S0#RA, and thus > should have relied on the Presidential announce.ents, and there is 3asis to conclude that the President was at the ver' least >GG-S7RE7B 3' his financial and le,al advisers, 3ecause no one 3othered to advise the President to correct his announce.ents, not until Au,ust (H, ())!, a few hours after the President had .ade another announce.ent as to the char,es a,ainst >.elda &arcos havin, 3een rendered .oot and acade.ic. The President has a lot of work to do, and is not, to .' knowled,e, a financier, econo.ist, 3anker or law'er. >t therefore 3ehooved his su3alterns to ,ive hi. ti.el' 9not #3elated#: advice, and 3rief hi. on .atters of i..ediate and far-reachin, concerns 9such as the liftin, of forei,n e8chan,e controls, desi,ned, a.on, others to encoura,e the entr' of forei,n invest.ents:. >nstead of rescuin, the Chief 78ecutive fro. e.3arrass.ent 3' assu.in, responsi3ilit' for errors in the latter<s announce.ent, these advisers have chosen to toss the 3la.e for the conse?uence of their failin, to .e, who onl' acted on the 3asis of announce.ents of their Chief, which had 3eco.e of pu3lic knowled,e. 888 888 888

The Court stron,l' feels that it has ever' ri,ht to assu.e and e8pect that respondent ;ud,e is possessed with .ore than ordinar' credentials and ?ualifications to .erit his appoint.ent as a presidin, ;ud,e in the Re,ional Trial Court of the ational Capital 4udicial Re,ion, stationed in the Cit' of &anila itself. >t is, accordin,l', disheartenin, and re,retta3le to note the nature of the ar,u.ents and the kind of lo,ic that respondent ;ud,e would want to i.pose on this Court notwithstandin, the .anifest lack of co,enc' thereof. This calls to .ind si.ilar scenarios and how this Court reacted thereto. >n one case, an RTC 4ud,e was ad.inistrativel' char,ed for ac?uittin, the accused of a violation of C2 Circular o. )1* despite the fact that the accused was apprehended with ISR055,04).** while 3oardin, a plane for Aon,kon,, erroneousl' rulin, that the State .ust first prove cri.inal intent to violate the law and 3enefit fro. the ille,al act, and further orderin, the return of ISR0,***.** out of the total a.ount sei+ed, on the .istaken interpretation that the C2 circular e8e.pts such a.ount fro. sei+ure. Respondent ;ud,e therein was ordered dis.issed fro. the ,overn.ent service for ,ross inco.petence and i,norance of the law. 00 Su3se?uentl', the Court dis.issed another RTC ;ud,e, with forfeiture of retire.ent 3enefits, for ,ross i,norance of the law and for knowin,l' renderin, an un;ust order or ;ud,.ent when he ,ranted 3ail to an accused char,ed with rapin, an ((-'ear old ,irl, despite the contrar' reco..endation of the investi,atin, ;ud,e, and thereafter ,ranted the .otion to dis.iss the case alle,edl' e8ecuted 3' the co.plainant. 04 Si.ilarl', an RTC ;ud,e who was descri3ed 3' this Court as one #who is i,norant of fairl' ele.entar' and ?uite fa.iliar le,al principles and ad.inistrative re,ulations, has a .arked penchant for appl'in, unorthodo8, even stran,e theories and concepts in the ad;udication of controversies, e8hi3its indifference to and even disdain for due process and the rule of law, applies the law whi.sicall', capriciousl' and oppressivel', and displa's 3ias and i.partialit',# was dis.issed fro. the service with forfeiture of all retire.ent 3enefits and with pre;udice to

reinstate.ent in an' 3ranch of the ,overn.ent or an' of its a,encies or instru.entalities. 01 Still in another ad.inistrative case, an RT4 ;ud,e was also dis.issed 3' this Court for ,ross i,norance of the law after she ordered, in a pro3ate proceedin,, the cancellation of the certificates of title issued in the na.e of the co.plainant, without affordin, due process to the latter and other interested parties. 06 %nl' recentl', an RTC ;ud,e who had 3een reinstated in the service was dis.issed after he ac?uitted all the accused in four cri.inal cases for ille,al possession of firear.s, on the ,round that there was no proof of .alice or deli3erate intent on the part of the accused to violate the law. The Court found hi. ,uilt' of ,ross i,norance of the law, his error of ;ud,.ent 3ein, al.ost deli3erate and tanta.ount to knowin,l' renderin, an incorrect and un;ust ;ud,.ent. 04 ACC%RB> GGK, on the fore,oin, pre.ises and considerations, the Court finds respondent 4ud,e &anuel T. &uro ,uilt' of ,ross i,norance of the law. Ae is here3' B>S&>SS7B fro. the service, such dis.issal to carr' with it cancellation of eli,i3ilit', forfeiture of leave credits and retire.ent 3enefits, and dis?ualification fro. ree.plo'.ent in the ,overn.ent service. 05 Respondent is here3' ordered to C7AS7 and B7S>ST i..ediatel' fro. renderin, an' ;ud,.ent or order, or continuin, an' ;udicial action or proceedin, whatsoever, effective upon receipt of this decision. S% %RB7R7B. .arvasa" )ruz" eliciano" #adilla" Re$alado" 6avide" %r." Romero" &ellosillo" /elo" *uiason" #uno" @itu$ and ?apunan" %%." concur. &idin" is on official leave.

S#6)")t# O6$&$o&s
DISSENTING OPINION (ELLOSILLO, J.: >n other ;urisdictions, it is ,enerall' accepted that ;ud,es are not accounta3le 3' wa' of either civil suit or discipline for their official acts, even if clearl' erroneous. Thus, open disre,ard of statutes, rules, and cases has 3een held to 3e protected official activit'. Althou,h a decision .a' see. so erroneous as to raise dou3ts concernin, a ;ud,e<s inte,rit' or ph'siolo,ical condition, a3sent e8trinsic evidence, the decision itself is insufficient to esta3lish a case a,ainst the ;ud,e. The rule is consistent with the concept of ;udicial independence. An honest ;ud,e, if he were denied the protection of the e8trinsic evidence re?uire.ent, .i,ht 3eco.e undul' cautious in his work, since he would 3e su3;ect to discipline 3ased .erel' upon the inferences to 3e drawn fro. an erroneous decision. 1 >n our ;urisdiction, the law is no different. Thus, this Court has repeatedl' held that . . . it is a funda.ental rule of lon, standin, that a ;udicial officer when re?uired to e8ercise his ;ud,.ent or discretion is not cri.inall' lia3le for an' error he co..its provided he acts in ,ood faith, that in the a3sence of .alice or an' wron,ful conduct . . . the ;ud,e cannot 3e held ad.inistrativel' responsi3le . . . for no one, called upon to tr' the facts or interpret the law in the process of ad.inisterin, ;ustice can 3e infalli3le in his ;ud,.ent, and to hold a ;ud,e

ad.inistrativel' accounta3le for ever' erroneous rulin, or decision he renders . . . would 3e nothin, short of harass.ent or would .ake his position un3eara3le. 2

A ;ud,e cannot 3e su3;ected to lia3ilit' civil, cri.inal, or ad.inistrative - for an' of his official acts, no .atter how erroneous, as lon, as he acts in ,ood faith. 0 Ae cannot 3e held to account or answer, cri.inall', civill', or ad.inistrativel', for an erroneous decision rendered 3' hi. in ,ood faith. 4 As a .atter of pu3lic polic', in the a3sence of fraud, dishonest', or corruption, the acts of a ;ud,e in his ;udicial capacit' are not su3;ect to disciplinar' action, even thou,h such acts are erroneous. 1 >t is a ,eneral principle of the hi,hest i.portance to proper ad.inistration of ;ustice that a ;udicial officer, in e8ercisin, the authorit' vested in hi., shall 3e free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal conse?uences to hi.self. This concept of ;udicial i..unit' rests upon consideration of pu3lic polic', its purpose 3ein, to preserve the inte,rit' and independence of the ;udiciar'.# 6 This 3ein, settled doctrine, there is no choice 3ut to appl' it to the instant case. The facts$ Respondent &anuel T. &uro, a native of &as3ate, &as3ate, was appointed on 1 ove.3er ()"1 as Presidin, 4ud,e of the Re,ional Trial Court of &anila, 2r. 54, 3' then President Cora+on C. A?uino. A product of the Colle,e of Gaw, 5ar 7aster Iniversit', he ,raduated valedictorian in ()55, .a,na cu. laude, and placed si8th in the 2ar e8a.inations. ow he is 3ein, char,ed with i,norance of the law, ,rave .isconduct and violations of Rules !.*(, 0.*( and 0.*! of the Code of 4udicial Conduct 4 for dis.issin, motu proprio the eleven 9((: cases filed 3' the Bepart.ent of 4ustice Panel of Prosecutors a,ainst &s. >.elda Ro.ualde+ &arcos for Eiolation of Central 2ank 5orei,n 78chan,e Restrictions after President 5idel E. Ra.os had announced, which was pu3lished in newspaper reports, the liftin, of all forei,n e8chan,e restrictions. The .a;orit' opinion finds respondent ;ud,e ,uilt' of ,ross i,norance of the law and i.poses upon hi. the supre.e penalt' of dis.issal fro. the service, forfeiture of leave credits and retire.ent 3enefits, and dis?ualification fro. ree.plo'.ent in the ,overn.ent service. @ith all due respect to .' estee.ed collea,ues, particularl' to the ponente who is a reco,ni+ed authorit' on various fields of law, > cannot help viewin, the circu.stances in a different li,ht. There is no dispute that the order issued 3' respondent ;ud,e has 3een reversed 3' the appellate court, which reversal has now 3eco.e final for failure of the accused to appeal therefro.= hence, no da.a,e has 3een caused e8cept that co.plainants had to avail of a ;udicial re.ed' to correct the .istake. 2ut, as adverted to, the overturned order alone does not necessaril' .ake respondent ;ud,e lia3le ad.inistrativel', .uch .ore civill' or cri.inall'. To 3e answera3le, the fault of the ;ud,e, if an', .ust 3e ,ross or patent, .alicious, deli3erate or done in 3ad faith. 5 Plainl' said, fault in this re,ard .a' e8ist onl' when the error appears to 3e deli3erate or in 3ad faith. 9 Thus, 3ad faith is i.puted a,ainst respondent ;ud,e, first, for insistin, that #there was no need to await pu3lication of Circular o. (050 for the reason that the pu3lic announce.ent .ade 3' the President in several newspapers of ,eneral circulation liftin, forei,n e8chan,e controls is total, a3solute, without ?ualification, and i..ediatel' effective,# 10 and, second, for #dis.issin, sua sponte the eleven cri.inal cases without even a .otion to ?uash havin, 3een filed 3' the accused, and without at least ,ivin, the prosecution the 3asic opportunit' to 3e heard on the .atter.# 11

2ut, 3ad faith is the ne,lect or refusal to fulfill a dut', not pro.pted 3' an honest .istake, 3ut 3' so.e interested or sinister .otive. 12 >t i.plies 3reach of faith and willful failure to respond to plain and well understood o3li,ation. 10 >t does not si.pl' connote 3ad ;ud,.ent or ne,li,ence= it i.ports a dishonest purpose or so.e .oral o3li?uit' and conscious doin, of wron,= it .eans 3reach of a known dut' throu,h so.e .otive or interest or ill will. 14 Aence, > cannot ascri3e 3ad faith to respondent ;ud,e for > see no insidious intentions on his part. >f he insists that there reall' is no need to await the pu3lication of Circular o. (050, as he does here, it .erel' shows that he sincerel' 3elieves that there is indeed no necessit' to await pu3lication. @hether his 3elief is erroneous or not is thus irrelevant. 5urther, dis.issin, motu proprio the eleven cri.inal cases without affordin, the prosecution the opportunit' to 3e heard on the .atter, erroneous thou,h it .a' 3e, is not inescapa3l' indicative of 3ad faith. The i..ediate dis.issal of the char,es is a necessar' conse?uence of the 3elief that since the restrictions were lifted, no law was then 3ein, violated. >t is an ele.entar' principle in procedural law and statutor' construction that the repeal of a penal law deprives the court of ;urisdiction to punish persons char,ed with a violation of the old law prior to its repeal. Thus, where the cri.e no lon,er e8ists, prosecution of the person char,ed under the old law cannot 3e had and the action should 3e dis.issed. 11 %n the contrar', there is no reason wh' ,ood faith should not 3e attri3uted to respondent ;ud,e. Good faith .eans that the .otive that actuated the conduct in ?uestion was in fact what the actor ascri3es to it, that is, that what he ,ives as his .otive was in truth his .otive. 16 Aence, if he honestl' 3elieves that the 3ases for the cri.inal char,es a,ainst accused have 3een eli.inated and thus strikes down the infor.ation and conse?uentl' dis.isses the char,es, respondent ;ud,e cannot 3e cri.inall', civill', or even ad.inistrativel', held lia3le. Good faith and a3sence of .alice, corrupt .otives or i.proper consideration are sufficient defenses protectin, a ;udicial officer char,ed with i,norance of the law and pro.ul,ation of an un;ust decision fro. 3ein, held accounta3le for errors of ;ud,.ent. This, on the pre.ise that no one called upon to tr' the facts or interpret the law in the ad.inistration of ;ustice can 3e infalli3le. 14 Respondent ;ud,e could not have seriousl' ;eopardi+ed the ri,hts of the prosecution, even if the accused invoked the defense of dou3le ;eopard', since the re.ed' of certiorari is ver' .uch availa3le. Precisel', as has 3een pointed out in the .a;orit' opinion, the defense of dou3le ;eopard' is unavailin, when the prosecution is denied due process. This is in fact the office of the prevailin, doctrine - to correct indiscretions of lower court ;ud,es - which does not necessaril' .ake the. personall' lia3le. >n fact, if respondent ;ud,e was indeed in 3ad faith, he should have ,iven the prosecution an opportunit' to 3e heard, and after a full-3lown trial, ac?uitted the accused. Then, the defense of dou3le ;eopard' would have 3een proper and the accused would have ,one scot-free. Thus, in .e$ado v. %ud$e Auta9a+, 15 this Court affir.ed the conclusions of the >nvesti,atin, 4ustice of the Court of Appeals that #CwDhen a person seeks ad.inistrative sanction a,ainst a ;ud,e si.pl' 3ecause he has co..itted an error in decidin, the case a,ainst such person, when such error can 3e elevated to a hi,her court for review and correction, the action of such person can onl' 3e suspect.# To e?uate the failure of accused &arcos to co..ent on the petition 3efore the appellate court, and conse?uentl' invoke the defense of dou3le ;eopard', with the erranc' of the assailed order, 19 .a' 3e indul,in, in needless speculation. And to i.pl' that the influence of the accused who is a pro.inent pu3lic fi,ure 3rou,ht a3out the dis.issal order is si.pl' not

3orne out 3' the records. 2esides, the challen,ed order of respondent ;ud,e can hardl' 3e considered as ,rossl' erroneous to .erit his dis.issal. 5or, while his reasonin, .a' 3e erroneous, as it turned out when the reversal of his decision 3' the appellate court 3eca.e final, it is not at all illo,ical as even the President of the Repu3lic, with his learned le,al advisers, after learnin, of the dis.issal of the cases filed 3' his ad.inistration a,ainst the accused, was ?uoted as sa'in, that &rs. &arcos was an #accidental# 3eneficiar' of the forei,n e8chan,e dere,ulation polic' of his ad.inistration. 20 Thus, President 5idel E. Ra.os further said that #CtDhe fore8 dere,ulation applies to ever'3od' . . . . ow the cases filed 3' the ,overn.ent a,ainst &rs. &arcos, nu.3erin, a3out (( out of )* have 3eco.e .oot and acade.ic 3ecause of the new re,ulations that have co.e out of the &onetar' 2oard, 3ut that is to her advanta,e.# 21 @here the conclusions of the ;ud,e in his decision are not without lo,ic or reason, it cannot 3e said that he is inco.petent or ,rossl' i,norant. 22 >t has 3een said that a ;ud,e, like Caesar<s wife, .ust not onl' 3e pure 3ut 3e'ond suspicion. 20 >deall' so. 2ut the cold fact is that ever' overturned decision provokes suspicion especiall' fro. the successful appellant who feels certain that the lower court indeed erred. >t is settled that #CaD ;ud,e should 3e .indful that his dut' is the application of ,eneral law to a particular instance, that ours is a ,overn.ent of laws and not of .en, and that he violates his dut' as a .inister of ;ustice under such s'ste. if he seeks to do what he .a' personall' consider su3stantial ;ustice in a particular case and disre,ards the ,eneral law as he knows it to 3e 3indin, on hi.. Such action .a' have detri.ental conse?uences 3e'ond the i..ediate controvers'. Ae should ad.inister his office with due re,ard to the inte,rit' of the s'ste. of the law itself, re.e.3erin, that he is not a depositar' of ar3itrar' power, 3ut a ;ud,e under the sanction of law.# 24 As it has 3een said, he .ust interpret the 3ooks, and not unload his ideas. 2ut while a ;ud,e .ust decide in accordance with e8istin, laws and esta3lished ;urisprudence, his own personalit', character, convictions, values, e8periences and pre;udices are onl' su3li.el' insi,nificant and unconsciousl' dispensa3le. >n ever' decision he .akes, he is no .ore and no less hu.an, his own 3eliefs, perceptions and i.perfections, as well as the laws he is 3ound to appl', all havin, profound influence on his eventual choice. Thus, &r. 4ustice Cardo+o of the Supre.e Court of the Inited States once wrote of ;ud,es$ #@e .a' tr' to see thin,s as o3;ectivel' as we please. one the less, we can never see the. with an' e'es e8cept our own.# 21 Aence, ti.e and a,ain, lower court ;ud,es, if not reversed 3' the Court of Appeals and this Court, have continued to set new trails in ;urisprudence without e8actl' confor.in, with what has 3een settled. 'et, whether reversed or .erel' unre,arded, the' do not receive displeasure fro. this Court= on the contrar', the' re.ain to 3e effective dispensers of ever'da' ;ustice. >n fine, there is no su3stantial proof, na' proof 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t, that respondent ;ud,e issued the assailed order in 3ad faith or with conscious and deli3erate intent to perpetrate an in;ustice. &r. 4ustice &alcol., speakin, for this Court In re Horilleno, 26 said that #CiD.peach.ent proceedin,s 3efore courts have 3een said, in other ;urisdictions, to 3e in their nature hi,hl' penal in character and to 3e ,overned 3' the rules of law applica3le to cri.inal cases.# &r. Chief 4ustice 5ernando, then Associate 4ustice of this Court, reiterated the doctrine in Suerte v. %ud$e 0$8inar 24 where he said that #CtDhis is to defer the 3asic concept first announced in

()!! in this ;urisdiction . . . in . . . >n re Aorilleno that proceedin,s of this character 3ein, in their nature hi,hl' penal, the char,e .ust, therefore, 3e proved 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t. To paraphrase the opinion further, there is no showin, of the alle,ed inco.petence and ,ross i,norance of the law 3' a preponderance of the evidence, .uch less 3e'ond a reasona3le dou3t. Such an e8actin, standard has 3een adhered to 3' this Court in su3se?uent decisions.# 25 The law alwa's i.putes ,ood faith to ;udicial action, and the 3urden is on the one challen,in, the sa.e to prove want of it. Contraposed with the #e8actin, standard# re?uired, co.plainantprosecutors in the instant case failed to prove the a3sence of ,ood faith on the part of the respondent ;ud,e. Conse?uentl', the presu.ption that official dut' has 3een re,ularl' perfor.ed stands. > find it difficult to co.pare the instant case with those cited in the .a;orit' opinion. >n #adilla v. %ud$e 6izon, 29 respondent not onl' allowed the accused to ,o scot-free, leavin, the Co..issioner of Custo.s without an' relief a,ainst the accused, the for.er likewise ordered the release of ISR0,***.** to the accused. Thus, respondent ;ud,e was found ,uilt' not onl' of ,ross i,norance of the law, 3ut also of ,ross inco.petence, and ,rave and serious .isconduct affectin, his inte,rit' and efficienc', and was conse?uentl' dis.issed fro. the service. And, failin, to learn a lesson fro. his earlier ad.inistrative case, respondent ;ud,e, after his reinstate.ent, this ti.e erroneousl' ac?uitted the defendants in four 94: different cases of ille,al possession of firear.s. 5inall' the Court said, #CwDhen it has 3een clearl' de.onstrated, as in this case, not onl' once 3ut four 94: ti.es, that the ;ud,e is either ,rossl' inco.petent or ,rossl' i,norant of the penal laws . . . . he 3eco.es unfit to dischar,e his ;udicial office.# 00 Inlike for.er 4ud,e Bi+on, this is the first ti.e respondent 4ud,e &uro is 3ein, ad.inistrativel' char,ed. >n &uenavista v. %ud$e ,arcia, 01 the Court found respondent ,uilt' of #serious .isconduct, ,ross i,norance of the law, and knowin,l' renderin, an un;ust order of ;ud,.ent# for ,rantin, 3ail to an accused who was char,ed with statutor' rape, for #i.proper and i..oral intervention in 3rokerin, a co.pro.ise of the cri.inal cases# a,ainst the accused, and thereafter for ,rantin, the .otion to dis.iss the rape case on the 3asis of an Affidavit of Besistance alle,edl' e8ecuted 3' the victi. who was then a .inor. Certainl', the actuations of the respondent ;ud,e in the cited case are far worse than the co.plained indiscretions of herein respondent 4ud,e. >n the proceedin,s instituted a,ainst 4ud,e 4ocson, 02 he was char,ed with a litan' of ad.inistrative cases, si8 91: in all, i.e., fro. ,ross .isconduct to ,ross i,norance of the law, to inco.petence, to partialit'. @hile not all the char,es were sufficientl' proved, respondent ;ud,e was found to 3e #i,norant of fairl' ele.entar' and ?uite fa.iliar le,al principles and ad.inistrative re,ulations, 9with: . . . a .arked penchant for appl'in, unorthodo8, even stran,e theories and concepts in the ad;udication of controversies, 9and: e8hi3its indifference to, and even disdain for due process and the rule of law, applies the law whi.sicall', capriciousl' and oppressivel', and displa's 3ias and partialit'.# The Court thus o3served, #CtDhe different acts of .isconduct proven a,ainst respondent ;ud,e de.onstrate his unfitness to re.ain in office and to continue to dischar,e the functions and duties of a ;ud,e, and warrant the i.position on hi. of the e8tre.e sanction of dis.issal fro. the service.# There is nothin, in the records of the instant case which shows that respondent 4ud,e &uro, like for.er 4ud,e 4ocson, e8hi3its a pattern for appl'in, pecant and unaccepted theories which 3reed .anifest and irreversi3le in;ustice.

And, in 0+ v. %ud$e 6izon-)apulon$, 00 respondent a,,ravated her i,norance of the law 3' her refusal to a3ide 3' the Becision of the appellate court and later of this Court, showin, utter disrespect for and open defiance of hi,her courts. Conse?uentl', she was not onl' found ,uilt' of ,ross i,norance of the law, 3ut also of ,rave and serious .isconduct pre;udicial to the interest of the ;udicial service. Contrastin,l', in a fairl' recent case, 04 this Court .erel' i.posed a fine of P(*,***.** on respondent ;ud,e who entertained the petition for 3ail filed 3' the suspects prior to their actual arrest, notwithstandin, unrefuted alle,ations that the accused were alle,edl' relatives of the con,ress.an who #sponsored# the appoint.ent of respondent to the 4udiciar'. >n other case, 01 this Court i.posed a fine of P5,***.** on respondent ;ud,e for i,norance of the law and ,rave a3use of authorit' after he i.properl' issued a warrant of arrest and set the case for arrai,n.ent, in disre,ard of proper procedure. And, still in 06 another, this Court in dis.issin, the co.plaint filed a,ainst respondent ruled that a ;ud,e cannot 3e conde.ned unless his error is so ,ross and patent as to produce an inference of i,norance and 3ad faith or that he knowin,l' rendered an un;ust decision. >n su., there is no e8trinsic evidence which shows that the assailed order of respondent 4ud,e &anuel T. &uro was inspired 3' a conscious and corrupt intent to do a disservice and co..it an atrocit', and thus his dis.issal is uncalled for. @here there is no clear indication fro. the records that the respondent<s assailed decision was inspired 3' corrupt .otives or a reprehensi3le purpose, and while there .a' 3e a .is;ud,.ent, 3ut not a deli3erate twistin, of facts to ;ustif' the assailed order, dis.issal of respondent ;ud,e fro. the service is not proper.
04

Aoldin, respondent ;ud,e lia3le for issuin, the challen,ed order .a' curtail the independence of ;ud,es and send the wron, si,nals to the. who are supposed to e8ercise their office without fear of reprisal, .erel' for e8pressin, their uncorrupted views. Re,retfull', liti,ants .a' suffer and ,ain eventual ;ustice onl' after costl' and lon,-drawn-out appeals fro. erroneous decisions, 3ut these are necessar' evils which .ust 3e endured to so.e e8tent lest ;udicial independence and the ,rowth of the law 3e stifled. Inlike colle,ial courts which afford their .e.3ers the lu8ur' of a deli3eration, a trial ;ud,e in handin, down his decisions .ust 3rave the loneliness of his solitude and independence. And, while this Court .a' sli,htl' 3end 3ackwards if onl' to avoid suspicion of partialit' and cli?uis. to a 3rother in the profession, it .ust also step forward and take the lead to defend hi. a,ainst unsu3stantiated tirades which put to sha.e and dis,race not onl' the .a,istrate on trial 3ut the entire ;udicial s'ste. as well. As cha.pion M at other ti.es tor.entor M of trial and appellate ;ud,es, this Court .ust 3e unrelentin, in weedin, the ;udiciar' of unscrupulous ;ud,es, 3ut it .ust also 3e ?uick in dis.issin, ad.inistrative co.plaints which serve no other purpose than to harass the.. >n dis.issin, ;ud,es fro. the service, the Court .ust 3e circu.spect and deli3erate, lest it penali+es the. for e8ercisin, their independent ;ud,.ents handed down in ,ood faith. Respondent ;ud,e has i.pressive acade.ic and professional credentials which, e8perience shows, are no lon,er eas' to recruit for the ;udicial service. A3ove all, he has served the ;udiciar' with credita3le distinction. >t is unfeelin,, if not unfair, to pur,e hi. without e8trinsic evidence of 3ad faith and then shatter his hopes of ascendin, so.eda' the ;udicial hierarch' which, after all, is the ulti.ate drea. of ever' sacrificin, trial ;ud,e. > E%T7 5%R TA7 7N% 7RAT>% %5 R7SP% B7 T 4IBG7.

S#6)")t# O6$&$o&s

(ELLOSILLO, J.: >n other ;urisdictions, it is ,enerall' accepted that ;ud,es are not accounta3le 3' wa' of either civil suit or discipline for their official acts, even if clearl' erroneous. Thus, open disre,ard of statutes, rules, and cases has 3een held to 3e protected official activit'. Althou,h a decision .a' see. so erroneous as to raise dou3ts concernin, a ;ud,e<s inte,rit' or ph'siolo,ical condition, a3sent e8trinsic evidence, the decision itself is insufficient to esta3lish a case a,ainst the ;ud,e. The rule is consistent with the concept of ;udicial independence. An honest ;ud,e, if he were denied the protection of the e8trinsic evidence re?uire.ent, .i,ht 3eco.e undul' cautious in his work, since he would 3e su3;ect to discipline 3ased .erel' upon the inferences to 3e drawn fro. an erroneous decision. 1 >n our ;urisdiction, the law is no different. Thus, this Court has repeatedl' held that . . . it is a funda.ental rule of lon, standin, that a ;udicial officer when re?uired to e8ercise his ;ud,.ent or discretion is not cri.inall' lia3le for an' error he co..its provided he acts in ,ood faith, that in the a3sence of .alice or an' wron,ful conduct . . . the ;ud,e cannot 3e held ad.inistrativel' responsi3le . . . for no one, called upon to tr' the facts or interpret the law in the process of ad.inisterin, ;ustice can 3e infalli3le in his ;ud,.ent, and to hold a ;ud,e ad.inistrativel' accounta3le for ever' erroneous rulin, or decision he renders . . . would 3e nothin, short of harass.ent or would .ake his position un3eara3le. 2

A ;ud,e cannot 3e su3;ected to lia3ilit' civil, cri.inal, or ad.inistrative - for an' of his official acts, no .atter how erroneous, as lon, as he acts in ,ood faith. 0 Ae cannot 3e held to account or answer, cri.inall', civill', or ad.inistrativel', for an erroneous decision rendered 3' hi. in ,ood faith. 4 As a .atter of pu3lic polic', in the a3sence of fraud, dishonest', or corruption, the acts of a ;ud,e in his ;udicial capacit' are not su3;ect to disciplinar' action, even thou,h such acts are erroneous. 1 >t is a ,eneral principle of the hi,hest i.portance to proper ad.inistration of ;ustice that a ;udicial officer, in e8ercisin, the authorit' vested in hi., shall 3e free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal conse?uences to hi.self. This concept of ;udicial i..unit' rests upon consideration of pu3lic polic', its purpose 3ein, to preserve the inte,rit' and independence of the ;udiciar'.# 6 This 3ein, settled doctrine, there is no choice 3ut to appl' it to the instant case. The facts$ Respondent &anuel T. &uro, a native of &as3ate, &as3ate, was appointed on 1 ove.3er ()"1 as Presidin, 4ud,e of the Re,ional Trial Court of &anila, 2r. 54, 3' then President Cora+on C. A?uino. A product of the Colle,e of Gaw, 5ar 7aster Iniversit', he ,raduated valedictorian in ()55, .a,na cu. laude, and placed si8th in the 2ar e8a.inations. ow he is 3ein, char,ed with i,norance of the law, ,rave .isconduct and violations of Rules !.*(, 0.*( and 0.*! of the Code of 4udicial Conduct 4 for dis.issin, motu proprio the eleven 9((: cases filed 3' the Bepart.ent of 4ustice Panel of Prosecutors a,ainst &s. >.elda Ro.ualde+ &arcos for Eiolation of Central 2ank 5orei,n 78chan,e Restrictions after President 5idel E. Ra.os had announced, which was pu3lished in newspaper reports, the liftin, of all forei,n e8chan,e restrictions. The .a;orit' opinion finds respondent ;ud,e ,uilt' of ,ross i,norance of the law and i.poses upon hi. the supre.e penalt' of dis.issal fro. the service, forfeiture of leave credits and retire.ent 3enefits, and dis?ualification fro. ree.plo'.ent in the ,overn.ent service. @ith all due respect to .' estee.ed collea,ues, particularl' to the ponente who is a

reco,ni+ed authorit' on various fields of law, > cannot help viewin, the circu.stances in a different li,ht. There is no dispute that the order issued 3' respondent ;ud,e has 3een reversed 3' the appellate court, which reversal has now 3eco.e final for failure of the accused to appeal therefro.= hence, no da.a,e has 3een caused e8cept that co.plainants had to avail of a ;udicial re.ed' to correct the .istake. 2ut, as adverted to, the overturned order alone does not necessaril' .ake respondent ;ud,e lia3le ad.inistrativel', .uch .ore civill' or cri.inall'. To 3e answera3le, the fault of the ;ud,e, if an', .ust 3e ,ross or patent, .alicious, deli3erate or done in 3ad faith. 5 Plainl' said, fault in this re,ard .a' e8ist onl' when the error appears to 3e deli3erate or in 3ad faith. 9 Thus, 3ad faith is i.puted a,ainst respondent ;ud,e, first, for insistin, that #there was no need to await pu3lication of Circular o. (050 for the reason that the pu3lic announce.ent .ade 3' the President in several newspapers of ,eneral circulation liftin, forei,n e8chan,e controls is total, a3solute, without ?ualification, and i..ediatel' effective,# 10 and, second, for #dis.issin, sua sponte the eleven cri.inal cases without even a .otion to ?uash havin, 3een filed 3' the accused, and without at least ,ivin, the prosecution the 3asic opportunit' to 3e heard on the .atter.# 11 2ut, 3ad faith is the ne,lect or refusal to fulfill a dut', not pro.pted 3' an honest .istake, 3ut 3' so.e interested or sinister .otive. 12 >t i.plies 3reach of faith and willful failure to respond to plain and well understood o3li,ation. 10 >t does not si.pl' connote 3ad ;ud,.ent or ne,li,ence= it i.ports a dishonest purpose or so.e .oral o3li?uit' and conscious doin, of wron,= it .eans 3reach of a known dut' throu,h so.e .otive or interest or ill will. 14 Aence, > cannot ascri3e 3ad faith to respondent ;ud,e for > see no insidious intentions on his part. >f he insists that there reall' is no need to await the pu3lication of Circular o. (050, as he does here, it .erel' shows that he sincerel' 3elieves that there is indeed no necessit' to await pu3lication. @hether his 3elief is erroneous or not is thus irrelevant. 5urther, dis.issin, motu proprio the eleven cri.inal cases without affordin, the prosecution the opportunit' to 3e heard on the .atter, erroneous thou,h it .a' 3e, is not inescapa3l' indicative of 3ad faith. The i..ediate dis.issal of the char,es is a necessar' conse?uence of the 3elief that since the restrictions were lifted, no law was then 3ein, violated. >t is an ele.entar' principle in procedural law and statutor' construction that the repeal of a penal law deprives the court of ;urisdiction to punish persons char,ed with a violation of the old law prior to its repeal. Thus, where the cri.e no lon,er e8ists, prosecution of the person char,ed under the old law cannot 3e had and the action should 3e dis.issed. 11 %n the contrar', there is no reason wh' ,ood faith should not 3e attri3uted to respondent ;ud,e. Good faith .eans that the .otive that actuated the conduct in ?uestion was in fact what the actor ascri3es to it, that is, that what he ,ives as his .otive was in truth his .otive. 16 Aence, if he honestl' 3elieves that the 3ases for the cri.inal char,es a,ainst accused have 3een eli.inated and thus strikes down the infor.ation and conse?uentl' dis.isses the char,es, respondent ;ud,e cannot 3e cri.inall', civill', or even ad.inistrativel', held lia3le. Good faith and a3sence of .alice, corrupt .otives or i.proper consideration are sufficient defenses protectin, a ;udicial officer char,ed with i,norance of the law and pro.ul,ation of an un;ust decision fro. 3ein, held accounta3le for errors of ;ud,.ent. This, on the pre.ise that no one called upon to tr' the facts or interpret the law in the ad.inistration of ;ustice can 3e infalli3le. 14

Respondent ;ud,e could not have seriousl' ;eopardi+ed the ri,hts of the prosecution, even if the accused invoked the defense of dou3le ;eopard', since the re.ed' of certiorari is ver' .uch availa3le. Precisel', as has 3een pointed out in the .a;orit' opinion, the defense of dou3le ;eopard' is unavailin, when the prosecution is denied due process. This is in fact the office of the prevailin, doctrine - to correct indiscretions of lower court ;ud,es - which does not necessaril' .ake the. personall' lia3le. >n fact, if respondent ;ud,e was indeed in 3ad faith, he should have ,iven the prosecution an opportunit' to 3e heard, and after a full-3lown trial, ac?uitted the accused. Then, the defense of dou3le ;eopard' would have 3een proper and the accused would have ,one scot-free. Thus, in .e$ado v. %ud$e Auta9a+, 15 this Court affir.ed the conclusions of the >nvesti,atin, 4ustice of the Court of Appeals that #CwDhen a person seeks ad.inistrative sanction a,ainst a ;ud,e si.pl' 3ecause he has co..itted an error in decidin, the case a,ainst such person, when such error can 3e elevated to a hi,her court for review and correction, the action of such person can onl' 3e suspect.# To e?uate the failure of accused &arcos to co..ent on the petition 3efore the appellate court, and conse?uentl' invoke the defense of dou3le ;eopard', with the erranc' of the assailed order, 19 .a' 3e indul,in, in needless speculation. And to i.pl' that the influence of the accused who is a pro.inent pu3lic fi,ure 3rou,ht a3out the dis.issal order is si.pl' not 3orne out 3' the records. 2esides, the challen,ed order of respondent ;ud,e can hardl' 3e considered as ,rossl' erroneous to .erit his dis.issal. 5or, while his reasonin, .a' 3e erroneous, as it turned out when the reversal of his decision 3' the appellate court 3eca.e final, it is not at all illo,ical as even the President of the Repu3lic, with his learned le,al advisers, after learnin, of the dis.issal of the cases filed 3' his ad.inistration a,ainst the accused, was ?uoted as sa'in, that &rs. &arcos was an #accidental# 3eneficiar' of the forei,n e8chan,e dere,ulation polic' of his ad.inistration. 20 Thus, President 5idel E. Ra.os further said that #CtDhe fore8 dere,ulation applies to ever'3od' . . . . ow the cases filed 3' the ,overn.ent a,ainst &rs. &arcos, nu.3erin, a3out (( out of )* have 3eco.e .oot and acade.ic 3ecause of the new re,ulations that have co.e out of the &onetar' 2oard, 3ut that is to her advanta,e.# 21 @here the conclusions of the ;ud,e in his decision are not without lo,ic or reason, it cannot 3e said that he is inco.petent or ,rossl' i,norant. 22 >t has 3een said that a ;ud,e, like Caesar<s wife, .ust not onl' 3e pure 3ut 3e'ond suspicion. 20 >deall' so. 2ut the cold fact is that ever' overturned decision provokes suspicion especiall' fro. the successful appellant who feels certain that the lower court indeed erred. >t is settled that #CaD ;ud,e should 3e .indful that his dut' is the application of ,eneral law to a particular instance, that ours is a ,overn.ent of laws and not of .en, and that he violates his dut' as a .inister of ;ustice under such s'ste. if he seeks to do what he .a' personall' consider su3stantial ;ustice in a particular case and disre,ards the ,eneral law as he knows it to 3e 3indin, on hi.. Such action .a' have detri.ental conse?uences 3e'ond the i..ediate controvers'. Ae should ad.inister his office with due re,ard to the inte,rit' of the s'ste. of the law itself, re.e.3erin, that he is not a depositar' of ar3itrar' power, 3ut a ;ud,e under the sanction of law.# 24 As it has 3een said, he .ust interpret the 3ooks, and not unload his ideas. 2ut while a ;ud,e .ust decide in accordance with e8istin, laws and esta3lished ;urisprudence, his own personalit', character, convictions, values, e8periences and pre;udices are onl' su3li.el' insi,nificant and unconsciousl' dispensa3le. >n ever' decision he .akes, he is no .ore and no less hu.an, his own 3eliefs, perceptions and i.perfections, as well as

the laws he is 3ound to appl', all havin, profound influence on his eventual choice. Thus, &r. 4ustice Cardo+o of the Supre.e Court of the Inited States once wrote of ;ud,es$ #@e .a' tr' to see thin,s as o3;ectivel' as we please. one the less, we can never see the. with an' e'es e8cept our own.# 21 Aence, ti.e and a,ain, lower court ;ud,es, if not reversed 3' the Court of Appeals and this Court, have continued to set new trails in ;urisprudence without e8actl' confor.in, with what has 3een settled. 'et, whether reversed or .erel' unre,arded, the' do not receive displeasure fro. this Court= on the contrar', the' re.ain to 3e effective dispensers of ever'da' ;ustice. >n fine, there is no su3stantial proof, na' proof 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t, that respondent ;ud,e issued the assailed order in 3ad faith or with conscious and deli3erate intent to perpetrate an in;ustice. &r. 4ustice &alcol., speakin, for this Court In re Horilleno, 26 said that #CiD.peach.ent proceedin,s 3efore courts have 3een said, in other ;urisdictions, to 3e in their nature hi,hl' penal in character and to 3e ,overned 3' the rules of law applica3le to cri.inal cases.# &r. Chief 4ustice 5ernando, then Associate 4ustice of this Court, reiterated the doctrine in Suerte v. %ud$e 0$8inar 24 where he said that #CtDhis is to defer the 3asic concept first announced in ()!! in this ;urisdiction . . . in . . . >n re Aorilleno that proceedin,s of this character 3ein, in their nature hi,hl' penal, the char,e .ust, therefore, 3e proved 3e'ond reasona3le dou3t. To paraphrase the opinion further, there is no showin, of the alle,ed inco.petence and ,ross i,norance of the law 3' a preponderance of the evidence, .uch less 3e'ond a reasona3le dou3t. Such an e8actin, standard has 3een adhered to 3' this Court in su3se?uent decisions.# 25 The law alwa's i.putes ,ood faith to ;udicial action, and the 3urden is on the one challen,in, the sa.e to prove want of it. Contraposed with the #e8actin, standard# re?uired, co.plainantprosecutors in the instant case failed to prove the a3sence of ,ood faith on the part of the respondent ;ud,e. Conse?uentl', the presu.ption that official dut' has 3een re,ularl' perfor.ed stands. > find it difficult to co.pare the instant case with those cited in the .a;orit' opinion. >n #adilla v. %ud$e 6izon, 29 respondent not onl' allowed the accused to ,o scot-free, leavin, the Co..issioner of Custo.s without an' relief a,ainst the accused, the for.er likewise ordered the release of ISR0,***.** to the accused. Thus, respondent ;ud,e was found ,uilt' not onl' of ,ross i,norance of the law, 3ut also of ,ross inco.petence, and ,rave and serious .isconduct affectin, his inte,rit' and efficienc', and was conse?uentl' dis.issed fro. the service. And, failin, to learn a lesson fro. his earlier ad.inistrative case, respondent ;ud,e, after his reinstate.ent, this ti.e erroneousl' ac?uitted the defendants in four 94: different cases of ille,al possession of firear.s. 5inall' the Court said, #CwDhen it has 3een clearl' de.onstrated, as in this case, not onl' once 3ut four 94: ti.es, that the ;ud,e is either ,rossl' inco.petent or ,rossl' i,norant of the penal laws . . . . he 3eco.es unfit to dischar,e his ;udicial office.# 00 Inlike for.er 4ud,e Bi+on, this is the first ti.e respondent 4ud,e &uro is 3ein, ad.inistrativel' char,ed. >n &uenavista v. %ud$e ,arcia, 01 the Court found respondent ,uilt' of #serious .isconduct, ,ross i,norance of the law, and knowin,l' renderin, an un;ust order of ;ud,.ent# for ,rantin, 3ail to an accused who was char,ed with statutor' rape, for #i.proper and i..oral intervention in 3rokerin, a co.pro.ise of the cri.inal cases# a,ainst the accused, and thereafter for ,rantin, the .otion to dis.iss the rape case on the 3asis of an Affidavit of Besistance alle,edl' e8ecuted 3' the victi. who was then a .inor. Certainl', the actuations

of the respondent ;ud,e in the cited case are far worse than the co.plained indiscretions of herein respondent 4ud,e. >n the proceedin,s instituted a,ainst 4ud,e 4ocson, 02 he was char,ed with a litan' of ad.inistrative cases, si8 91: in all, i.e., fro. ,ross .isconduct to ,ross i,norance of the law, to inco.petence, to partialit'. @hile not all the char,es were sufficientl' proved, respondent ;ud,e was found to 3e #i,norant of fairl' ele.entar' and ?uite fa.iliar le,al principles and ad.inistrative re,ulations, 9with: . . . a .arked penchant for appl'in, unorthodo8, even stran,e theories and concepts in the ad;udication of controversies, 9and: e8hi3its indifference to, and even disdain for due process and the rule of law, applies the law whi.sicall', capriciousl' and oppressivel', and displa's 3ias and partialit'.# The Court thus o3served, #CtDhe different acts of .isconduct proven a,ainst respondent ;ud,e de.onstrate his unfitness to re.ain in office and to continue to dischar,e the functions and duties of a ;ud,e, and warrant the i.position on hi. of the e8tre.e sanction of dis.issal fro. the service.# There is nothin, in the records of the instant case which shows that respondent 4ud,e &uro, like for.er 4ud,e 4ocson, e8hi3its a pattern for appl'in, pecant and unaccepted theories which 3reed .anifest and irreversi3le in;ustice. And, in 0+ v. %ud$e 6izon-)apulon$, 00 respondent a,,ravated her i,norance of the law 3' her refusal to a3ide 3' the Becision of the appellate court and later of this Court, showin, utter disrespect for and open defiance of hi,her courts. Conse?uentl', she was not onl' found ,uilt' of ,ross i,norance of the law, 3ut also of ,rave and serious .isconduct pre;udicial to the interest of the ;udicial service. Contrastin,l', in a fairl' recent case, 04 this Court .erel' i.posed a fine of P(*,***.** on respondent ;ud,e who entertained the petition for 3ail filed 3' the suspects prior to their actual arrest, notwithstandin, unrefuted alle,ations that the accused were alle,edl' relatives of the con,ress.an who #sponsored# the appoint.ent of respondent to the 4udiciar'. >n other case, 01 this Court i.posed a fine of P5,***.** on respondent ;ud,e for i,norance of the law and ,rave a3use of authorit' after he i.properl' issued a warrant of arrest and set the case for arrai,n.ent, in disre,ard of proper procedure. And, still in 06 another, this Court in dis.issin, the co.plaint filed a,ainst respondent ruled that a ;ud,e cannot 3e conde.ned unless his error is so ,ross and patent as to produce an inference of i,norance and 3ad faith or that he knowin,l' rendered an un;ust decision. >n su., there is no e8trinsic evidence which shows that the assailed order of respondent 4ud,e &anuel T. &uro was inspired 3' a conscious and corrupt intent to do a disservice and co..it an atrocit', and thus his dis.issal is uncalled for. @here there is no clear indication fro. the records that the respondent<s assailed decision was inspired 3' corrupt .otives or a reprehensi3le purpose, and while there .a' 3e a .is;ud,.ent, 3ut not a deli3erate twistin, of facts to ;ustif' the assailed order, dis.issal of respondent ;ud,e fro. the service is not proper.
04

Aoldin, respondent ;ud,e lia3le for issuin, the challen,ed order .a' curtail the independence of ;ud,es and send the wron, si,nals to the. who are supposed to e8ercise their office without fear of reprisal, .erel' for e8pressin, their uncorrupted views. Re,retfull', liti,ants .a' suffer and ,ain eventual ;ustice onl' after costl' and lon,-drawn-out appeals fro. erroneous decisions, 3ut these are necessar' evils which .ust 3e endured to so.e e8tent lest ;udicial independence and the ,rowth of the law 3e stifled. Inlike colle,ial courts which afford their .e.3ers the lu8ur' of a deli3eration, a trial ;ud,e in

handin, down his decisions .ust 3rave the loneliness of his solitude and independence. And, while this Court .a' sli,htl' 3end 3ackwards if onl' to avoid suspicion of partialit' and cli?uis. to a 3rother in the profession, it .ust also step forward and take the lead to defend hi. a,ainst unsu3stantiated tirades which put to sha.e and dis,race not onl' the .a,istrate on trial 3ut the entire ;udicial s'ste. as well. As cha.pion M at other ti.es tor.entor M of trial and appellate ;ud,es, this Court .ust 3e unrelentin, in weedin, the ;udiciar' of unscrupulous ;ud,es, 3ut it .ust also 3e ?uick in dis.issin, ad.inistrative co.plaints which serve no other purpose than to harass the.. >n dis.issin, ;ud,es fro. the service, the Court .ust 3e circu.spect and deli3erate, lest it penali+es the. for e8ercisin, their independent ;ud,.ents handed down in ,ood faith. Respondent ;ud,e has i.pressive acade.ic and professional credentials which, e8perience shows, are no lon,er eas' to recruit for the ;udicial service. A3ove all, he has served the ;udiciar' with credita3le distinction. >t is unfeelin,, if not unfair, to pur,e hi. without e8trinsic evidence of 3ad faith and then shatter his hopes of ascendin, so.eda' the ;udicial hierarch' which, after all, is the ulti.ate drea. of ever' sacrificin, trial ;ud,e. > E%T7 5%R TA7 7N% 7RAT>% %5 R7SP% B7 T 4IBG7. Foot&ot#s
( &alcol., Ge,al and 4udicial 7thics, ()4) ed., !**. ! A,palo, Ge,al 7thics, ()"", 4th ed., 454. 0 Rollo, 0. 4 Rollo, !(. 5 Rollo, 55. 1 I8id., 10. H Rollo" "". " I8id., ". ) 4ustice &inerva P. Gon+a,a-Re'es, ponente, with 4ustices Guis A. 4avellana and Consuelo Knares-Santia,o, concurrin,= Rollo, "*. (* 0( C.4.S., 7vidence, Sec. (0, "40. (( !* A.. 4ur., 7vidence, Sec. (H, 4". (! Jin, vs. Gallun, et al., (*) I.S. )), !H G. ed. "H*. (0 0( C.4.S., 7vidence, Secs. 1-H, "!0. (4 5rancisco, Rules of Court, ()H0 ed., Eol. E>>, Part >, H(. (5 @i,.ore on 7vidence, Eol. >N, Sec. !51H, 505. (1 Op. cit., H(-H!. (H Roden vs. Connecticut Co., et al., (55 A. H!(. (" 5rancisco, Rules of Court, ()H0 ed., Eol. E>>>, Part >, "(. () State e8 rel. 2run;ies vs. 2ockel.an, et al., !4* S.@. !*). !* Gu,ue vs. Ja'anan, et al., G.R. o. G-!1"!1, Au,ust !), ()1), !) SCRA (15. !( A,palo, Ge,al 7thics, ()"", 4th ed., 454-455. !! Canon (H, Canons of 4udicial 7thics.

!0 Canon (", id. !4 Castillo, et al. vs. 4uan, G.R. os. 0)5(1-(H, 4anuar' !", ()H5, 1! SCRA (!4. !5 %laivar vs. Cinco, A.&. o. 45-&4, &arch !), ()H4, 51 SCRA !0!. !1 Cf. Ale;andro vs. Pepito, G.R. o. 5!*)*, 5e3ruar' !(, ()"*, )1 SCRA 0!!. !H Cf. Piedra, et al. vs. >.3in,, A.&. !" Co..ent, (*-((= Rollo, 0*-0(. !) Santia,o, et al. vs. Santos, A.&. o. HH!-C4, April (", ()H5, 10 SCRA 0)!. o. H!1H*, Septe.3er (!, ()"1, (44 SCRA 0* Gal.an, et al. vs. Sandi,an3a'an, et al., G.R. 40. 0( See >n re$ Rafael C. Cli.aco, Ad.. Case 0! Rollo, 0!-05. 00 Padilla vs. Bi+on, Ad.. Case 05 Gar,anera vs. 4ocson, A.&. 0H 6uQo vs. Bi+on, A.&. o. 0*"1, 5e3ruar' !0, ()"", (5" SCRA (!H. o. RT4-""-!!H, Septe.3er (, ())!, !(0 SCRA (4). o. RT4-)(-H11, April H, ())0, !!( SCRA "H. o. !)! 04 2uenavista, 4r. vs. Garcia, A.&. o. RT4-""-!41, 4ul' (), ())*, ("H SCRA 5)". 01 I', et al. vs. Bi+on-Capulon,,, A.&. o. RT4-")-001, Resolution En &anc, %cto3er 4, ())*.

o. (04-4, 4anuar' !(, ()H4, 55 SCRA (*H.

o. RT4-)(-H5!, 4une !0, ())0.

0" Section ), Rule (4 of the %.ni3us Rules >.ple.entin, 2ook E of 78ecutive %rder 9Ad.inistrative Code of ()"H:. (ELLOSILLO, '.B

( Remedies for %udicial /isconduct and 6isa8ilit+G Removal and 6iscipline of %ud$es , 4( .K.I.G.Rev. (4), cited in Readin$s on Recruitment and Selection of %ud$es , Supre.e Court 9()"H:, p. 1*. ! Louis @uitton S.A. v. %ud$e @illanueva , Ad.. Case o. &T4- )!-140, !H ove.3er ())!, !(1 SCRA (!(, citin, /endoza v. %ud$e @illaluz, Ad.. Case o. (H)H-CCC, !H Au,ust ()"(, (*1 SCRA 114, in turn citin, Evan$elista v. %ud$e &aez, Innu.3ered CAR Case, !1 Bece.3er ()H4, 1( SCRA 4H5= @da. de !a8ala v. %ud$e #amaran, Ad.. Case o. !**-4, (* 4une ()H(, 0) SCRA 40*= and &arroso v. %ud$e Arc-e, Ad.. Case o. !(1-C5>, 0* Septe.3er ()H5, 1H SCRA (1(. 0 I8id., citin, @aldez v. %ud$e @alera , Ad.. &atter o. (1!"- CAR, and Ola+a v. %ud$e @alera, Ad.. &atter o. (1H1-CAR, 3oth pro.ul,ated 0( 4anuar' ()H", "( SCRA !41. 4 /orada v. %ud$e Ta+ao, A.&. o. RT4-)0-)H", H 5e3ruar' ())4, citin$ In re$ #etition for t-e 6ismissal from Service of %ud$e &altazar R. 6izon , Ad.. Case o. 0*"1, 0( &a' ()"), (H0 SCRA H(). 5 I8id., citin,, a.on, others, Revita v. Rimando, )" SCRA 1(), and 08on$on v. /a+o, )) SCRA 0*. 1 Louis @uitton S.A. v. %ud$e @illanueva , see ote !, citin, #a8alan v. ,uevarra, Ad.. &atter o. 000-C4, !4 ove.3er ()H1, H4 SCRA 50, in turn citin, Alzua v. %o-nson, !( Phil. 0*"= 2radle' v. 5isher, "* I.S. 005= and Ga..el v. 7rnst P 7rnst, !45 &inn !4), H! @ !d 014, 54 AGR !d 0(1. H Rule !.*( of the code of 4udicial Conduct provides that #CaD ;ud,e should so 3ehave at all ti.es as to pro.ote pu3lic confidence in the inte,rit' and i.partialit' of the ;udiciar',# Rule 0.*( that #CaD ;ud,e shall 3e faithful to the law and .aintain professional co.petence,# and Rule 0.*! that #CiDn ever' case, a ;ud,e shall endeavor dili,entl' to ascertain the facts and the applica3le law unswa'ed 3' partisan interests, pu3lic opinion or fear of criticis..# " /a+or Roa v. %ud$e Im8in$, A.&. o. RT4-)0-)05, (( &arch ())4.

) Arpon v. %ud$e de la #az, Ad.. &atter o. 4(-&4, !" &a' ()H5, 14 SCRA (51. (* &a;orit' %pinion, p. (H. (( I8id. (! State v. ,riffin, (** S.C. 00(, "4 S.7. "H1, cited in 2lack<s Gaw Bictionar', 4th. 7d., ()5(, p. (H1. (0 5 @ords and Phrases (4, citin, .elson v. &oard of Trade, 5" >ll. App. 0)). (4 &oard of Li7uidators v. ?alaw, o. G-(""*5, (4 Au,ust ()1H, !* SCRA (**H. o. G-!155(, (5 #A L0 v. ) I, o. G-4)5"*, (H 4anuar' ()"0, (!* SCRA (= #eople v. Almuete, !H 5e3ruar' ()H1, 1) SCRA 4(*= #eople v. Tama+o, 1( Phil. !!5 9()05:.

(1 ("A @ords and Phrases "5, citin, ..L.R.&. v. %ames T-ompson & )o., C.A.!, !*" 5.!d H40, H45. (H #ilipinas &anB v. %ustice Tirona-Liwa$, Ad.. &atter o. CA-)*-((, (" %cto3er ())*, ()* SCRA "04, citin, )onsolidated &anB and Trust )orporation v. %ud$e )apistrano , Ad.. &atter o. R-11- RT4, (" &arch ()"", (5) SCRA 4H. (" Ad.. &atter o. R-H(*-RT4, !( &a' ())0, !!! SCRA !)5. () See &a;orit' %pinion, p. !*. !* The Chronicle, issue of (" Au,ust ())!. !( I8id. !! Lampauo$ v. %ud$e @illaro9o, Ad.. &atter o. 0"(-&4, !" 4anuar' ()H4, 55 SCRA 0*4. !0 See &a;orit' %pinion, p. (5, citin, A,palo, Ge,al 7thics, ()"", 4th ed., pp. 454-455. !4 Canon (", Canons of 4udicial 7thics, cited in the &a;orit' %pinion, p. (1. !5 Cardo+o, T-e .ature of %udicial #rocess 9()!(:, p. (!. !1 40 Phil. !(! 9()!!:. !H Ad.. &atter o. ""-&4, !5 4anuar' ()HH, H5 SCRA 1). !" Citin, Enri7uez v. %ud$e Araula, Ad.. Case o. !H*-4, (" Bece.3er ()H0, 54 SCRA !0!= Tom8o v. /edHina, Ad.. Case o. )!), (H 4anuar' ()H4, 55 SCRA (0= Lampauo$ v. %ud$e @illaro9o, see ote !!= &artolome v. %ud$e 6e &or9a , Ad.. &atter os. (*)1-C5> and (((4-C5>, 0( &a' ()H1, H( SCRA (50= 6e ,uzman v. %ud$e 6e Leon, Ad.. Case o. (0!"-&4, 0* 4ul' ()H1, H! SCRA (HH= /eim8an v. %ud$e &alite, Ad.. &atter o. (0(-&4, !( Au,ust ()H1, H! SCRA 0"*= Tolentino v. %ud$e Tion$ , Ad.. &atter o. 505-&4, !( Au,ust ()H1, H! SCRA 0"5= and Amosco v. %ud$e /a$ro, Ad.. &atter 40)-&4, 0* Septe.3er ()H1, H0 SCRA (*H. !) Ad.. Case o. 0*"1, !0 5e3ruar' ()"", (5" SCRA (!H, cited in the &a;orit' %pinion, p. !4. 0* !uIo v. %ud$e 6izon, A.&. &a;orit' %pinion, p. !1. o. RT4-)(-H5!, !0 4une ())0, !!0 SCRA 5"4, cited in the

0( A.&. o. RT4-""-!41, () 4ul' ())*, ("H SCRA 5)", cited in the &a;orit' %pinion, p. !5. 0! ,ar$anera v. %ud$e %ocson, A.&. o. RT4-""-!!H, /e9orada v. %ud$e %ocson, A.&. o. RT4)*-1!4, @elez v. %ud$e %ocson, A.&. o. RT4-""-!H*, %ud$e %ocson v. &arredo, A.&. o. P-"H(!4, %alandoon v. %ud$e %ocson, A.&. o. RT4-""-!1), An$odon$" vs. %ud$e %ocson, A.&. o. RT4-""-!1H, and Tronco v. %ud$e %ocson, A.&. o. RT4-""-!H), all pro.ul,ated ( Septe.3er ())!, !(0 SCRA (4), cited in the &a;orit' %pinion, p. !5. 00 Ad.. &atter o. RT4-)(-H11, H April ())0, !!( SCRA "H, cited in the &a;orit' %pinion, p. !5. 04 6inapol v. %ud$e &aldado, Ad.. &atter o. RT4-)!-")", 5 Au,ust ())0, !!5 SCRA ((*. 05 Alisan$co v. %ud$e Ta8iliran" %r., Ad.. &atter o. &T4-)(- 554, 0* 4une ())0, !!4 SCRA (.

01 .e$ado v. %ud$e Auta9a+, see

ote (".

0H See In ReG #etition for t-e 6ismissal from Service andJor 6is8arment of %ud$e &altazar R. 6izon, Ad.. Case o. 0*"1, 0( &a' ()"), (H0 SCRA H().

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION G.R. No. 117776 &ebr5-r/ 2, 2000 MEN N"RO #. $ URE NO, petitioner, vs. COURT O& PPE $S N" S!NG PORE !R$!NES $!M!TE", respondents. 8U!SUM#!NG, J.: This petition for revie# on certiorari under Rule $% of the Rules of !ourt see;s to reverse the Decision of the !ourt of "ppeals, dated October '(, &((1, in !.". 4.R. No. !V 1$$0A, as #ell as its Resolution dated Februar+ '*, &(($, #hich denied the /otion for reconsideration. The facts of the case as su//ari8ed b+ the respondent appellate court are as follo#s= So/eti/e in &(0*, plaintiff EMenandro 2. 7aureano, herein petitionerF, then Director of Fli,ht Operations and !hief Pilot of "ir Manila, applied for e/plo+/ent #ith defendant co/pan+ Eherein private respondentF throu,h its "rea Mana,er in Manila. On Septe/ber 1), &(0*, after the usual personal intervie#, defendant #rote to plaintiff, offerin, a contract of e/plo+/ent as an e3patriate 250)0 captain for an ori,inal period of t#o -'. +ears co//encin, on 9anuar+ '&, &(0*. Plaintiff accepted the offer and co//enced #or;in, on 9anuar+ '), &(0(. "fter passin, the si35/onth probation period, plaintiffs appoint/ent #as confir/ed effective 9ul+ '&, &(0(. -"nne3 K2K, p. 1), Rollo.. On 9ul+ '&, &(0(, defendant offered plaintiff an e3tension of his t#o5+ear contract to five -%. +ears effective 9anuar+ '&, &(0( to 9anuar+ '), &(*$ sub:ect to the ter/s and conditions set forth in the contract of e/plo+/ent, #hich the latter accepted -"nne3 K!K p. 1&, Rec... Durin, his service as 250)0 captain, plaintiff on "u,ust '$, &(*), #hile in co//and of a fli,ht, co//itted a noise violation offense at the Burich "irport, for #hich plaintiff apolo,i8ed.- 3h. K1K, p. 1)0, Rec... So/eti/e in &(*), plaintiff featured in a tail scrapin, incident #herein the tail of the aircraft scraped or touched the run#a+ durin, landin,. 6e #as suspended for a fe# da+s until he #as investi,ated b+ board headed b+ !apt. !ho+. 6e #as repri/anded. On Septe/ber '%, &(*&, plaintiff #as invited to ta;e a course of "51)) conversion trainin, at "erofor/acion, Toulouse, France at dependantRs e3pense. 6avin, successfull+ co/pleted and passed the trainin, course, plaintiff #as cleared on "pril 0, &(*&, for solo dut+ as captain of the "irbus "51)) and subse<uentl+ appointed as captain of the "51)) fleet co//andin, an "irbus "51)) in fli,hts over Southeast "sia. -"nne3es KDK, K K and KFK, pp. 1$51*, Rec... So/eti/e in &(*', defendant, hit b+ a recession, initiated cost5cuttin, /easures. Seventeen -&0. e3patriate captains in the "irbus fleet #ere found in e3cess of the defendantRs re<uire/ent -t.s.n., 9ul+ A, &(**. p. &&.. !onse<uentl+, defendant infor/ed its e3patriate pilots includin, plaintiff of the situation and advised the/ to ta;e advance leaves. - 3h. K&%K, p. $AA, Rec.. Reali8in, that the recession #ould not be for a short ti/e, defendant decided to ter/inate its e3cess personnel -t.s.n., 9ul+ A, &(**, p. &0.. It did not, ho#ever, i//ediatel+ ter/inate itRs "5 1)) pilots. It revie#ed their <ualifications for possible pro/otion to the 250$0 fleet. "/on, the &0 e3cess "irbus pilots revie#ed, t#elve #ere found <ualified. >nfortunatel+, plaintiff #as not

one of the t#elve. On October %, &(*', defendant infor/ed plaintiff of his ter/ination effective Nove/ber &, &(*' and that he #ill be paid three -1. /onths salar+ in lieu of three /onths notice -"nne3 KIK, pp. $&5$', Rec... 2ecause he could not uproot his fa/il+ on such short notice, plaintiff re<uested a three5/onth notice to afford hi/ ti/e to e3haust all possible avenues for reconsideration and retention. Defendant ,ave onl+ t#o -'. /onths notice and one -&. /onth salar+. -t.s.n., Nov. &', &(*0. p. '%.. ",,rieved, plaintiff on 9une '(, &(*1, instituted a case for ille,al dis/issal before the 7abor "rbiter. Defendant /oved to dis/iss on :urisdiction ,rounds. 2efore said /otion #as resolved, the co/plaint #as #ithdra#n. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant case for da/a,es due to ille,al ter/ination of contract of services before the court a >uo -!o/plaint, pp. &5&), Rec... ",ain, defendant on Februar+ &&, &(*0 filed a /otion to dis/iss alle,in, inter alia= -&. that the court has no :urisdiction over the sub:ect /atter of the case, and -'. that Philippine courts have no :urisdiction over the instant case. Defendant contends that the co/plaint is for ille,al dis/issal to,ether #ith a /one+ clai/ arisin, out of and in the course of plaintiffs e/plo+/ent Kthus it is the 7abor "rbiter and the N7R! #ho have the :urisdiction pursuant to "rticle '&0 of the 7abor !odeK and that, since plaintiff #as e/plo+ed in Sin,apore, all other aspects of his e/plo+/ent contract andDor docu/ents e3ecuted in Sin,apore. Thus, defendant postulates that Sin,apore la#s should appl+ and courts thereat shall have :urisdiction. -pp. %)5A(, Rec... In traversin, defendantRs ar,u/ents, plaintiff clai/ed that= -&. #here the ite/s de/anded in a co/plaint are the natural conse<uences flo#in, fro/ a breach of an obli,ation and not labor benefits, the case is intrinsicall+ a civil disputeJ -'. the case involves a <uestion that is be+ond the field of speciali8ation of labor arbitersJ and -1. if the co/plaint is ,rounded not on the e/plo+eeRs dis/issal per se but on the /anner of said dis/issal and the conse<uence thereof, the case falls under the :urisdiction of the civil courts. -pp. 0)501, Rec.. On March '1, &(*0, the court a >uo denied defendantRs /otion to dis/iss -pp. *'5*$, 3bid.. The /otion for reconsideration #as li;e#ise denied. -p. (% ibid.. On Septe/ber &A, &(*0, defendant filed its ans#er reiteratin, the ,rounds relied upon in its /otion to dis/iss and further ar,uin, that plaintiff is barred b+ laches, #aiver, and estoppel fro/ institutin, the co/plaint and that he has no cause of action . -pp. &)'5&&%.& On "pril &), &((&, the trial court handed do#n its decision in favor of plaintiff. The dispositive portion of #hich reads= H6 R FOR , :ud,/ent is hereb+ rendered in favor of plaintiff Menandro 7aureano and a,ainst defendant Sin,apore "irlines 7i/ited, orderin, defendant to pa+ plaintiff the a/ounts of U SINZ1(A,&)$.)), or its e<uivalent in Philippine currenc+ at the current rate of e3chan,e at the ti/e of pa+/ent, as and for unearned co/pensation #ith le,al interest fro/ the filin, of the co/plaint until full+ paidJ SINZ&%$,0$'.)), or its e<uivalent in Philippine currenc+ at the current rate of e3chan,e at the ti/e of pa+/entJ and the further a/ounts of PA0,%)).)) as conse<uential da/a,es #ith le,al interest fro/ the filin, of the co/plaint until full+ paidJ P&,))),))).)) as and for /oral da/a,esJ P&,))),))).)) as and for e3e/plar+ da/a,esJ and P&)),))).)) as and for attorne+Rs fees.

!osts a,ainst defendant. SO ORD R D.' Sin,apore "irlines ti/el+ appealed before the respondent court and raised the issues of :urisdiction, validit+ of ter/ination, estoppel, and da/a,es. On October '(, &((1, the appellate court set aside the decision of the trial court, thus, . . . In the instant case, the action for da/a,es due to ille,al ter/ination #as filed b+ plaintiff5 appellee onl+ on 9anuar+ *, &(*0 or /ore than four -$. +ears after the effectivit+ date of his dis/issal on Nove/ber &, &(*'. !learl+, plaintiff5appelleeRs action has alread+ prescribed. H6 R FOR , the appealed decision is hereb+ R V RS D and S T "SID . The co/plaint is hereb+ dis/issed. SO ORD R D.1 PetitionerRs and Sin,apore "irlinesR respective /otions for reconsideration #ere denied. No#, before the !ourt, petitioner poses the follo#in, <ueries= &. IS T6 PR S NT "!TION ON 2"S D ON !ONTR"!T H6I!6 PR S!RI2 S IN T N G "RS >ND R "RTI!7 &&$$ OF T6 N H !IVI7 !OD OR ON FOR D"M"4 S "RISIN4 FROM "N IN9>RG TO T6 RI46TS OF T6 P7"INTIFF H6I!6 PR S!RI2 S IN FO>R G "RS >ND R "RTI!7 &&$A OF T6 N H !IVI7 !OD V '. !"N "N MP7OG HIT6 " FIL D P RIOD OF MP7OGM NT 2 R TR N!6 D 2G 6IS MP7OG RV 1. !"N T6 R 2 V"7ID R TR N!6M NT IF "N MP7OG R M R 7G F"I7S TO R "7IB T6 LP !T D PROFITS V N IF IT H R NOT, IN F"!T, IN!>RRIN4 7OSS SV "t the outset, #e find it necessar+ to state our concurrence on the assu/ption of :urisdiction b+ the Re,ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 2ranch (. The trial court ri,htl+ ruled on the application of Philippine la#, thus= Neither can the !ourt deter/ine #hether the ter/ination of the plaintiff is le,al under the Sin,apore 7a#s because of the defendantRs failure to sho# #hich specific la#s of Sin,apore 7a#s appl+ to this case. "s substantiall+ discussed in the precedin, para,raphs, the Philippine !ourts do not ta;e :udicial notice of the la#s of Sin,apore. The defendant that clai/s the applicabilit+ of the Sin,apore 7a#s to this case has the burden of proof. The defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the Philippine la# should be applied.$ Respondent !ourt of "ppeals ac<uired :urisdiction #hen defendant filed its appeal before said court. % On this /atter, respondent court #as correct #hen it barred defendant5appellant belo# fro/ raisin, further the issue of :urisdiction.A Petitioner no# raises the issue of #hether his action is one based on "rticle &&$$ or on "rticle &&$A of the !ivil !ode. "ccordin, to hi/, his ter/ination of e/plo+/ent effective Nove/ber &, &(*', #as based on an e/plo+/ent contract #hich is under "rticle &&$$, so his action should prescribe in &) +ears as provided for in said article. Thus he clai/s the rulin, of the appellate court based on "rticle &&$A #here prescription is onl+ four -$. +ears, is an error. The appellate court concluded that the action

for ille,al dis/issal ori,inall+ filed before the 7abor "rbiter on 9une '(, &(*1, but #hich #as #ithdra#n, then filed a,ain in &(*0 before the Re,ional Trial !ourt, had alread+ prescribed. In our vie#, neither "rticle &&$$0 nor "rticle &&$A* of the !ivil !ode is here pertinent. Hhat is applicable is "rticle '(& of the 7abor !ode, vi(= "rt. '(&. Money claims. U "ll /one+ clai/s arisin, fro/ e/plo+ee5e/plo+er relations accruin, durin, the effectivit+ of this !ode shall be filed #ithin three -1. +ears fro/ the ti/e the cause of action accruedJ other#ise the+ shall be forever barred. 333 333 333 Hhat rules on prescription should appl+ in cases li;e this one has lon, been decided b+ this !ourt. In ille,al dis/issal, it is settled, that the ten5+ear prescriptive period fi3ed in "rticle &&$$ of the !ivil !ode may not be invo;ed b+ petitioners, for the !ivil !ode is a la# of ,eneral application, #hile the prescriptive period fi3ed in "rticle '(' of the 7abor !ode Eno# "rticle '(&F is a SP !I"7 7"H applicable to clai/s arisin, fro/ e/plo+ee5e/plo+er relations.( More recentl+ in 2e @u(man vs. Court of Appeals,&) #here the /one+ clai/ #as based on a #ritten contract, the !ollective 2ar,ainin, ",ree/ent, the !ourt held= . . . The lan,ua,e of "rt. '(& of the 7abor !ode does not li/it its application onl+ to K/one+ clai/s specificall+ recoverable under said !odeK but covers all /one+ clai/s arisin, fro/ an e/plo+ee5e/plo+er relationsK -!itin, !adalin v. PO " "d/inistrator, '1* S!R" 0'&, 0A$ E&(($FJ and >+ v. National 7abor Relations !o//ission, 'A& S!R" %)%, %&% E&((AF.. . . . It should be noted further that "rticle '(& of the 7abor !ode is a special la# applicable to /one+ clai/s arisin, fro/ e/plo+er5e/plo+ee relationsJ thus, it necessaril+ prevails over "rticle &&$$ of the !ivil !ode, a ,eneral la#. 2asic is the rule in statutor+ construction that K#here t#o statutes are of e<ual theoretical application to a particular case, the one desi,ned therefore should prevail.K -!itin, 7everi8a v. Inter/ediate "ppellate !ourt, &%0 S!R" '*', '($.. @eneralia specialibus non dero ant.&& In the li,ht of "rticle '(&, aforecited, #e a,ree #ith the appellate courtRs conclusion that petitionerRs action for dama es due to ille al termination filed a,ain on 9anuar+ *, &(*0 or /ore than four -$. +ears after the effective date of his dis/issal on Nove/ber &, &(*' has alread+ prescribed. In the instant case, the action for da/a,es due to ille,al ter/ination #as filed b+ plaintiff5 appelle onl+ on 9anuar+ *, &(*0 or /ore than four -$. +ears after the effectivit+ date of his dis/issal on Nove/ber &, &(*'. !learl+, plaintiff5appelleeRs action has alread+ prescribed. He base our conclusion not on "rticle &&$$ of the !ivil !ode but on #hich sets the prescription period at three -1. +ears and #hich ,overns under this :urisdiction. Petitioner clai/s that the runnin, of the prescriptive period #as tolled #hen he filed his co/plaint for ille,al dis/issal before the 7abor "rbiter of the National 7abor Relations !o//ission. 6o#ever, this clai/ deserves scant considerationJ it has no le,al le, to stand on. In 5lympia 3nternational" 3nc., vs., Court of Appeals, #e held that Kalthou,h the co//ence/ent of a civil action stops the runnin, of the statute of prescription or li/itations, its dis/issal or voluntar+ abandon/ent b+ the plaintiff leaves in e3actl+ the sa/e position as thou,h no action had been co//enced at all.K&' No#, as to #hether petitionerRs separation fro/ the co/pan+ due to retrench/ent #as valid, the appellate court found that the e/plo+/ent contract of petitioner allo#ed for pre5ter/ination of e/plo+/ent. He a,ree #ith the !ourt of "ppeals #hen it said, It is a settled rule that contracts have the force of la# bet#een the parties. Fro/ the /o/ent the

sa/e is perfected, the parties are bound not onl+ to the fulfill/ent of #hat has been e3pressl+ stipulated but also to all conse<uences #hich, accordin, to their nature, /a+ be in ;eepin, #ith ,ood faith, usa,e and la#. Thus, #hen plaintiff5appellee accepted the offer of e/plo+/ent, he #as bound b+ the ter/s and conditions set forth in the contract, a/on, others, the ri,ht of /utual ter/ination b+ ,ivin, three /onths #ritten notice or b+ pa+/ent of three /onths salar+. Such provision is clear and readil+ understandable, hence, there is no roo/ for interpretation. 333 333 333 Further, plaintiff5appelleeRs contention that he is not bound b+ the provisions of the ",ree/ent, as he is not a si,nator+ thereto, deserves no /erit. It /ust be noted that #hen plaintiff5appelleeRs e/plo+/ent #as confir/ed, he applied for /e/bership #ith the Sin,apore "irlines 7i/ited -Pilots. "ssociation, the si,nator+ to the afore/entioned ",ree/ent. "s such, plaintiff5appellee is estopped fro/ <uestionin, the le,alit+ of the said a,ree/ent or an+ proviso contained therein.&1 Moreover, the records of the present case clearl+ sho# that respondent courtRs decision is a/pl+ supported b+ evidence and it did not err in its findin,s, includin, the reason for the retrench/ent= Hhen defendant5appellant #as faced #ith the #orld5#ide recession of the airline industr+ resultin, in a slo# do#n in the co/pan+Rs ,ro#th particularl+ in the re,ional operation -"sian "rea. #here the "irbus 1)) operates. It had no choice but to adopt cost cuttin, /easures, such as cuttin, do#n services, nu/ber of fre<uencies of fli,hts, and reduction of the nu/ber of fl+in, points for the "51)) fleet -t.s.n., 9ul+ A, &(**, pp. &05&*.. "s a result, defendant5appellant had to la+ off "51)) pilots, includin, plaintiff5appellee, #hich it found to be in e3cess of #hat is reasonabl+ needed.&$ "ll these considered, #e find sufficient factual and le,al basis to conclude that petitionerRs ter/ination fro/ e/plo+/ent #as for an authori8ed cause, for #hich he #as ,iven a/ple notice and opportunit+ to be heard, b+ respondent co/pan+. No error nor ,rave abuse of discretion, therefore, could be attributed to respondent appellate court.1/%phi1.n0t "!!ORDIN47G, the instant petition is DISMISS D. The decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in !.". !V No. 1$$0A is "FFIRM D. SO ORD R D. 1ellosillo" Mendo(a" 1uena and 2e Leon" #r." ##." concur. &oot0otes
& ' 1 $ % A 0

Rollo, pp. 1)51'. 3d. at A%. 3d. at $). 3d. at %$. 3d. at 1'. 3d. at 11.

"rt. &&$$. The follo#in, actions /ust be brou,ht #ithin ten +ears fro/ the ti/e the ri,ht of action accrues=

-&. >pon a #ritten contractJ 333

* "rt.

333

333

&&$A. The follo#in, actions /ust be instituted #ithin four +ears= -&. >pon an in:ur+ to the ri,hts of the plaintiffJ 333 333 333

Manuel 7. Pue8on >niversit+ "ssociation v. Manuel 7. Pue8on ducational Institution Inc., &0' S!R" %(0, A)$ -&(*(., citin De 9o+a v. 7antin, &( S!R" *(1 -&(A0.J 7a,/an v. !it+ of Manila, &0 S!R" %0( -&(AA.J Pepsi5!ola 2ottlin, !o/pan+ of the Philippines v. 4uan8on, &0' S!R" %0&, %0% -&(A0.J 2arcenas v. N7R!, &*0 S!R" $(*, %)1 -&(().J !entral Ne,ros lectric !ooperative Inc., v. N7R!, '1A S!R" &)*, &&$ -&(($..
&) && &' &1 &$

'(0 S!R" 0$1 -&((*.. 3d. at 0%)50%& -&((*.. &*) S!R" 1%1, 1A1 -&(*(.. Rollo, pp. 1%51A. 3d. at 10.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila &!RST "!(!S!ON G.R. No. 10779A &ebr5-r/ 1, 1996 N T!(!" " C N"!"O, -ss*ste, b/ 6er 65sb-0, $&RE"O C N"!"O, -0, (!CTOR! C. RUM# U , -ss*ste, b/ 6er 65sb-0, MOR RUM# U , petitioners, vs. COURT O& PPE $S -0, SO&RON!O " #U, respondents. "EC!S!ON #E$$OS!$$O, J.@ This petition for revie# on certiorari #as instituted for the re5e3a/ination of the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"54.R. No. SP5'$%'' -!"R. affir/in, that of the trial court #hich dis/issed the co/plaint of petitioners for failure to establish their cause of action. Petitioners Natividad !andido and Victoria Ru/baua are co5o#ners of a first5class irri,ated riceland #ith an area of '&,&(1 s<uare /eters located in Orion, 2ataan. Respondent Sofronio Dabu served as their a,ricultural tenant. On '& 9ul+ &(*A petitioners lod,ed a co/plaint & #ith the Re,ional Trial !ourt of 2ataan a,ainst respondent Dabu for ter/ination of tenanc+ relationship and recover+ of unpaid rentals fro/ crop5+ear &(*1 plus attorne+Rs fees and liti,ation e3penses. Petitioners averred in their co/plaint belo# that a tea/ fro/ the Ministr+ of ",rarian Refor/ had fi3ed a provisional rental of t#ent+5si3 -'A. and t#ent+5nine -'(. sac;s of pala+ for the rain+ and dr+ seasons, respectivel+, #hich respondent failed to pa+ be,innin, the crop5+ear &(*1 dr+ season up to the filin, of the co/plaint. Private respondent denied the /aterial alle,ations of the co/plaint and clai/ed that until &(*1 their sharin, s+ste/ #as on a %)5%) basisJ that his share in the crop +ear &(*1 dr+ season #as still #ith petitioner Natividad !andido #ho li;e#ise retained his #ater pu/p. 6e denied an+ provisional rental alle,edl+ fi3ed b+ the Ministr+ of ",rarian Refor/ and at the sa/e ti/e /aintained that onl+ a proposal for thirteen -&1. cavans for the rain+ season crop and t#ent+5five percent -'%M. of the net harvest durin, the dr+ season #as put for#ard. 6e clai/ed that he paid his rentals b+ depositin, thirteen -&1. cavans of pala+ for the &(*$ rain+ season crop, thirteen -&1. cavans for &(*% and ei,ht -*. cavans representin, t#ent+5five percent -'%M. of the dr+ season harvest. On /otion of respondent upon issues bein, :oined, the case #as referred to the Depart/ent of ",rarian Refor/ -D"R. for a preli/inar+ deter/ination of the e3istin, relationship bet#een the parties and for certification as to its propriet+ for trial. Thereafter the D"R certified that the case #as proper for trial but onl+ on the issue of non5pa+/ent of rentals and not on the e:ect/ent of respondent Dabu. "ccordin,l+ trial proceeded on the issue of non5pa+/ent of rentals. "fter findin, that no evidence #as adduced b+ petitioners to prove the provisional rental alle,ed to have been fi3ed b+ the Ministr+ of ",rarian Refor/, the lo#er court dis/issed the co/plaint. The counterclai/ of respondent Dabu #as li;e#ise dis/issed after it #as established that the tenanc+ relationship prevailin, bet#een the parties #as on a %)5%) basis. ' The !ourt of "ppeals 1 confir/ed the findin,s of the court a >uo and affir/ed its :ud,/ent thus He have carefull+ e3a/ined the testi/onial and docu/entar+ evidence on record and found nothin, therein about the so5called provisional rates supposedl+ fi3ed b+ the D"R and alle,edl+

breached b+ appellee. Indeed neither appellant herself Natividad !. !andido nor appellantsR other #itness 2en:a/in Santos ever /entioned in the course of their respective testi/onies the alle,ed provisional rates fi3ed b+ the D"R. For sure, ,oin, b+ appellantsR evidence it #ould appear that no such rates #ere in fact fi3ed b+ the D"R. $ The appellate court also found that no evidence #as introduced to prove the e3penses incurred b+ the parties for plantin, and harvestin, hence the a/ount of the net harvest #as never deter/ined. Onl+ the transfer certificate of title of the propert+ and its correspondin, ta3 declaration #ere offered in evidence. The /otion of petitioners for reconsideration % #as /erel+ noted considerin, that under Sec. $. par. -d., Rule A, of the Revised Internal Rules of the !ourt of "ppeals -RIR!"., the filin, of a /otion for reconsideration in a,rarian cases is not allo#ed. A Petitioners #ould i/press upon us that the verified co/plaint and the affidavit presented b+ petitioners to the D"R are proofs of the provisional rentals fi3ed b+ it and that it #as error for the trial court not to have ta;en co,ni8ance of these docu/ents. He are not persuaded. It is settled that courts #ill onl+ consider as evidence that #hich has been for/all+ offered. 0 The affidavit of petitioner Natividad !andido /entionin, the provisional rate of rentals #as never for/all+ offeredJ neither the alle,ed certification b+ the Ministr+ of ",rarian Refor/, Not havin, been for/all+ offered, the affidavit and certification cannot be considered as evidence. Thus the trial court as #ell as the appellate court correctl+ disre,arded the/. If the+ ne,lected to offer those docu/ents in evidence, ho#ever vital the+ /a+ be, petitioners onl+ have the/selves to bla/e, not respondent #ho #as not even ,iven a chance to ob:ect as the docu/ents #ere never offered in evidence. " docu/ent, or an+ article for that /atter, is not evidence #hen it is si/pl+ /ar;ed for identificationJ it /ust be for/all+ offered, and the opposin, counsel ,iven an opportunit+ to ob:ect to it or cross5 e3a/ine the #itness called upon to prove or identif+ it. * " for/al offer is necessar+ since :ud,es are re<uired to base their findin,s of fact and :ud,/ent onl+ and strictl+ upon the evidence offered b+ the parties at the trial. ( To allo# a part+ to attach an+ docu/ent to his pleadin, and then e3pect the court to consider it as evidence /a+ dra# un#arranted conse<uences. The opposin, part+ #ill be deprived of his chance to e3a/ine the docu/ent and ob:ect to its ad/issibilit+. The appellate court #ill have difficult+ revie#in, docu/ents not previousl+ scrutini8ed b+ the court belo#. The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of !ourt on the inclusion on appeal of docu/entar+ evidence or e3hibits in the records cannot be stretched as to include such pleadin,s or docu/ents not offered at the hearin, of the case. &) Petitioners #ould insist that #e ta;e :udicial notice of the affidavit of petitioner Natividad !. !andido despite absence of an+ for/al offer durin, the proceedin,s in the trial court. This is futile since this is not a/on, the /atters #hich the la# /andatoril+ re<uires to be ta;en :udicial notice ofJ && neither can #e consider it of public ;no#led,e, or capable of un<uestionable de/onstration, or ou,ht to be ;no#n to :ud,es because of their :udicial functions. &' The testi/on+ of petitioner Natividad !andido cannot even be relied upon, to sa+ the least. Puite interestin,l+, she could not even recall #hen private respondent first failed to pa+ his rent, if indeed there #as an+ failure on his part to co/pl+ #ith his obli,ation. She onl+ said that it #as so/eti/e in &(*' or &(*1, and did not even ;no# precisel+ ho# /an+ cavans of pala+ #ere bein, harvested per crop5+ear. Petitioners definitel+ failed to establish their cause of action. The+ never proved that respondent Dabu

failed to pa+ his rentals startin, &(*'. Neither #ere the+ able to co/petentl+ confir/ the provisional rate of rentals alle,edl+ fi3ed b+ the tea/ of the Ministr+ of ",rarian Refor/. H6 R FOR , the petition is D NI D. The decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"54.R. No. SP5 '$%'' -!"R. confir/in, the order of the Re,ional Trial !ourt of 2ataan in !ivil !ase No. %$'( dis/issin, the co/plaint is "FFIRM D, #ith costs a,ainst petitioners. SO ORD R D. Padilla" $itu " Eapunan and 'ermosisima" #r." concur. &oot0otes
& ' 1

Rollo, pp. $*5%'. Decision penned b+ 9ud,e Mario M. Di8on, RT!52r. &, 2alan,a, 2ataanJ Rollo, pp. A)5A%.

Decision penned b+ 9ustice !ancio !. 4arcia, concurred in b+ 9ustices Serafin . !a/ilon and 9or,e S. I/perialJ Rollo, pp. '(511.
$ % A 0 *

Rollo, p. 1&. 3d." pp. 1%5$'. Resolution of &A October &(('J Rollo, p. $A. Sec. 1$, Rule &1', Revised Rules of !ourt.

Francisco, Vicente #., The Revised Rules of !ourt of the Philippines, Vol. VII, &(01 ed., p. $(%, citin % nc+. of vidence, p. $A(.
(

See note *, p. $(0, citin >.S. v. Solana, 11 Phil. %*' -&(&A.J Da+rit v. 4on8ales, 0 Phil. &*' -&()A..
&) &&

De !astro v. !ourt of "ppeals, 0% Phil. *1$ -&($A..

Sec. &, Rule &'( of the Revised Rules of !ourt provides= 9udicial notice, #hen /andator+. " court shall ta;e :udicial notice, #ithout the introduction of evidence, of the e3istence and territorial e3tent of states, their political histor+, for/s of ,overn/ent and s+/bols of nationalit+, the la# of nations, the ad/iralt+ and /ariti/e courts of the #orld and their seals, the political constitution and histor+ of the Philippines, the official acts of the le,islative, e3ecutive and :udicial depart/ents of the Philippines, the la#s of nature, the /easure of ti/e, and the ,eo,raphical divisions.
&'

Sec. ', id.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 121099 F#7"u)". 14, 1999 FIDEL T. SALA!ERA, vs. SANDIGAN(A;AN, FIRST DI8ISION, respondent. PARDO, J.: The case is an appeal via certiorari taken 3' petitioner fro. a decision of the Sandi,an3a'an and its resolution convictin, hi. of .alversation of pu3lic propert' defined and penali+ed in Article !(H in relation to Article !(H of the Revised Penal Code, and appreciatin, the .iti,atin, circu.stance of full restitution, i.posin, upon hi. the indeter.inate sentence of two 9!: 'ears four 94: .onths and one 9(: da' of prision correccional, as .a8i.u.= to si8 91: 'ears and one 9(: da' of prision ma+or, as .a8i.u.= the penalt' of perpetual special dis?ualification, and a fine of P5,***.**, the value of the .0" Cal. S.ith P @esson revolver, with Serial o. "H)""1. @e reverse. The facts .a' 3e related as follows$ %n 5e3ruar' !, ()"", petitioner was elected to and assu.ed the position of .a'or of the .unicipalit' of Casi,uran, province of Aurora. Gater that .onth, he received fro. Casi,uran 2aran,a' Captain 1 Antonio 2enavide+ one .0" Cali3er S.ith P @esson Revolver, with Serial o. "H)""1. The ,un was owned 3' and licensed to Ponciano 2enavide+, an uncle of Antonio, who .ort,a,ed it to hi.. Petitioner placed the ,un in an attache case. After a3out a week, petitioner to,ether with his securit' .en, went to &anila, and 3rou,ht with the. the attache case with the ,un in it. %n their return to the province, their car was stopped at a spot checkpoint in -ue+on Cit', where Pat. Alfredo 2. Eillanueva of the -ue+on Cit' Police saw the revolver. %n petitioner<s instruction, his securit' .en surrendered the ,un to police officer Eillanueva. 2ack in the .unicipalit' of Casi,uran, Ponciano 2enavide+, the licensed owner of the ,un clai.ed it fro. petitioner. The latter infor.ed Ponciano that the ,un was confiscated 3' the -ue+on Cit' Police. %n Septe.3er 0*, ()"", Ponciano 2enavide+ filed with the office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Aurora a co.plaint for theft a,ainst petitioner and Antonio 2enavide+. %n Bece.3er (0, ()"", Ponciano 2enavide+ filed with the Bepart.ent of Gocal Govern.ent, an ad.inistrative co.plaint a,ainst petitioner for a3use of authorit', i,norance of the law and conduct un3eco.in, of a pu3lic servant. %n 4anuar' !*, ()"), the Provincial Prosecutor of Aurora dis.issed the case for theft. petitioner,

%n April 1, ()"), co.plainant Ponciano 2enavide+ filed a co.plaint for theft a,ainst petitioner with the %ffice of the %.3uds.an in &anila. %n Au,ust !(, ())*, durin, the investi,ation of the ad.inistrative case 3' the San,,unian, Panlalawi,an of Aurora, co.plainant Ponciano 2enavide+ e8ecuted an affidavit of desistance acknowled,in, that petitioner had paid the value of the ,un, and withdrawin, the ad.inistrative case and the cri.inal case he filed a,ainst petitioner with the %.3uds.an. %n Au,ust !!, ())*, the San,,unian, Panlalawi,an approved a resolution dis.issin, the ad.inistrative case a,ainst petitioner. %n &arch ), ())!, the %.3uds.an approved the filin, 3' Special Prosecution %fficer Prospero G. Pela'o of an infor.ation a,ainst petitioner for .alversation of pu3lic funds, which was dul' filed on &arch (!, ())!, with the Sandi,an3a'an, &anila. %n &arch 0*, ())!, the Sandi,an3a'an issued a warrant of arrest. %n &arch 0*, ())!, petitioner posted a cash 3ail of P!*,***.**, which he deposited with the provincial treasurer of Aurora, dul' approved 3' Re,ional Trial Court 4ud,e 5ile.on . Tan of 2aler, Aurora. 2 Ipon arrai,n.ent on 4une (, ())!, 3efore the Sandi,an3a'an, 5irst Bivision, petitioner entered a plea of not ,uilt', and accordin,l', the court scheduled the case for pre-trial conference. &eanti.e, on or a3out Au,ust (4, ())!, petitioner was a3le to contact Pat. Eillanueva in Ca.p Jarin,al, -ue+on Cit'. The latter said that he returned the ,un to Patrol.an %r,as, one of petitioner<s securit' .en on the ver' ne8t da' after he had confiscated it. Infortunatel', Pat. %r,as did not infor. petitioner a3out the recover' of the ,un, and, at the ti.e Eillanueva so infor.ed petitioner, Pat. %r,as had died. At the pre-trial conference held on Au,ust !", ())!, the prosecution and the accused 9petitioner herein: assisted 3' counsel de parte, entered into a stipulation of facts si,ned 3' the., as follows$
(. At all ti.es relevant to this case, the accused was the &a'or of the &unicipalit' of Casi,uran, Aurora= !. That in the e8ercise of his functions as &a'or, the accused had the occasion to confiscate one .0" cali3er S.ith P @esson revolver with Serial o. "H)""1 fro. 2aran,a' Captain Antonio 2enavide+= 0. This weapon was actuall' owned 3' Ponciano 2enavide+, the value of which the parties have not a,reed upon= 4. That the accused confiscated this weapon in the perfor.ance of his official functions and was, therefore, in custod' thereof in his capacit' as such= 5. That de.and was .ade fro. the accused 3' Ponciano 2enavide+ so.eti.e in 4une of ()"" to produce the a3ove.entioned firear. 3ut the accused failed to do so= 1. That at a su3se?uent ti.e, the accused and Ponciano 2enavide+ went to the offices of the -ue+on Cit' Police Bepart.ent in search of this weapon= H. That there has 3een restitution of the value of the firear. 3' the accused to the co.plainin, witness Ponciano 2enavide+ althou,h there is disa,ree.ent as to the a.ount of the restitution=

". That the followin, affidavits were e8ecuted$ a. 2' co.plainin, witness Ponciano 2enavide+ indicatin, his desistance fro. further prosecution thereof for reasons stated therein= 3. 2' Alfredo Eillanueva of the -ue+on Cit' Police Bepart.ent purportin, to descri3e the circu.stances under which he alle,edl' confiscated the weapon in ?uestion fro. the accused &a'or.

5urther to the a3ove stipulations, the Govern.ent now .arks the followin, e8hi3it which is ad.itted 3' the accused$
78hi3it #A# M a 8ero8 cop' of the Gicense to Carr' 5irear. o. *(""4)*, issued 3' ecesitas Jati,3ak of the 5irear. and 78plosives Init, to Ponciano 2enavide+ involvin, .0" cali3er S.ith P @esson revolver with S "H)""1. The accused for his part has .arked the followin, e8hi3its$ 78hi3it #(# M The %rder of the 5iscal dated 4anuar' !*, ()"), dis.issin, the char,e of Theft, which is Anne8 #(# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #!# M The ad.inistrative co.plaint filed 3' the co.plainin, witness dated Bece.3er (0, ()"", which is Anne8 #!# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #0# M The Co.plaint for the filin, of the case 3efore the %.3uds.an on April 1, ()"), which is Anne8 #0# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #4# M The investi,ation 3efore the San,,unian, Panlalawi,an dated Au,ust !(, ())* at 2aler, Aurora, wherein the owner of the ,un su3.itted his affidavit of desistance and ad.ittin, therein that he was paid for the loss of the ,un, which is Anne8 #4# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #5# M the Affidavit of Besistance e8ecuted 3' the owner of the ,un dated Au,ust !(, ())*, .arked as Anne8 #5# to the Supple.ental Affidavit, wherein the owner of the ,un ad.itted that he verified the loss of the ,un to 3e true and also ad.itted that the e?uivalent a.ount in cash and in kind for the .0" cali3er revolver was paid to hi., for which he pro.ised to dis.iss the cri.inal case and the ad.inistrative case. 78hi3it #1# M the &inutes of the San,,unian Panlalawi,an of Aurora dated Au,ust !!, ())*, which decided to dis.iss the ad.inistrative case, which is .arked as Anne8 #1# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #H# M the Resolution of the >nvesti,atin, 5iscal for the %.3uds.an dated 5e3ruar' !4, ())!, which is .arked as Anne8 #H# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #"# M the Resolution of the %.3uds.an, which is .arked as Anne8 #"# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #)# M a cop' of the %rder of Arrest issued 3' the Sandi,an3a'an, .arked as Anne8 #)# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #(*# M the pa'.ent of the 2ond for the provisional release of the accused, .arked as Anne8 #(*# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #((# M the 4oint Affidavit of the Chair.an of the San,,unian, Panlalawi,an and a certain An,elito Sala.era statin, that the' were present when pa'.ent was .ade for the ,un to the owner, which is .arked as Anne8 #((# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #(!# M the Affidavit e8ecuted 3' Alfonso Eillanueva dated Au,ust (4, ())!, wherein he ad.itted that he had confiscated the ,un at a checkpoint in -ue+on Cit', which is .arked as Anne8 #(!# to the Supple.ental Affidavit= 78hi3it #(0# M the Affidavit e8ecuted 3' Antonio 2enavide+ dated 4ul' 0*, ()"), which is .arked as Anne8 #(0# to the Supple.ental Affidavit.

%n 4une 0*, ())0, the prosecution for.all' presented as its evidence 78hi3it #A# 0 and upon the ad.ission thereof, rested its case. %n the other hand, the defense presented two 9!: witnesses includin, petitioner. After the testi.on' of the witnesses on 4ul' !(, ())0, the court ,ave the defense counsel ten 9(*: da's to for.all' offer his evidence in writin,. >n ti.e, the defense for.all' offered its e8hi3its, and on Septep3er 1, ())0, the court ad.itted all e8hi3its e8cept 78hi3its (( and (0, which were re;ected for 3ein, hearsa'. %n 5e3ruar' (H, ())5, .ore than a 'ear after the case was su3.itted for decision, the Sandi,an3a'an pro.ul,ated its decision, the decretal portion of which narrated in the openin, para,raph of this opinion. %n &arch 0, ())5, petitioner filed a .otion for reconsideration of the decision= Aowever, on 4ul' 5, ())5, the Sandi,an3a'an denied the .otion. Aence, this appeal. %n %cto3er 4, ())5, the Court re?uired respondent to file its co..ent on the petition. %n 4anuar' 4, ())1, the %ffice of the Special Prosecutor filed its co..ent on the petition for review. %n 4anuar' 0*, ())1, the Solicitor General also filed his co..ent. @e ,ive due course to the petition. To 3e,in with, petitioner is char,ed with .alversation under Article !(H in relation to Article !!! of the Revised Penal Code, providin, as follows$ Art. !(H. &alversation of pu3lic funds or propert' M Presu.ption of .alversation. M An' pu3lic officer who, 3' reason of the duties of his office, is accounta3le for pu3lic funds or propert', shall appropriate the sa.e, or shall take or .isappropriate or shall consent, or throu,h a3andon.ent or ne,li,ence, shall per.it an' other person to take such pu3lic funds or propert', wholl' or partiall', or shall otherwise 3e ,uilt' of the .isappropriation of .alversation of such funds or propert', shall suffer$
(. The penalt' of prision correccional in its .ediu. and .a8i.u. periods, if the a.ount involved in the .isappropriation or .alversation does not e8ceed two hundred pesos. !. The penalt' of prision ma+or in its .ini.u. and .ediu. periods, if the a.ount involved is .ore than !** pesos 3ut does not e8ceed 1,*** pesos. 0. The penalt' of prision ma+or in its .a8i.u. period to reclusion temporal in its .ini.u. period, if the a.ount involved is .ore than 1,*** pesos 3ut is less than (!,*** pesos. 4. The penalt' of reclusion temporal in its .ediu. and .a8i.u. periods, if the a.ount involved is .ore than (!,*** pesos 3ut is less than !!,*** pesos. >f the a.ount e8ceeds the latter, the penalt' shall 3e reclusion temporal in its .a8i.u. period to reclusion perpetua. >n all cases, persons ,uilt' of .alversation shall also suffer the penalt' of perpetual special dis?ualification and a fine e?ual to the a.ount of the funds .alversed or e?ual to the total value of the propert' e.3e++led. The failure of a pu3lic officer to dul' forthco.in, an' pu3lic funds or propert' with which he is char,ea3le, upon de.and 3' an' dul' authori+ed officer, shall 3e prima facie evidence that he has put such .issin, funds or propert' to personal uses. 9As a.ended 3' Rep. Act o. (*1*, approved 4une (!, ()54:. Art. !!!. %fficers included in the precedin, provisions. M The provisions of this chapter shall appl' to private individuals who, in an' capacit' whatever, have char,e of an' insular, provincial or .unicipal funds, revenues, or propert' and to an' ad.inistrator or depositor' of funds or propert' attached, sei+ed or deposited 3' pu3lic authorit', even if such propert' 3elon,s to a

private individuals.

%ne essential ele.ent of the cri.e of .alversation is that a pu3lic officer .ust take pu3lic funds, .one' or propert', and .isappropriate it to his own private use or 3enefit. There .ust 3e asportation of pu3lic funds .one' or propert', akin to the takin, of another<s propert' in theft. The funds .one' or propert' taken .ust 3e pu3lic funds or private funds i.pressed with pu3lic attri3utes or character for which the pu3lic officer is accounta3le. >n this case, Antonio 2enavide+ voluntaril' turned over the ,un, a .0" cali3er S.ith P @esson revolver, to petitioner .a'or of the town of Casi,uran, Aurora. Antonio surrendered the ,un to the .a'or. The ,un was dul' licensed. >t was not sei+ed or confiscated. Antonio o3tained possession of the ,un fro. Ponciano 2enavide+, an uncle of his, who was the owner and licensee of the ,un. Ponciano .ort,a,ed it to Antonio. The ele.ents of .alversation, essential for the conviction of an accused, under the a3ove penal provisions are that M
9a: the offender is a pu3lic officer= 93: he has the custod' or control of funds or propert' 3' reason of the duties of his office= 9c: the funds or propert' involved are pu3lic funds or propert' for which he is accounta3le= and 9d: he has appropriated, taken or .isappropriated, or has consented to, or throu,h a3andon.ent or ne,li,ence per.itted, the takin, 3' another person of, such funds or propert'. 4

The ?uestion .a' 3e asked$ Bid Antonio<s surrender of the ,un to petitioner .a'or invest the ,un with pu3lic character sufficient to consider the ,un as pu3lic propert' for which the .a'or is accounta3leL There was no reason to surrender or confiscate the ,un. >t was dul' licensed to Ponciano 2enavide+. The license is not transfera3le. Antonio could not validl' possess the ,un. Ae should have returned the ,un to Ponciano, the licenced owner or surrendered it to the local police or to the Consta3ular' Provincial Co..ander. 2' turnin, over the ,un to petitioner .a'or, the ,un did not 3eco.e pu3lic propert' 3ecause it was not intended for pu3lic use or purpose nor was it lawfull' si+ed. The ,un continued to 3e private propert', that is wh' the ,un owner ri,htfull' asked for its return to hi., not to 3e turned over to the pu3lic coffer or treasur'. Petitioner<s failure to return the ,un after de.and 3' the private owner did not constitute a prima facie evidence of .alversation. The propert' was private and the one who de.anded its return was a private person, not a person in authorit'. The presu.ption of conversion will not appl'. A respected author in Cri.inal Gaw wrote #&alversation can onl' 3e co..itted 3' a pu3lic official who has char,e of pu3lic funds or propert' 3' virtue of his official position. A pu3lic official not responsi3le for pu3lic funds or propert' and without authorit' to safe,uard the sa.e can not 3e convicted of .alversation.# 1 @hat is .ore, the ,un was confiscated 3' a police officer at a checkpoint in -ue+on Cit'. The police.an should have turned over the confiscated ,un to the Consta3ular' 5irear. and 78plosive Init, in Ca.p Cra.e, -ue+on Cit'. >nstead, he returned the ,un to a securit' aide of petitioner .a'or, as a #favor# to the .a'or. The securit' aide died in the .eanti.e, and, apparentl', the ,un ,ot lost. Assu.in, that the loss was due to petitioner<s fault or ne,li,ence, he is not cri.inall' lia3le for .alversation throu,h ne,li,ence 3ecause there was no evidence of pu3lic funds or propert' to the use or 3enefit of the accused. The le,al presu.ption of

.alversation created 3' a de.and for restitution of pu3lic funds or propert' is not applica3le 3ecause the ,un was private propert' and a pu3lic officer entitled to its possession did not .ake the de.and for its return. The presu.ption takes the place of affir.ative proofs showin, the actual conversation. >t o3viates the necessit' of provin, acts of conversation= a thin, .ost e8tre.el' difficult to do. >f in a particular case a de.and was .ade upon an accounta3le pu3lic official to produce the funds in his custod' and he failed to do so, the presu.ption there3' arisin, would render unnecessar' further proof of conversation. The disappearance of pu3lic funds in the hands of the accounta3le pu3lic officer is prima facie evidence of its conversation. Aere, there is no presu.ption of conversion nor evidence of actual conversion. evertheless, petitioner .ade restitution of the value of the value of the ,un to the private owner, Ponciano 2enavide+. %3viousl', petitioner did not .alverse the ,un 3' dolo or culpa to his private use or 3enefit. %ne .ore point. Ad.ittedl', there was no evidence su3.itted to the court of the value of the ,un to ena3le the court to fi8 the penalt' to 3e i.posed on the accused. Assu.in, that petitioner .alversed the ,un, in .alversation, the penalt' for the offense is defendent on the value of the pu3lic funds, .one' or propert' .alversed. >n this case, the Sandi,an3a'an did not 3ase the penalt' on the .ini.u. value of the ,un in the a3sence of evidence of its true worth. >t took ;udicial notice of its .arket value and esti.ated its #reasona3le value# at P5,***.**. This is a ,rievous error. The Sandi,an3a'an could not take ;udicial notice of the value of the ,un. >t .ust 3e dul' proved in evidence as a fact. The court can not take ;udicial notice of a disputed fact. The court .a' take ;udicial notice of .atters of pu3lic knowled,e, or which are capa3le of un?uestiona3le de.onstration, or ou,ht to 3e known to ;ud,es 3ecause of of their ;udicial functions. %therwise, the court .ust receive evidence of disputeds facts with notice to the parties. This is an innovation introduced in the Revised Rules of 7vidence the Supre.e Court adopted on 4ul' (, ()"), which should not 3e unknown to the lower courts. 9 The new rule of evidence ,overns this case, since it was decided in ())5, si8 'ears after its effectivit'. @A7R75%R7, the Court here3' R7E7RS7S the appealed decision and resolution of the Sandi,an3a'an in its Cri.inal Case o. (H510, and AC-I>TS the accused 5idel Sala.era ' Torres, with costs de oficio. The Court orders the Sandi,an3a'an to forthwith cancel the cash 3ail of the accused, and i..ediatel' rei.3urse the a.ount to hi.. S% %RB7R7B. 6avide" %r." ).%." /elo and ?apunan. %%." concur. Foot&ot#s
( The correct ter. is Punon, 2aran,a'. ! Court approval of cash 3ail is not re?uired. 0 Nero8 cop' of the license to carr' firear. issued to Ponciano 2enavide+. 4 i+urtado vs. Sandi,an3a'an, !0) SCRA 00, 4!. 5 Chief 4ustice Ra.on C. A?uino, The Revised Penal Code, ()"H 7dition, Eolu.e Two, p. 44H. 1 A?uino, op. cit. p. 45".

H Rule (!), Section !, Revised Rules on 7vidence. " >de.., Section 0, Revised Rules on 7vidence. ) Bean Antonio P. Coronel, Si,nificant Chan,es in the Gae on 7vidence, ()") ed., pp. (5-(1.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila T6IRD DIVISION G.R. No. 17A276 )5./ 20, 2007 $ N"# N: O& T%E P%!$!PP!NES, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES (!CENTE # N $ -0, $EON!" S REN S-# N $, respondents. D S N"O( $-GUT!ERREZ, J.@ Spouses Vicente and 7eonidas 2anal, respondents, are the re,istered o#ners of &(.1$'' hectares of a,ricultural land situated in San Felipe, 2asud, !a/arines Norte covered b+ Transfer !ertificate of Title No. T5A'(A. " portion of the land consistin, of A.'11) hectares -%.$01) of #hich is planted to coconut and ).0A)) planted to pala+. #as co/pulsoril+ ac<uired b+ the Depart/ent of ",rarian Refor/ -D"R. pursuant to Republic "ct -R.".. No. AA%0, & as a/ended, other#ise ;no#n as the !o/prehensive ",rarian Refor/ 7a# of &(**. In accordance #ith the for/ula prescribed in D"R "d/inistrative Order No. A, Series of &((', ' as a/ended b+ D"R "d/inistrative Order No. &&, Series of &(($, 1 the 7and 2an; of the Philippines $ -7andban;., petitioner, /ade the follo#in, valuation of the propert+= cF5*re, 1ro1ert/ !oconut land Riceland re- *0 6ect-res (-.5e !ISION

%.$01) ).0A))

P&$*,A0%.&( '%,'$1.1A P&01,(&*.%%

Respondents re:ected the above valuation. Thus, pursuant to Section &A-d. of R.". AA%0, as a/ended, a su//ar+ ad/inistrative proceedin, #as conducted before the Provincial ",rarian Refor/ "d:udicator -P"R"D. to deter/ine the valuation of the land. ventuall+, the P"R"D rendered its Decision affir/in, the 7andban;Rs valuation. Dissatisfied #ith the Decision of the P"R"D, respondents filed #ith the Re,ional Trial !ourt -RT!., 2ranch $), Daet, !a/arines Norte, desi,nated as a Special ",rarian !ourt, a petition for deter/ination of :ust co/pensation, doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. A*)A. I/pleaded as respondents #ere the D"R and the 7andban;. Petitioners therein pra+ed for a co/pensation of P&)),))).)) per hectare for both coconut land and riceland, or an a,,re,ate a/ount of PA'1,))).)). Durin, the pre5trial on Septe/ber '1, &((*, the parties sub/itted to the RT! the follo#in, ad/issions

of facts= -&. the sub:ect propert+ is ,overned b+ the provisions of R.". AA%0, as a/endedJ -'. it #as distributed to the far/ers5beneficiariesJ and -1. the 7andban; deposited the provisional co/pensation based on the valuation /ade b+ the D"R.% On the sa/e da+ after the pre5trial, the court issued an Order dispensin, #ith the hearin, and directin, the parties to sub/it their respective /e/oranda.A In its Decision dated Februar+ %, &(((, the trial court co/puted the :ust co/pensation for the coconut land at PA%0,&10.)) and for the riceland at P$A,))).)), or a total of P0)1,&10.)), #hich is be+ond respondentsR valuation of PA'1,))).)). The court further a#arded co/pounded interest at P0(,01'.)) in cash. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads= KH6 R FOR , :ud,/ent is hereb+ rendered as follo#s= &. Orderin, respondent 7andban; to pa+ the petitioners, the spouses Dr. Vicente 2anal and 7eonidas "renas52anal, for the %.$01) hectares of coconut land the su/ of SIL 6>NDR D FIFTG5S V N T6O>S"ND ON 6>NDR D T6IRTG5S V N P SOS -PA%0,&10.)). in cash and in bonds in the proportion provided b+ la#J '. Orderin, respondent 7andban; to pa+ the petitioners for the .0A)) hectares of riceland the su/ of FORTG5SIL T6O>S"ND P SOS -P$A,))).)). in cash and in bonds in the proportion provided b+ la#J and 1. Orderin, respondent 7andban; to pa+ the petitioners the su/ of S V NTG5NIN T6O>S"ND S V N 6>NDR D T6IRTG5THO P SOS -P0(,01'.)). as the co/pounded interest in cash. IT IS SO ORD R D.K0 In deter/inin, the valuation of the land, the trial court based the sa/e on the facts established in another case pendin, before it -!ivil !ase No. AA0(, K7u8 Rodri,ue8 vs. D"R, et al.K., usin, the follo#in, for/ula= For the coconut land &. "vera,e 4ross Production -"4P. 3 .0) 3 (.0) -price per ;ilo of coconut. C Net Inco/e -NI. '. NI D AM C Price Per 6ectare -PP6. -appl+in, the capitali8ation for/ula under Re15b.*c ct No. A877*. For the riceland &. '.% 3 "4P 3 4overn/ent Support Price -4SP. C 7and Value -7V. or PP6 -usin, the for/ula under EGec5t*4e Or,er No. 228(. '. "4P 3 AM co/pounded annuall+ for 'A +ears 3 4SP C Interest -pursuant to D"R "O No. &1, Series of &(($. Forth#ith, the 7andban; filed #ith the !ourt of "ppeals a petition for revie#, doc;eted as !"54.R. SP No. %'&A1. On March '), '))), the "ppellate !ourt rendered a Decision &) affir/in, in toto the :ud,/ent of the trial court. The 7andban;Rs /otion for reconsideration #as li;e#ise denied.&& 6ence, this petition for revie# on certiorari. The funda/ental issue for our resolution is #hether the !ourt of "ppeals erred in sustainin, the trial

courtRs valuation of the land. "s earlier /entioned, there #as no trial on the /erits. To be,in #ith, under Section & of 3ecutive Order No. $)% -&(()., the 7andban; is char,ed Kpri/aril+K #ith Kthe deter/ination of the land valuation and co/pensation for all private lands suitable for a,riculture under the Voluntar+ Offer to Sell or !o/pulsor+ "c<uisition arran,e/entOK For its part, the D"R relies on the deter/ination of the land valuation and co/pensation b+ the 7andban;.&' 2ased on the 7andban;Rs valuation of the land, the D"R /a;es an offer to the lando#ner. &1 If the lando#ner accepts the offer, the 7andban; shall pa+ hi/ the purchase price of the land after he e3ecutes and delivers a deed of transfer and surrenders the certificate of title in favor of the ,overn/ent.&$ In case the lando#ner re:ects the offer or fails to repl+ thereto, the D"R ad:udicator &% conducts su//ar+ ad/inistrative proceedin,s to deter/ine the co/pensation for the land b+ re<uirin, the lando#ner, the 7andban; and other interested parties to sub/it evidence as to the :ust co/pensation for the land.&A These functions b+ the D"R are in accordance #ith its <uasi5:udicial po#ers under Section %) of R.". AA%0, as a/ended, #hich provides= KS !. %). !uasi?#udicial Po%ers of the 2AR. N The D"R is hereb+ vested #ith pri/ar+ :urisdiction to deter/ine and ad:udicate a,rarian refor/ /atters and shall have e3clusive ori,inal :urisdiction over all /atters involvin, the i/ple/entation of a,rarian refor/, e3cept those fallin, under the e3clusive :urisdiction of the Depart/ent of ",riculture -D". and the Depart/ent of nviron/ent and Natural Resources -D NR.. 3 3 3.K " part+ #ho disa,rees #ith the decision of the D"R ad:udicator /a+ brin, the /atter to the RT! desi,nated as a Special ",rarian !ourt&0 Kfor final deter/ination of :ust co/pensation.K&* In the proceedin,s before the RT!, it is /andated to appl+ the Rules of !ourt &( and, on its o#n initiative or at the instance of an+ of the parties, Kappoint one or /ore co//issioners to e3a/ine, investi,ate and ascertain facts relevant to the dispute, includin, the valuation of properties, and to file a #ritten report thereof 3 3 3.K') In deter/inin, :ust co/pensation, the RT! is re<uired to consider several factors enu/erated in Section &0 of R.". AA%0, as a/ended, thus= KSec. &0. 2etermination of #ust Compensation. N In deter/inin, :ust co/pensation, the cost of ac<uisition of the land, the current value of li;e properties, its nature, actual use and inco/e, the s#orn valuation b+ the o#ner, the ta3 declarations, and the assess/ent /ade b+ ,overn/ent assessors shall be considered. The social and econo/ic benefits contributed b+ the far/ers and the far/#or;ers and b+ the 4overn/ent to the propert+, as #ell as the non5pa+/ent of ta3es or loans secured fro/ an+ ,overn/ent financin, institution on the said land, shall be considered as additional factors to deter/ine its valuation.K These factors have been translated into a basic for/ula in D"R "d/inistrative Order No. A, Series of &((', as a/ended b+ D"R "d/inistrative Order No. &&, Series of &(($, issued pursuant to the D"RRs rule5/a;in, po#er to carr+ out the ob:ect and purposes of R.". AA%0, as a/ended.'& The for/ula stated in D"R "d/inistrative Order No. A, as a/ended, is as follo#s= K7V C -!NI 3 ).A. [ -!S 3 ).1. [ -MV 3 ).&. 7V C 7and Value !NI C !apitali8ed Net Inco/e !S C !o/parable Sales

MV C Mar;et Value per Ta3 Declaration The above for/ula shall be used if all the three factors are present, relevant and applicable. ".& Hhen the !S factor is not present and !NI and MV are applicable, the for/ula shall be= 7V C -!NI 3 ).(. [ -MV 3 ).&. ".' Hhen the !NI factor is not present, and !S and MV are applicable, the for/ula shall be= 7V C -!S 3 ).(. [ -MV 3 ).&. ".1 Hhen both the !S and !NI are not present and onl+ MV is applicable, the for/ula shall be= 7V C MV 3 'K 6ere, the RT! failed to observe the basic rules of procedure and the funda/ental re<uire/ents in deter/inin, :ust co/pensation for the propert+. &*rst./, it dispensed #ith the hearin, and /erel+ ordered the parties to sub/it their respective /e/oranda. Such action is ,rossl+ erroneous since the deter/ination of :ust co/pensation involves the e3a/ination of the follo#in, factors specified in Section &0 of R.". AA%0, as a/ended= &. the cost of the ac<uisition of the landJ '. the current value of li;e propertiesJ 1. its nature, actual use and inco/eJ $. the s#orn valuation b+ the o#nerJ the ta3 declarationsJ %. the assess/ent /ade b+ ,overn/ent assessorsJ A. the social and econo/ic benefits contributed b+ the far/ers and the far/#or;ers and b+ the ,overn/ent to the propert+J and 0. the non5pa+/ent of ta3es or loans secured fro/ an+ ,overn/ent financin, institution on the said land, if an+. Obviousl+, these factors involve 2-ct5-. /atters #hich can be established onl+ durin, a hearin, #herein the contendin, parties present their respective evidence. In fact, to underscore the intricate nature of deter/inin, the valuation of the land, Section %* of the sa/e la# even authori8es the Special ",rarian !ourts to appoint co//issioners for such purpose. Seco0,./, the RT!, in concludin, that the valuation of respondentsR propert+ is P0)1,&10.)), /erel+ too; :udicial notice of the avera,e production fi,ures *0 t6e Rodriguez c-se 1e0,*03 be2ore *t and applied the sa/e to this case #ithout conductin, a hearin, and #orse, #ithout the ;no#led,e or consent of the parties, thus= K3 3 3. In the case 3 3 3 of the coconut portion of the land %.$01) hectares, defendants deter/ined the avera,e ,ross production per +ear at %)A.(% ;ilos onl+, b5t *0 t6e 4er/ rece0t c-se o2 $5H Ro,r*35eH 4s. " R, et -.., 2*.e, -0, ,ec*,e, b/ t6*s co5rt *0 C*4*. C-se No. 6679 also for :ust co/pensation for coconut lands and Riceland situated at 2asud, !a/arines Norte #herein also the lands in the above5entitled case are situated, t6e 4-.5e 2*Ge, t6ere*0 C-s 1,061.52 I*.os 1er -005+ 1er 6ect-re 2or coco05t .-0, -0, t6e 1r*ce 1er I*.o *s P8.82, b5t *0 t6e *0st-0t c-se t6e 1r*ce 1er I*.o *s P9.70. In the present case, #e consider %)A.(% ;ilos avera,e ,ross production per +ear per hectare to be ver+ lo# considerin, that far/ practice for coconut lands is harvest ever+ fort+5five da+s. He cannot also co/prehended #h+ *0 t6e Rodriguez c-se and in this case there is a ,reat variance in avera,e production per +ear #hen in the t#o cases the lands are both coconut lands and in the sa/e place of 2asud, !a/arines

Norte. He believe that it is /ore fair to adapt the &,)A&.%' ;ilos per hectare per +ear as avera,e ,ross production. !0 t6e Rodriguez c-se, the defendants fi3ed the avera,e ,ross production of pala+ at 1,))) ;ilos or A) cavans per +ear. T6e co5rt *s -.so co0str-*0e, to -11./ t6*s /e-r./ 1-.-/ 1ro,5ct*o0 *0 t6e Ro,r*35eH c-se to t6e c-se -t b-r. 333 333 333 K"s sho#n in the Me/orandu/ of 7andban; in this case, the area of the coconut land ta;en under !"RP is %.$01) hectares. 2ut as alread+ noted, t6e -4er-3e 3ross 1ro,5ct*o0 - /e-r o2 506.96 I*.os 1er 6ect-re 2*Ge, b/ $-0,b-0I *s too .oC -s co+1-re, to t6e Ro,r*35eH c-se C6*c6 C-s 1,061 I*.os C6e0 t6e coco05t .-0, *0 bot6 c-ses -re *0 t6e s-+e toC0 o2 #-s5,, C-+-r*0es Norte, co+1e..*03 t6*s co5rt t6e0 to -,-1t 1,061 I*.os -s t6e -4er-3e 3ross 1ro,5ct*o0 - /e-r o2 t6e coco05t .-0, *0 t6*s c-se. He have to appl+ also the price of P(.0) per ;ilo as this is the value that 7andban; fi3ed for this case. KThe net inco/e of the coconut land is e<ual to 0)M of the ,ross inco/e. So, the net inco/e of the coconut land is &,)A& 3 .0) 3 (.0) e<uals P0,')$.&( per hectare. "ppl+in, the capitali8ation for/ula of R. . A877 to the net inco/e of P0,')$.&( divided b+ AM, the le,al rate of interest, e<uals P&'),)A(.)) per hectare. Therefore, the :ust co/pensation for the %.$01) hectares is PA%0,&10.)). KThe Riceland ta;en under Pres*,e0t*-. "ecree No. 27 as of October '&, &(0' has an area of . 0A)) hectare. !2 *0 t6e Rodriguez c-se the 7andban; fi3ed the avera,e ,ross production of 1))) ;ilos or A) cavans of pala+ per +ear, then the .0A)) hectare in this case #ould be $A cavans. The value of the riceland therefore in this case is $A cavans 3 '.% 3 P$)).)) e<uals P$A,))).)).'' KP"R! Resolution ($5'$5& of '% October &(($, i/ple/ented b+ D"R "O &1, ,ranted interest on the co/pensation at AM co/pounded annuall+. The co/pounded interest on the $A cavans for 'A +ears is &((.11 cavans. "t P$)).)) per cavan, the value of the co/pounded interest is P0(,01'.)).K'1 -e/phasis added. Hell5settled is the rule that courts are not authori8ed to ta;e :udicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even #hen said cases have been tried or are pendin, in the sa/e court or before the sa/e :ud,e.'$ The+ /a+ onl+ do so Kin the absence of ob:ectionK and K#ith the ;no#led,e of the opposin, part+,K'% #hich are not obtainin, here. Further/ore, as earlier stated, the Rules of !ourt shall appl+ to all proceedin,s before the Special ",rarian !ourts. In this re,ard, Section 1, Rule &'( of the Revised Rules on vidence is e3plicit on the necessit+ of a hearin, before a court ta;es :udicial notice of a certain /atter, thus= KS !. 1. #udicial notice" %hen hearin necessary. N Durin, the trial, the court, on its o#n initiative, or on re<uest of a part+, /a+ -00o50ce *ts *0te0t*o0 to t-Ie J5,*c*-. 0ot*ce of an+ /atter -0, -..oC t6e 1-rt*es to be 6e-r, t6ereo0. K"fter the trial, and before :ud,/ent or on appeal, the proper court, on its o#n initiative or on re<uest of a part+, /a+ ta;e :udicial notice of an+ /atter -0, -..oC t6e 1-rt*es to be 6e-r, t6ereo0 if such /atter is decisive of a /aterial issue in the case.K -e/phasis added. The RT! failed to observe the above provisions. $-st./, the RT! erred in appl+in, the for/ula prescribed under 3ecutive Order - O. No. ''* 'A and R.". No. 1*$$,'0 as a/ended, in deter/inin, the valuation of the propert+J and in ,rantin, co/pounded interest pursuant to D"R "d/inistrative Order No. &1, Series of &(($. '* It /ust be

stressed that O No. ''* covers private a,ricultural lands 1r*+-r*./ ,e4ote, to r*ce -0, cor0, #hile R.". 1*$$ ,overns -3r*c5.t5r-. .e-se6o., re.-t*o0 bet#een Kthe person #ho furnishes the landholdin,, either as o#ner, civil la# lessee, usufructuar+, or le,al possessor, and the person #ho personall+ cultivates the sa/e.K'( 6ere, the land is planted to coconut and rice and does not involve a,ricultural leasehold relation. Hhat the trial court should have applied is the for/ula in D"R "d/inistrative Order No. A, as a/ended b+ D"R "d/inistrative Order No. && discussed earlier. "s re,ards the a#ard of co/pounded interest, suffice it to state that D"R "d/inistrative Order No. &1, Series of &(($ does not appl+ to the sub:ect land but to those lands ta;en under Presidential Decree No. '01) and 3ecutive Order No. ''* #hose o#ners have not been co/pensated. In this case, the propert+ is covered b+ R.". AA%0, as a/ended, and respondents have been paid the provisional co/pensation thereof, as stipulated durin, the pre5trial. Hhile the deter/ination of :ust co/pensation involves the e3ercise of :udicial discretion, ho#ever, such discretion /ust be dischar,ed #ithin the bounds of the la#. 6ere, the RT! #antonl+ disre,arded R.". AA%0, as a/ended, and its i/ple/entin, rules and re,ulations. -D"R "d/inistrative Order No. A, as a/ended b+ D"R "d/inistrative Order No.&&.. In su/, #e find that the !ourt of "ppeals and the RT! erred in deter/inin, the valuation of the sub:ect land. Thus, #e dee/ it proper to re/and this case to the RT! for trial on the /erits #herein the parties /a+ present their respective evidence. In deter/inin, the valuation of the sub:ect propert+, the trial court shall consider the factors provided under Section &0 of R.". AA%0, as a/ended, /entioned earlier. The for/ula prescribed b+ the D"R in "d/inistrative Order No. A, Series of &((', as a/ended b+ D"R "d/inistrative Order No. &&, Series of &(($, shall be used in the valuation of the land. Further/ore, upon its o#n initiative, or at the instance of an+ of the parties, the trial court /a+ appoint one or /ore co//issioners to e3a/ine, investi,ate and ascertain facts relevant to the dispute. 9%ERE&ORE, the petition is 4R"NT D. The assailed Decision of the !ourt of "ppeals dated March '), '))) in !"54.R. SP No. %'&A1 is R V RS D. !ivil !ase No. A*)A is R M"ND D to the RT!, 2ranch $), Daet, !a/arines Norte, for trial on the /erits #ith dispatch. The trial :ud,e is directed to observe strictl+ the procedures specified above in deter/inin, the proper valuation of the sub:ect propert+. SO OR"ERE". Pan aniban" <Chairman=" Corona" #." on leave. &oot0otes
& '

and

Carpio?Morales"

##."

concur.

ffective 9une &%, &(**.

Rules and Re,ulations "/endin, the Valuation of 7ands Voluntaril+ Offered and !o/pulsoril+ "c<uired "s Provided For >nder "d/inistrative Order No. &0, Series of &(*(, "s "/ended, Issued Pursuant to Republic "ct No. AA%0.
1

Revisin, the Rules and Re,ulations !overin, the Valuation of 7ands Voluntaril+ Offered or !o/pulsoril+ "c<uired as /bodied in "d/inistrative Order No. A, Series of &(('.
$

3ecutive Order No. $)%, dated 9une &$, &((), vests the 7and 2an; of the Philippines the pri/ar+ responsibilit+ to deter/ine the land valuation and co/pensation for all private lands covered b+ R.". AA%0, as a/ended. See Philippine Veterans 2an; vs. !ourt of "ppeals, 4.R. No. &1'0A0, 9anuar+ &*, '))), 1'' S!R" &1(, &$%.

% A 0 * (

Pre5trial Order, Rollo at 0A500. Rollo at '%, *'. RT! Decision at 0, id. at A*. !ode of ",rarian Refor/s of the Philippines.

ntitled KDeclarin, Full 7and O#nership to Pualified Far/er 2eneficiaries !overed b+ Presidential Decree No. '0, Deter/inin, the Value of Re/ainin, >nvalued Rice and !orn 7ands Sub:ect of P.D. No. '0, and Providin, for the Manner of Pa+/ent b+ the Far/er 2eneficiar+ and Mode of !o/pensation to the 7ando#ner,K dated 9ul+ &0, &(*0.
&)

Penned b+ "ssociate 9ustice Rodri,o V. !osico and concurred b+ "ssociate 9ustices Ra/on Mabutas, 9r. and Delilah Vidallon5Ma,tolis.
&& &'

Resolution dated Ma+ &A, '))), Rollo at A).

Sec. &, 3ecutive Order No. $)% -&(().J Republic vs. !ourt of "ppeals, 4.R. No. &'''%A, October 1), &((A, 'A1 S!R" 0%* and Philippine Veterans 2an; vs. !ourt of "ppeals, supra.
&1 &$

Sec. &A-a. of R.". AA%0, as a/ended. Sec. &A-c., id.

&% The

Provincial ",rarian Refor/ "d:udicator -P"R"D. and the Re,ional ",rarian Refor/ "d:udicator -R"R"D., dependin, on the value of the land #ithin their respective territorial :urisdiction -Rule II, Sec. ', D"R"2 Rules of Procedure..
&A &0 &* &( ') '&

Sec. &A-d. of R.". AA%0, as a/endedJ Philippine Veterans 2an; vs. !ourt of "ppeals, supra. Sec. %A, id. Sec. &A-f., in relation to Sec. %0, id. Sec. %0, id. Sec. %*, id.

KSec. $(. Rules and Re,ulations. N The P"R! and the D"R shall have the po#er to issue rules and re,ulations, #hether substantive or procedural, to carr+ out the ob:ect and purposes of this "ct. Said rules shall ta;e effect ten -&). da+s after publication in t#o -'. national ne#spapers of ,eneral circulation.K
'' The

for/ula used b+ the trial court in its valuation of the Riceland is ta;en fro/ 3ecutive Order No. ''*. Section ' of the said O states that K-t.he avera,e ,ross production per hectare shall be /ultiplied b+ t#o and half -'.%., the product of #hich shall be /ultiplied b+ Thirt+5 Five Pesos -P1%.))., the ,overn/ent support price for one cavan of %) ;ilos of corn on October '&, &(0', and the a/ount arrived at shall be the value of the rice and corn land, as the case /a+ be, for the purpose of deter/inin, its cost to the far/er and co/pensation to the lando#ner.K 6o#ever, instead of usin, the ,overn/ent support price of P1%.)), the trial court used P$)).)), the then current price per cavan of pala+ -RT! Decision, p. 1, Rollo, p. A$..
'1 '$

Rollo at A0.

2PI5Fa/il+ Savin,s 2an;, Inc. vs. !ourt of "ppeals, 4.R. No. &''$*), "pril &', '))), 11) S!R" %)0, %&0J People vs. ?ulais, 4.R. Nos. &))()&5)*, 9ul+ &A, &((*, '(' S!R" %%&, %A%J Occidental 7and Transportation !o., Inc. vs. !ourt of "ppeals, 4.R. No. (A0'&, March &(,

&((1, '') S!R" &A0, &0%.

'%

People vs. 6ernande8, 1'* Phil. &&'1, &&$A -&((A., citin, Tabuena vs. !ourt of "ppeals, 4.R. No. *%$'1, Ma+ A, &((&, &(A S!R" A%) and >.S. vs. !laveria, '( Phil. %'0 -&(A(..
'A '0 '*

Supra. Supra.

Rules and Re,ulations 4overnin, the 4rant of Incre/ent of Si3 Percent -AM. Gearl+ Interest !o/pounded "nnuall+ on 7ands !overed b+ Presidential Decree No. '0 and 3ecutive Order No. ''*.
'( 1)

Sec. A, R" 1*$$, as a/ended.

ntitled KDecreein, the /ancipation of Tenants fro/ the 2onda,e of the Soil Transferrin, To The/ The O#nership of the 7and The+ Till and Providin, the Instru/ents and Mechanis/ Therefor,K dated October '&, &(0'.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-01405 A6"$* 22, 1991 T E DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. T E COURT OF APPEALS )&% (ORRO!EO (ROS. ESTATE, INC., respondents. eli8erto Leonardo and &en9amin S. Rallon for private respondent. NAR8ASA, J.:p @hether the land in dispute was for.ed 3' the action of the sea or 3' deposits of soil and sedi.entar' .atter carried 3' river currents is the .ain issue in this case, which was elevated to the Court 3' petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals. 1 >n %cto3er ()51 the corporation R. 2orro.eo 2ros. 7state, >nc. instituted in the Court of 5irst >nstance of Ge'te ori,inal proceedin,s 2 for confir.ation and re,istration of title in its favor of a parcel of land frontin, the sea in the coastal town of San >sidro, Ge'te with an area of (0*,50H s?uare .eters. The application 0 alle,ed that the land was 3ounded on the orth, 7ast and South 3' propert' of the applicant and on the @est 3' San >sidro 2a'= that it had 3een for.ed 3' accretion of sedi.ents carried fro. the hi,hlands 3' the natural action of the Si-on, and Sinu3dan Rivers when these overflowed their 3anks durin, the rain' season= 4 that it had 3een pu3licl', openl', continuousl' and adversel' possessed 3' the applicant for !* 'ears prior to the filin, of the application= and that to the applicant<s knowled,e there e8isted no .ort,a,e, lien or other adverse clai. on the land. 1 Two oppositions to the application were filed. %ne, filed 3' the Birector of Gands, asserted that the land applied for was part of the pu3lic do.ain, and that the applicant or its predecessors-in-interest had no sufficient title to the land, 3' wa' of either co.position of possessor' infor.ation, or 3' virtue of open, pu3lic, adverse and continuous possession under clai. of ownership since 4ul' !1, (")4. 6 The other opposition, filed 3' the &unicipalit' of San >sidro, echoed the contention of the Birector of Gands that the land for.ed part of the pu3lic do.ain, alle,in, that it was classified as Ti.3er 2lock-4, Ge'te Pro;ect o. 4*= denied the applicant<s clai. of open, adverse, continuous and e8clusive possession and averred that the land was occupied 3' other parties who had waived their clai.s in favor of said oppositor= and alle,ed, further, that it 9oppositor: needed the land for .unicipal e8pansion, havin, in fact adopted resolutions re?uestin, the Govern.ent to reserve the land for that purpose, and that the applicant had applied for, 3ut had 3een denied, a lease of the land after it had 3een released for private occupation 3' the 2ureau of 5orestr'. 4 The case was then heard. >t would appear that after the applicant had presented its evidence, it sou,ht and was allowed to a.end its application, which ori,inall' alle,ed that the land applied for had 3een for.ed of alluviu. deposited 3' the action of the sea, 5 in order to

alle,e, as said appellant<s evidence had tended to esta3lish, that said land had 3een for.ed instead fro. accretions of soil and sedi.ent carried fro. hi,her places 3' the currents of the Si-on, and Sinu3dan Creeks. Thereafter, evidence for the oppositors also havin, 3een presented, the Trial Court rendered ;ud,.ent den'in, the application and declarin, the land applied for pu3lic land for.ed 3' the action of the sea and not of an' river. 9 The applicant then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the Trial Court, sustained the applicant<s contention as to the ori,in of the land, on that 3asis declared the land to 3e private land of said applicant and decreed its re,istration in the applicant<s na.e. 10 The Appellate Court<s ;ud,.ent was in turn appealed to this Court 3' the Birector of Gands who, in the .ain, ar,ues that the Appellate Court erred in concludin, that the evidence showed the land to have 3een for.ed 3' the action of rivers and in not holdin, the applicant 3ound 3' the aver.ent in its ori,inal application that the land was for.ed 3' the natural action of the sea. 11 The first assi,n.ent of error .a' 3e disposed of 3' the si.ple e8pedient of pointin, out that the assailed #conclusion# of the Court of Appeals is one of fact, not of law, and is, therefore, 3e'ond the province of this Court to review, 12 save in certain e8ceptional circu.stances. 10 To dispel an' dou3ts, however, and not to rel' solel' on what .i,ht appear to so.e to 3e a fine distinction, particularl' considerin, that the findin, of the Court of Appeals on the crucial factual ?uestion of how the land in dispute ca.e into e8istence conflicts with that of the Trial Court, this Court has reviewed the availa3le record 14 and finds no sound 3asis for ascri3in, an' error to the Appellate Court in its appreciation of the evidence. The petitioner<s case is anchored on evidence tendin, to esta3lish that the Sinu3dan and Sion, Rivers whose currents, accordin, to the private respondent, for.ed the land in ?uestion fro. the sedi.ents the' carried were not natural strea.s, 3ut .ere canals du, as part of an irri,ation s'ste.= that the' had no intrinsic water sources and in fact dried up durin, the su..er season= that a surve' co..issioned 3' the petitioner itself in ()4) did not indicate their e8istence on the plan= and that part of the land is swa.p' with .an,rove trees ,rowin, thereon. 11 &ore persuasive, however, is the countervailin, evidence of the private respondent which consists, principall', of the testi.on' of 5eli8 Sa3lado, a 3rid,e fore.an of the 2ureau of Pu3lic Ai,hwa's, and Teofilo Pacana, overseer of the petitioner<s lands. Accordin, to the petitioner<s uncontradicted su..ar' of Sa3lado<s testi.on', said witness had undertaken studies of the Sinu3dan and Si-on, Rivers, .easurin, their depth and width, the volu.e of water that the' carried, and the si+e of the 3rid,es spannin, the.. Ae had declared the Sion, was .ore than seven .eters deep, while the Sinu3dan had a depth of .ore than three .eters, that the 5ile.on 2rid,e crossin, the Si-on, was seven .eters lon, and four .eters wide and the Sinu3dan 2rid,e had the sa.e di.ensions. And under cross-e8a.ination, he had .aintained that there is a source of water under the 5ile.on 2rid,e. 16 Pacana, for his part, testified that there is a continuous flow of water in 3oth rivers throu,hout the 'ear, and not .erel' durin, the rain' season, as clai.ed 3' one of the oppositors< witnesses, and that while a few .an,rove trees ,row in the salva,e +one which is far fro. the land, none are found within the 3oundaries of the land itself. 14 This is at least partl' confir.ed 3' photo,raphs received in evidence 15 showin, rice, coconut trees and 3a.3oo ,roves ,rowin, on the land, and which apparentl' persuaded the Trial Court that at least a part of the land

had 3een . . . transfor.ed 9throu,h cultivation 3' the private respondent: into a verita3le first class rice land. 19 The petitioner<s ar,u.ent that accretion, 3' definition i.percepti3le, could hardl' account for such an area of land 9.ore than thirteen hectares: 3ein, 3uilt up within a period of si8 'ears, hin,es upon an unwarrantedl' literal advertence to the testi.on' of one of the private respondent<s witnesses who declared that the process took place fro. ()0* to ()01. 20 Assu.in, that the witness attested to what he sincerel' 3elieved to 3e the truth, the possi3ilit' of his 3ein, .istaken cannot 3e discounted 3ecause, the a,e of the rivers in ?uestion never havin, 3een esta3lished, the process of accretion throu,h the action of their currents could have started .uch earlier than ()0*. >t is also entirel' possi3le SS and reasona3l' presu.a3le, lackin, an' proof to the contrar' SS even ,rantin, that accretion started onl' in ()0*, for the land to have ,rown to thirteen hectares in the twent' 'ears that followed until ()51 when the application for re,istration was filed. The Court therefore finds no error in the rulin, of the Court of Appeals that the land was for.ed 3' accretion throu,h the action of river currents and 3elon,ed to the private respondent as riparian owner pursuant to Art. 45H of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals also correctl' overruled the petitioner<s contention that the aver.ent in the ori,inal application for re,istration attri3utin, the ori,in of the land to the action of the sea, which aver.ent, with leave of court, was later superseded 3' an a.end.ent to the effect that the land was for.ed 3' the action of rivers, was 3indin, on the private respondent as a ;udicial ad.ission. Pleadin,s that have 3een a.ended disappear fro. the record, lose their status as pleadin,s and cease to 3e ;udicial ad.issions. @hile the' .a' nonetheless 3e utili+ed a,ainst the pleader as e8tra-;udicial ad.issions, the' .ust, in order to have such effect, 3e for.all' offered in evidence. 21 >t does not appear that the ori,inal application for re,istration containin, the aver.ent in ?uestion, or that particular aver.ent itself, was offered or received in evidence for the petitioner in the Trial Court. @A7R75%R7, the Becision of the Court of Appeals su3;ect of the petition for review is A55>R&7B, without pronounce.ent as to costs. S% %RB7R7B. )ruz" ,anca+o" ,riIo-A7uino and /edialdea" %%." concur. Foot&ot#s
( in CA-G.R. ! Case o. o. !1"1H-R. -*-((, GRC Rec. o. -H))".

0 as later a.ended. 4 The application ori,inall' averred that the land applied for had 3een for.ed throu,h alluvium 3' action of the sea 9Record on Appeal, p. !*, rollo, p. 45:. 5 Record on Appeal, pp. (-H= Rollo, p. 45. 1 Record on Appeal, pp. "-)= Rollo, p. 45. H Record on Appeal, pp. (*-(1= Rollo, p. 45. " Trial Court<s decision= record on appeal, p. !*= Rollo, p. 45. ) Id., pp. (H-!4.

(* Rollo, pp. 01-4!. (( Rollo, p. !1. (! Rule 45, sec. ! 9second para,raph:, Rules of Court. (0 See Tolentino vs. Be 4esus, 51 SCRA (1H= Cesar vs. Sandi,an3a'an, (04 SCRA (*5,(!((!!= and People vs. Tra'a, (4H SCRA 0"(, 0"", for enu.eration of those circu.stances and citation of supportin, authorities. (4 See Rollo, pp. (!!-(!0. (5 Rollo, pp. 0*-00, 0"-4*. (1 See record on appeal, pp. 0*-0(, Rollo, p. 44, where private respondent su..ari+es Sa3lado<s testi.on' in its .otion for reconsideration of the decision of the Trial Court. (H Id., at pp. 0!-00. (" Referred to as 78hi3its P and P-( 3' the petitioner in the sa.e .otion for reconsideration, supra= record on appeal, p. 00, Rollo, p. 44. () Record on Appeal, p. ()= Rollo, p. 44. !* Rollo, p. !". !( 2astida vs. &en+i P Co., 5" Phil. ("", !!!, citin$ 4ones on 7vidence, sec. !H0 and Gucido vs. Calupitan, !H Phil. (4"= see also 5rancisco<s Revised Rules of Court, ()H0 ed., Eol. E>>, pp. )0)4.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila N 2"N! G.R. No. 1A9716 M-rc6 12, 2002 PEOP$E O& T%E P%!$!PP!NES, plaintiff5appellee, vs. ERNESTO %ERM NES, accused5appellant. ME$O, J.: 2efore us on auto/atic revie# is the decision rendered b+ the Re,ional Trial !ourt of the *th 9udicial Re,ion -2ranch LLL, 2ase+, Sa/ar. findin, appellant rnesto 6er/anes ,uilt+ of the cri/e of rape and i/posin, upon hi/ the supre/e penalt+ of death. The conviction of appellant ste//ed fro/ an Infor/ation dated Septe/ber '%" &((A #hich reads= That on or about the 'nd da+ of Nove/ber, &((% at about &)=)) oRcloc; in the evenin,, at 2r,+. Mali,a+a, Municipalit+ of Sta. Rita, Province of Sa/ar, Philippines, and #ithin the :urisdiction of this 6onorable !ourt, the above5na/ed accused, b+ /eans of violence and inti/idation, did, then and there, #illfull+, unla#full+ and feloniousl+ succeed in havin, carnal ;no#led,e #ithout the consent and a,ainst the #ill of the co/plainant M"RIN" 6 RM"N S, inside her house, the accused bein, her step5father, #ith threats of ;illin, her and all /e/bers of her fa/il+. !ONTR"RG TO 7"H. -p. 0, Rollo.. "t his arrai,n/ent, appellant pleaded not ,uilt+. Thereupon, trial ensued. The relevant facts as presented b+ the prosecution are faithfull+ su//ari8ed in the brief sub/itted b+ the Solicitor 4eneral, to #it= On or about Nove/ber ', &((% at around ten oRcloc; in the evenin,, private co/plainant Marina 6er/anes, #ho at that ti/e #as ten -&). +ears old, #as in the house shared b+ appellant rnesto 6er/anes, her stepfather, and his #ife Mila,ros -p. A, TSN, 9ul+ '', &((0.. MarinaRs natural /other alread+ died -p. &1%, Records.. Marina further declared that she has been livin, #ith her stepfather, the appellant, and his #ife Mila,ros since she #as t#o -'. +ears old -p. A, TSN, 9ul+ '', &((0.. Marina #as l+in, in her bedroo/ #hen appellant entered and undressed her. "ppellant opened his trousers, placed hi/self on top of private co/plainant, and successfull+ inserted his or,an -KsiliR. into her va,ina -KpipiK., Marina felt pain -p. *, ibid... Thereafter, appellant /ade a push and pull /otion for <uite so/e ti/e -p. (, ibid... 6avin, satisfied hi/self, appellant stood up, closed his trousers and left Marina alone to attend to his carabao -pp. &&)5&&, ibid...1/%phi1.n0t The follo#in, da+ at ei,ht -*. oRcloc; in the /ornin,, Marina proceeded to the house of Soltero Salubre, a ?a,a#ad of their baran,a+ at that ti/e, and told hi/ that her father, rnesto 6er/anes, raped her, and has raped her t#ice before the incident of Nove/ber ', &((% -pp. A, &', TSN, 9anuar+ &$, &((*.. 2ecause of said co/plaint, Salubre brou,ht Marina to the Depart/ent of Social Helfare and Develop/ent -DSHD. Office in Sta. Rita, Sa/ar -p. (, ibid... Marina has since been in the custod+ of the DSHD 6o/e for 4irls -"bused. !hildren,

7in,ap !enter, Palo, 7e+te -p. %, TSN, 9ul+ '', &((0.. -pp. $5%, "ppelleeRs 2rief.. On Nove/ber $, &((%, or ' da+s after the rape, Marina #as ph+sicall+ e3a/ined b+ the Municipal 6ealth Officer of Sta. Rita, Dra. Rusela 4rapa. Marina #as found to have h+/enal lacerations at the 1 and 0 oRcloc; positions, #hich, accordin, to Dra. 4rapa could have been caused b+ the insertion of /ale or,an -tsn, Nove/ber &&, &((A, p. %.. Moreover, on direct e3a/ination, Dra. 4rapa testified that these lacerations #ere Kfresh.K P= Hhen +ou e3a/ined the patient, #hat #as then the nature of the lacerationsV Ne# or healin,V "= It #as a fresh healin, laceration. It #as fresh but startin, to heal. P= "= P= "= P= "= If these lacerations #ere fresh but healin,, can +ou esti/ate the ti/e of the incidentV Ges. "nd fro/ +our da+ of e3a/ination, #hen could have the incident happenedV 2et#een '$ to $* hours. This Ges. -tsn, "u,ust &$, &((0, p. &)5&&.. "s the prosecution #as about to call its last #itness on 9anuar+ &$, &((*, appellant, throu,h counsel, /anifested his desire to #ithdra# his previous plea of not ,uilt+ and to chan,e the sa/e to a plea of ,uilt+. The trial court allo#ed hi/ to do so. Thus, appellant #as re5arrai,ned and, #ith the aid of his counsel, he subse<uentl+ pleaded ,uilt+ to the cri/e char,ed -Record, p. *A.. The chan,e in plea not#ithstandin,, the prosecution continued #ith the presentation of its last #itness in order to establish appellantRs ,uilt and precise de,ree of culpabilit+ <ibid.=. Thereafter, on 9ul+ &$, &((*, appellant, throu,h ne# counsel "tt+. Mario Nicolasora, filed a /anifestation in court den+in, that he #anted to chan,e his ori,inal plea of not ,uilt+ to ,uilt+. !onse<uentl+, the trial court ordered the #ithdra#al of appellantRs earlier plea of ,uilt+ and the reversion of his plea to not ,uilt+ <ibid." p. &)$.. "t the subse<uent hearin, set on "u,ust &', &((*, the defense #as to present appellant as its #itness. Instead of so doin,, "tt+. Nicolasora as;ed that the presentation of evidence for the defense be deferred and that appellant be allo#ed to prove into3ication, de,ree of instruction and education, and the lac; of intent to do so ,rave a #ron, as that co//itted, in order to /iti,ate his liabilit+, all for the purpose of convincin, the trial court to reco//end to the Office of the President the ,rant of e3ecutive cle/enc+ <ibid." p. &)0.. On "u,ust &$, &((*, appellant, throu,h counsel, filed a /anifestation ad/ittin, responsibilit+ for the Nove/ber ', &((% rape, and as;ed for for,iveness fro/ co/plainant and the public in ,eneral. 7i;e#ise, appellant /anifested that he #ould present evidence to prove certain /iti,atin, circu/stances in his favor and reiterated his re<uest for the trial court to reco//end e3ecutive cle/enc+ -ibid." p. &)*.. 6o#ever, despite havin, been ,iven a/ple opportunit+ to prove supposed /iti,atin, circu/stances, appellant ine3plicabl+ defaulted thereat, and ,iven the lon, dela+ that had attended the hearin, of the case for the defense, the trial court #as constrained, on Dece/ber '&, &((*, to consider the defense as havin, #aived its ri,ht to present evidence. The case #as thus considered sub/itted for final resolution. laceration, #as this caused b+ se3ual intercourseV

On March &(, &(((, the trial court rendered its decision convictin, appellant. The dispositive part of the decision states= IN VI H OF T6 FOR 4OIN4, findin, the accused 4uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the heinous cri/e of rapin, his o#n &)5+ear5old stepdau,hter Marina 6er/anes throu,h the conclusive evidences presented b+ the prosecution as #ell as his ad/ission of the sa/e throu,h his counsel, he is hereb+ sentenced to suffer the e3tre/e penalt+ of D "T6. 6o#ever, ta;in, into consideration the underl+in, circu/stances herein as above pointed out, the !ourt hereb+ reco//ends the ,rantin, of 3ecutive !le/enc+ to the said accused. >pon pro/ul,ation of the above, let the record herein be for#arded to the 6onorable Supre/e !ourt for auto/atic revie#. SO ORD R D. -pp. '15'$, Rollo.. "ppellant assails the trial court on the sole issue of the i/position of the penalt+ of death. The case bein, one on auto/atic revie#, the !ourt undertoo; an e3a/ination and scrutin+ of the evidentiar+ record, and on the basis thereof, it no# affir/s the trial courtRs findin, of ,uilt. The prevailin, rule is that the testi/on+ of rape victi/s #ho are +oun, and i//ature deserves full credence -People vs. 1ernalde(" '($ S!R" 1&0 E&((*F.. The !ourtRs attention has not been called to an+ dubious reason or i/proper /otive on the part of Marina that #ould have i/pelled her to char,e and testif+ falsel+ a,ainst appellant in re,ard to so heinous a cri/e as rape. Hhere no co/pellin, and co,ent reason is established that #ould e3plain #h+ the co/plainant #as so driven as to blindl+ i/plicate an accused, the testi/on+ of a +oun, ,irl of havin, been the victi/ of a se3ual assault cannot be discarded -People vs. Abella" 1&% S!R" 1A E&(((F.. The evidence establishes be+ond reasonable doubt the ,uilt of appellant. The testi/on+ of co/plainant is plain, strai,htfor#ard, and positive. Hith clarit+ and candor, co/plainant recounted the /anner in #hich she #as raped b+ appellant, vi(J P= O;e+, do +ou recall #here #ere +ou on Nove/ber ', &((% at about &)=)) oRcloc; in the evenin,V "= Ges, sir. P= "= P= "= Hhere #ere I #as in the house. +ou then, if +ou can recallV

"nd #here is this house of +ours located that +ou are referrin, toV 2r,+. Mali,a+a, Sta. Rita, Sa/ar. 333 333 333

P= Hhile +ou #ere there in +our house that evenin, do +ou recall of an+ incident that occurred to +ouV "= Ges, sir. P= "= P= "= P= "= "nd #hat is That ni,ht I #as undressed. 2+ rnesto 6er/anes. this incident #ere that occurred +ou to +ouV

#ho/

undressedV

Hhere #ere +ou then particularl+ inside the house #hen +ou #ere undressedV I #as in the bedroo/.

P= "= P= "= P= he "= P= "= P= "= P= "= P= "= P= "= P= "= P= "= P= "= P= "= P= "= P= "= P= "=

6o# did 6e placed hi/self on top of /e. Hhat #ere I #as #earin, a dress. +ou

rnesto #earin,

6er/anes then if

undress +ou can

+ouV recallV

"fter this rnesto 6er/anes undressed +ou and placed hi/self on top of +ou, #hat did do to +ou ne3tV 6e se3uall+ abused /e. 2+ se3ual abuse, #hat did he 6e placed his sili -or,an. inside /+ pipi -va,ina.. Do +ou ;no# 6ere -Hitness pointin, bet#een her le,s.. #here actuall+ is do +our to +ouV pipiV

Hhen rnesto 6er/anes put inside his or,an to +our or,an, #hat did +ou feelV It #as ver+ painful. Do Ges, sir. +ou ;no# 333 #hat 333 do 333 +ou /ean b+ siliK

Hhen his penis #as alread+ inside +our va,ina, #hat did rnesto 6er/anes do to +ouV 6e did it a,ain. Hhat do +ou I do not ;no# ho# to call it. "s +ou #ere -No ans#er. feelin, /ean the b+ pain, place sa+in,, #hat his did penis inside he +ou did do it ne3t +our va,ina if a,ainV an+V va,inaV lon,V

For ho# lon, did he It #as (=)) oRcloc; in the evenin,. Has Ges, sir. the penis of rnesto

inside +our

6er/anes

Did he /a;e an+ /ove/ent of his penis #hile it #as inside +our va,inaV Ges, sir. 6o#V -6e #as /a;in, a push and pull /otion as #itness indicated.. 6o# /an+ ti/es did rnesto 6er/anes do this se3ual abuse to +ou durin, that evenin,V One. -tsn, 9ul+ '', &((0, p. A5&)..

Prescindin, fro/ the above, and on the basis of the /anifestation filed b+ "tt+. Nicolasora on "u,ust &$, &((*, the trial court observed that appellant ad/itted havin, raped his stepdau,hter, statin, that Kit is onl+ in this case no# that the accused herein rnesto 6er/anes has ad/itted ,uilt, /anifestin, his desire to as; for for,iveness, and had practicall+ and #holl+ sub/itted hi/self to the discretion and co/passion of this !ourt -Decision, p. &)..K Said /anifestation, states in part= &. That after an e3haustin, conference #ith the accused, the latter infor/ed the undersi,ned that he cannot bear his conscience and he #ould li;e to state co/pletel+ in court the actual circu/stances of the rape that transpired on Nove/ber ', &((% at about &)=)) oRcloc; in the

evenin, at 2aran,a+ Mali,a+a, Sta. Rita, Sa/arJ 333 333 333 1. That he is no# re/orseful and he believes that b+ co/pletel+ statin, the truth he /a+ be for,iven b+ his foster dau,hter, Marina 6er/anes -rape victi/., his spouse and the public in ,eneralJ $. That the ,ist of the #ould be testi/on+ of the accused #ould sho# that durin, the rape incident he #as heavil+ into3icated and he and his foster dau,hter, Marina 6er/anes, #ere alone at their residenceJ %. That he #ill present the follo#in, /iti,atin, circu/stances in his favor, as follo#s= -a. into3icationJ -b. plea of ,uilt+J -c. the de,ree of instruction and education of the offenderJ and -d. that he had no intention to co//it so ,rave a #ron, as that co//itted. A. That he plead for the /erc+ and co/passion of the 6onorable !ourt that in the event the penalt+ prescribed b+ la# be /eted a,ainst hi/, he respectfull+ pleads to this court that it reco//ends e3ecutive cle/enc+ for his behalf. " perusal of the /anifestation filed b+ "tt+. Nicolasora on behalf of appellant sho#s that it #as si,ned onl+ b+ "tt+. Nicolasora, not by appellant. Hhile #e stated in People vs. 1alisoro -1)0 S!R" $* E&(((F. that an ad/ission /ade in the pleadin,s cannot be controverted b+ the part+ /a;in, such ad/ission and that the sa/e is conclusive as to hi/, it is also hornboo; doctrine that the authorit+ of an attorne+ to bind his client as to an+ ad/ission of facts /ade b+ hi/ is li/ited to /atters of :udicial procedure. "n ad/ission #hich operates as a #aiver, surrender, or destruction of the clientRs cause is be+ond the scope of the attorne+Rs i/plied authorit+ - People vs. Maceda" 01 Phil. A0( E&($'F.. In this case, "tt+. NicolasoraRs ad/ission that appellant #as heavil+ into3icated at the ti/e of the incident and that he had no intention to co//it so ,rave a #ron, as that co//itted practicall+ frittered a#a+ appellantRs case in favor of the prosecution. The /anifestation cannot thus be held as an ad/ission b+ appellant of his ,uilt. The inad/issibilit+ of "tt+. NicolasoraRs /anifestation not#ithstandin,, appellant nonetheless is still cri/inall+ liable for the rape of Marina 6er/anes. Hhile appellant is not bound b+ the /anifestation of ,uilt filed b+ "tt+. Nicolasora, he is still bound b+ the decision of the trial court to consider the case sub/itted for decision due to the inordinate dela+ and failure of his counsel to present evidence on his behalf. It /ust be noted that the prosecution co/pleted the presentation of its evidence on 9anuar+ &$, &((*, and that the defense #as ,iven nu/erous opportunities to present evidence but, for al/ost one +ear, and despite several #arnin,s to that effect, the+ failed to do so, so /uch so that the trial court, on Dece/ber '&, &((*, #as constrained to consider the case sub/itted for decision. " client is bound b+ an adverse decision rendered as a result of his attorne+Rs inaction or ne,li,ence, such as failure to present sufficient evidence. The reason for this is that the adverse :ud,/ent is a /ere conse<uence of an o/ission on a procedural /atter in re,ard to #hich an attorne+ has the i/plied authorit+ to bind his client. Too, the prosecution has /ore than sufficientl+ proven appellantRs ,uilt be+ond reasonable doubt.1/%phi1.n0t "ppellant, ho#ever, is correct in his sole sub/ission that he does not deserve the death penalt+. The cri/e of rape is punished under "rticle 11% of the Revised Penal !ode, as a/ended b+ Section && of Republic "ct No. 0A%( #hich pertinentl+ reads= The death penalt+ shall also be i/posed if the cri/e of rape is co//itted #ith an+ of the follo#in, attendant circu/stances= 3 3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

&. #hen the victi/ is under ei,hteen -&*. +ears of a,e and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step5parent, ,uardian, relative b+ consan,uinit+ or affinit+ #ithin the third civil de,ree, or the co//on5la# spouse of the parent of the victi/. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Su//ari8in, the recent rulin,s of the !ourt under the afore<uoted provision - People vs. Lomibao" 110 S!R" '&& E')))FJ People vs. Acala" 1)0 S!R" 11) E&(((FJ People vs. Ma lente" 1)A S!R" %$A E&(((F., the concurrence of the /inorit+ of the victi/ and her relationship to the offender constitute special <ualif+in, circu/stances and both factors /ust be alle,ed and proved #ith certaint+, other#ise, the death penalt+ cannot be i/posed. In the present case, #hile the infor/ation did state that appellant is the stepfather of the co/plainant, it, ho#ever, failed to /ention that co/plainant #as under &* +ears of a,e at the ti/e of the co//ission of the offense. "s such, the char,e of rape in the infor/ation is not in its <ualified for/ so as to fall under the special <ualif+in, circu/stances stated in Section && of Republic "ct No. 0A%(. Veril+, the infor/ationRs failure to alle,e the /inorit+ of the victi/ cancels out the i/position of the death penalt+. In addition to the failure of the infor/ation to alle,e the /inorit+ of the co/plainant, appellant also clai/s that the trial court erred in i/posin, the death penalt+ alle,edl+ because the step5father and step5dau,hter relationship bet#een appellant and the victi/ #as never conclusivel+ established. He dee/ it unnecessar+ to discuss this particular ar,u/ent in vie# of the previous dis<uisition that the death penalt+ cannot be i/posed for failure of the infor/ation to alle,e the /inorit+ of the co/plainant. There bein, no alle,ation of the /inorit+ of the victi/ in the indict/ent under #hich appellant #as arrai,ned, he cannot be convicted of <ualified rape as he #as not properl+ infor/ed that he is bein, accused of <ualified rape. "ppellantRs conviction of <ualified rape violates his constitutional ri,ht to be properl+ infor/ed of the nature and cause of accusation a,ainst hi/. 6avin, been apprised onl+ of the ele/ents of si/ple rape, #hich cri/e #as dul+ established b+ the prosecution, appellant can be convicted onl+ for such cri/e and accordin,l+ should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua. "s to the da/a,es, the trial court failed to a#ard civil inde/nit+ in favor of private co/plainant. Inas/uch as the death penalt+ is not i/posable in this case due to the deficienc+ in the alle,ations of the infor/ation a,ainst appellant, private co/plainant is onl+ entitled to P%),))).)) as civil inde/nit+, in accordance #ith current rulin,s -People vs. 1ares" 4.R. Nos. &100A'5A%, March '0, '))&J People vs. Lomibao" supra.. 7i;e#ise, appellant is liable to pa+ the rape victi/ the a/ount of P%),))).)) as /oral da/a,es, #hich is auto/aticall+ ,ranted in rape cases #ithout need of pleadin, or proof of the basis thereof - People vs. Alba" 1)% S!R" *&& E&(((F.. 9%ERE&ORE, the decision under revie# is hereb+ affir/ed #ith the /odifications that -a. appellant is found ,uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt onl+ of the cri/e of si/ple rape, for #hich he is sentenced to suffer the penalt+ of reclusion perpetuaI -b. that appellant is ordered to pa+ the victi/ the a/ount of Fift+ Thousand -P%),))).)). Pesos as civil inde/nit+ and Fift+ Thousand -P%),))).)). Pesos as /oral da/a,es. SO ORD R D.

2avide" #r." C.#." 1ellosillo" Puno" $itu " Eapunan" Mendo(a" Pan aniban" !uisumbin " 1uena" &nares?Santia o" 2e Leon" #r." Sandoval?@utierre(" and Carpio" ##." concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION G.R. Nos. 1621A0-A9 M-/ 5, 2006 PEOP$E O& T%E P%!$!PP!NES, Petitioner, vs. %ON. )UST!CE GREGOR' S. ONG, C6-*r+-0, &o5rt6 "*4*s*o0, S-0,*3-0b-/-0, -0, MRS. !ME$" R. M RCOS, Respondents. D ZCUN , J.: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition #ith pra+er for a te/porar+ restrainin, order andDor preli/inar+ in:unction see;in, to nullif+ and set aside the resolutions issued b+ public respondent 4re,or+ S. On,, "ssociate 9ustice and !hairperson of the Fourth Division of the Sandi,anba+an, in !ri/inal !ase Nos. &0'*0 to &0'(&, &(''% and ''*A0 to ''*0), specificall+= -&. The Resolution& dated October &%, '))1 den+in, the /otion for inhibition filed b+ petitioner People of the PhilippinesJ and, -'. The Resolution' dated Dece/ber 1), '))1 den+in, petitionerIs /otion for reconsideration. Petitioner li;e#ise pra+s that public respondent be per/anentl+ en:oined fro/ presidin, over the trial and sittin, in :ud,/ent in these ten consolidated cases a,ainst private respondent Ms. I/elda R. Marcos for violation of Section 1-h. of Republic "ct No. 1)&(, as a/ended, other#ise ;no#n as the "nti54raft and !orrupt Practices "ct. "t the outset, it /ust be noted that the above cases relate inti/atel+ to !ivil !ase No. )&$& -forfeiture case. arisin, fro/ the petition for forfeiture filed b+ the Presidential !o//ission on 4ood 4overn/ent on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines -Republic. to recover fro/ for/er President Ferdinand . Marcos and herein private respondent -collectivel+, respondents. funds alle,ed to be ill5,otten and deposited under different S#iss ban; accounts in the na/e of several forei,n foundations. The forfeiture case #as heard b+ the First Division of the Sandi,anba+an #hich, at that ti/e, #as co/posed of Presidin, 9ustice Francis . 4architorena as !hairperson #ith 9ustice !atalino R. !astaSeda and public respondent as re,ular /e/bers. In the Decision 1 dated Septe/ber &(, '))), the First Division ,ranted the RepublicIs /otion for su//ar+ :ud,/ent and declared the S#iss deposits held in the na/e of the various foundations as forfeited in the na/e of the ,overn/ent. 6o#ever, actin, upon the /otion for reconsideration filed b+ respondents, the Special First Division $ of the Sandi,anba+an reversed this decision in a Resolution % dated 9anuar+ 1&, '))' to #hich public respondent #rote a separate concurrin, opinion. The resolution #as later set aside b+ this !ourt in an en banc DecisionA dated 9ul+ &%, '))1 #hich has since attained finalit+. The records sho# that prior to consolidation, the cri/inal cases #ere bein, heard b+ the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Sandi,anba+an albeit the+ #ere at different sta,es of proceedin,s. In contrast to the four cases0 pendin, #ith the Fourth Division, trial on the /erits had alread+ be,un in the si3 cases* doc;eted #ith the Third Division. In fact, the prosecution had been in the course of presentin, its first #itness in the person of "tt+. Francisco I. !have8. It /ust be noted that on one occasion, public respondent had the opportunit+ to hear part of the testi/on+ of "tt+. !have8 ( #hen he #as desi,nated to sit as a special /e/ber of the Third Division.&) !ISION

"s previousl+ /entioned, and confor/abl+ to the Resolution && dated 9anuar+ ', '))1 issued b+ the Fourth Division, the cases #ere consolidated in the Third Division #hich, at that ti/e, #as chaired b+ 9ustice 4odofredo 7e,aspi. 9ustice 7e,aspi, ho#ever, recused hi/self on the ,round that private respondent #as one of the principal sponsors in his sonIs #eddin,. "s a result, the cases #ere sub/itted for re5raffle to another division. Petitioner, actin, throu,h Special Prosecutor Hendell . 2arreras5Sulit, filed a Manifestation and Motion&' dated Februar+ '&, '))1 pra+in, that the cases be assi,ned to the First Division in lieu of the proposed re5raffle, considerin, that the chairperson thereof, 9ustice Teresita 9. 7eonardo5De !astro, #as alread+ fa/iliar #ith the cases.&1 This /anifestationD/otion, thou,h, #as rendered /oot #hen the cases #ere actuall+ raffled to the Fourth Division chaired b+ public respondent. Nonetheless, prior to the issuance of the Resolution &$ dated October &%, '))1 den+in, petitionerIs /anifestationD/otion, Prosecutor Sulit personall+ /et #ith public respondent in the latterIs office so/eti/e in Februar+ '))1, purportedl+ to e3plain that the /anifestationD/otion #hich sou,ht that the cases be assi,ned to 9ustice De !astro #as not /eant to under/ine the capabilit+ of the other 9ustices of the Sandi,anba+an to tr+ the cases but #as /ainl+ because of 9ustice De !astroIs fa/iliarit+ #ith the/ and also to ensure the s/ooth flo# of proceedin,s. &% "ccordin, to Prosecutor Sulit, it #as at this :uncture that she and "tt+. lissa V. Rosales, the Fourth Division !ler; of !ourt #ho/ she re<uested to acco/pan+ her durin, her visit, heard public respondent sa+= "ctuall+, a+a# ;o sa ;ason, +an, idi5dis/iss ;o \+an, puro hearsa+ lan, na/an an, sinasabi ni !have8 non, u/upo a;o /insan sa trial n+o.&A Petitioner avers that public respondent even confir/ed at a later date to Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa5I,nacio that he issued that state/ent.&0 Perceivin, the re/ar; to be pre:udicial and revealin, a predisposition to dis/iss the cri/inal cases, petitioner /oved for the inhibition of public respondent. Petitioner also contends that public respondentIs apparent disli;e of "tt+. !have8 #ho is a ;e+ #itness for the prosecution, ta;en #ith his :udicial record&* of favorin, the Marcoses in the earlier forfeiture case, bolstered petitionerIs fear that the cri/inal cases #ould not be tried before an i/partial tribunal. The hostilit+ to#ards "tt+. !have8 #as purportedl+ evidenced b+ another state/ent /ade b+ public respondent in open court #hereb+ he e3pressed displeasure over the letter &( he received fro/ the for/er re<uestin, for the consolidation of the ten cases at a ti/e #hen these cases #ere still bein, separatel+ heard b+ the Third and Fourth Divisions. Public respondent #as li;e#ise alle,ed to have been overheard as sa+in, he did not li;e "tt+. !have8 because K/a+aban, +an.K ') In vie# of this, petitioner pra+ed that public respondent voluntaril+ inhibit hi/self fro/ hearin, the cases pursuant to Section &, Rule &10 of the Rules of !ourt. "s stated above, petitionerIs /otion for inhibition #as denied in a Resolution '& dated October &%, '))1 on the ,round that public respondent -&. has not pre:ud,ed the /erits of the consolidated cri/inal cases to favor private respondentJ -'. is not biased a,ainst or hostile to#ards petitionerIs principal #itness, "tt+. !have8J and -1. does not possess a :udicial trac; record of favorin, or pro/otin, the interests of private respondent. "fter the /otion for reconsideration of this resolution #as denied b+ public respondent in a Resolution'' dated Dece/ber 1), '))1, petitioner filed this present petition on the ,round that= Public respondent acted #ithout or in e3cess of :urisdiction and ,ravel+ abused his discretion a/ountin, to lac; or e3cess of :urisdiction #hen he D NI D PROS !>TOR S>7ITIS MOTION TO IN6I2IT 6IMS 7F FROM TRGIN4 T6 !"S S D SPIT T6 LIST N! OF !7 "R

S6OHIN4 OF 6IS 2I"S "ND P"RTI"7ITG IN F"VOR OF "!!>S D MRS. M"R!OS, 6IS 6OSTI7ITG TOH"RDS T6 PROS !>TION HITN SS "ND 6IS D T RMIN"TION TO DISMISS S"ID !"S S OF MRS. M"R!OS "S S RIO>S7G >TT R D 2G 6IM "77 4 D7G 2 !">S T6 T STIMONI S OF !6"V B "R P>R 6 "RS"G. '1 2+ #a+ of response, public respondent, in his !o//ent '$ dated "u,ust &1, '))$, denied havin, abused his discretion #hen he did not voluntaril+ inhibit hi/self fro/ the cri/inal cases and declared that he has not pre:ud,ed the cases in favor of private respondent or that he had an+thin, a,ainst petitionerIs principal #itness, "tt+. !have8. 6e further denied the factual alle,ations /entioned b+ petitioner in the /otion for inhibition, ta;in, particular e3ception to the i/putation that he /ade the controversial re/ar; #hen Prosecutor Sulit personall+ appeared before hi/ in his office so/eti/e in Februar+ '))1. "ccordin, to public respondent, Prosecutor Sulit #as allo#ed entr+ into his cha/bers on the da+ in <uestion onl+ upon her representation that her visit #ould be a purel+ social one. 6e #as thus dis/a+ed to learn that the actual purpose of Prosecutor SulitIs visit #as Kupon a pendin, :udicial /atter, in that she #anted to personall+ convince respondent 9ustice, as !hair/an of the Fourth Division, to transfer, assi,n or other#ise a,ree to transfer or assi,n, the consolidated I/elda R. Marcos cases directl+ to the First Division.K'% Hhile public respondent purportedl+ told Prosecutor Sulit he #ould not accede to her re<uest to transfer the cases, he also fir/l+ denied havin, issued the ob:ectionable state/ent. In disputin, the version ,iven b+ petitioner, public respondent cited the contents of the affidavit e3ecuted b+ "tt+. Rosales #ho disavo#ed that she #as present #hen the alle,ed state/ent #as /ade b+ public respondent. For her part, private respondent li;e#ise ar,ued for the dis/issal of the present case in her !o//ent 'A dated "u,ust '), '))$ on the ,round that petitioner K/iserabl+ failed to adduce facts or evidence indicatin, arbitrariness, bias or pre:udiceK on the part of public respondent. Section &, Rule &10 of the Rules of !ourt sets forth the rule on inhibition and dis<ualification of :ud,es, to #it= S !TION &. Dis<ualification of :ud,es. 5 No :ud,e or :udicial officer shall sit in an+ case in #hich he, or his #ife or child, is pecuniaril+ interested as heir, le,atee, creditor or other#ise, or in #hich he is related to either part+ #ithin the si3th de,ree of consan,uinit+ or affinit+, or to counsel #ithin the fourth de,ree, co/puted accordin, to the rules of civil la#, or in #hich he has been e3ecutor, ad/inistrator, ,uardian, trustee or counsel, or in #hich he has presided in an+ inferior court #hen his rulin, or decision is the sub:ect of revie#, #ithout the #ritten consent of all parties in interest, si,ned b+ the/ and entered upon the record. " :ud,e /a+, in the e3ercise of his sound discretion, dis<ualif+ hi/self fro/ sittin, in a case, for :ust or valid reasons other than those /entioned above. - /phasis supplied.. This rule enu/erates the specific ,rounds upon #hich a :ud,e /a+ be dis<ualified fro/ participatin, in a trial. It /ust be borne in /ind that the inhibition of :ud,es is rooted in the !onstitution, specificall+ "rticle III, the 2ill of Ri,hts, #hich ,uarantees that no person shall be held to ans#er for a cri/inal offense #ithout due process of la#. Due process necessaril+ re<uires that a hearin, is conducted before an i/partial and disinterested tribunal'0 because un<uestionabl+, ever+ liti,ant is entitled to nothin, less than the cold neutralit+ of an i/partial :ud,e. "ll the other ele/ents of due process, li;e notice and hearin,, #ould be /eanin,less if the ulti/ate decision #ould co/e fro/ a partial and biased :ud,e.'* Relevant to the present case is the second para,raph ,overnin, voluntar+ inhibition. 2ased on this provision, :ud,es have been ,iven the e3clusive prero,ative to recuse the/selves fro/ hearin, cases for reasons other than those pertainin, to their pecuniar+ interest, relation, previous connection, or

previous rulin,s or decisions. The issue of voluntar+ inhibition in this instance beco/es pri/aril+ a /atter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the :ud,e. '( It is a sub:ective test the result of #hich the revie#in, tribunal #ill ,enerall+ not disturb in the absence of an+ /anifest findin, of arbitrariness and #hi/sicalit+. This discretion ,ranted to trial :ud,es ta;es co,ni8ance of the fact that these :ud,es are in a better position to deter/ine the issue of voluntar+ inhibition as the+ are the ones #ho directl+ deal #ith the parties5liti,ants in their courtroo/s.1) Nevertheless, it /ust be e/phasi8ed that the authorit+ for voluntar+ inhibition does not ,ive :ud,es unli/ited discretion to decide #hether or not the+ #ill desist fro/ hearin, a case.1& The decision on #hether or not :ud,es should inhibit the/selves /ust be based on their rational and lo,ical assess/ent of the circu/stances prevailin, in the cases brou,ht before the/.1' Si/ilarl+, the ri,ht of a part+ to see; the inhibition or dis<ualification of a :ud,e #ho does not appear to be #holl+ free, disinterested, i/partial and independent in handlin, the case /ust be balanced #ith the latterIs sacred dut+ to decide cases #ithout fear of repression. 11 The /ovant /ust therefore prove the ,round of bias and pre:udice b+ clear and convincin, evidence to dis<ualif+ a :ud,e fro/ participatin, in a particular trial. The !ourt no# addresses the particulars of the present case. The pri/ar+ evidence relied upon b+ petitioner to substantiate its clai/ that public respondent has pre:ud,ed the cri/inal cases is the re/ar; attributed to hi/ b+ Prosecutor Sulit #hich purportedl+ sho#ed his predisposition to dis/iss the cri/inal cases based lar,el+ on his characteri8ation of "tt+. !have8Is testi/on+ as bein, hearsa+. Hhether the re/ar; #as actuall+ /ade, ho#ever, is disputed and petitioner /a+ indeed not have adduced evidence to the de,ree of certaint+ re<uired. Nevertheless, there re/ain the declarations /ade b+ Prosecutor Sulit and Special Prosecutor Villa5 I,nacio. These declarations unavoidabl+ cast doubt on public respondentIs i/partialit+ in decidin, these ver+ critical cases before his !ourt. So #hile it /a+ not be sufficient as a ,round to co/pel hi/ to inhibit hi/self, it should have been considered b+ hi/, as an+ trul+ circu/spect and prudent person #ould, as sufficient ,round for hi/ to voluntaril+ inhibit hi/self fro/ considerin, the cases. For :ud,es /ust be li;e !aesarIs #ife N above suspicion. Further/ore, #hile it is settled principle that opinions for/ed in the course of :udicial proceedin,s, based on the evidence presented and conduct observed b+ the :ud,e, do not prove personal bias or pre:udice on the part of the :ud,e,1$ the situation involved in this case relates to an e3tra:udicial re/ar; or co//ent and not one in the course of the proceedin,s. PetitionerIs second contention is that public respondent has a :udicial record favorin, private respondent. Nor/all+, bias or partialit+ cannot be inferred fro/ the fact that a :ud,e ruled in favor of a part+ in a previous case. Hhen ta;en to,ether, ho#ever, #ith an e3tra:udicial re/ar; sho#in, bias a,ainst a ;e+ #itness, public respondent should have voluntaril+ declined to participate in the cases. For it is essential that the people continue to trust in the fairness and i/partialit+ of our /a,istrates, particularl+ in sensitive cases #ith far5reachin, conse<uences. Public respondent is re/inded of the principle that :ud,es should avoid not :ust i/propriet+ in their conduct but even the /ere appearance of i/propriet+1% for appearance is an essential /anifestation of realit+.1A In insulatin, the 2ench fro/ un#arranted criticis/, thus preservin, a de/ocratic #a+ of life, it is essential that :ud,es be above suspicion. 10 It bears stressin, that the dut+ of :ud,es is not onl+ to ad/inister :ustice but also to conduct the/selves in a /anner that #ould avoid an+ suspicion of irre,ularit+.1* This arises fro/ the avo#ed dut+ of /e/bers of the bench to pro/ote confidence in the

:udicial s+ste/. Occup+in, as the+ do an e3alted position in the ad/inistration of :ustice, :ud,es /ust pa+ a hi,h price for the honor besto#ed upon the/. 6ence, an+ act #hich #ould ,ive the appearance of i/propriet+ beco/es, of itself, reprehensible.1( 9%ERE&ORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GR NTE" and public respondent is "!RECTE" to recuse hi/self fro/ participatin, in the !ri/inal !ases Nos. &0'*0 to &0'(&, &(''% and ''*A0 to ''*0) of the Sandi,anba+an. No costs. SO OR"ERE". "O$&O S. ZCUN "ssociate 9ustice 9E CONCUR@ -On 7eave. RE'N TO S. PUNO "ssociate 9ustice !hairperson NGE$!N S N"O( $-GUT!ERREZ "ssociate 9ustice "ctin, !hairperson C NC!O C. G RC! "ssociate 9ustice "TT ST"T I O N REN TO C. CORON "sscociate 9ustice

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision #ere reached in consultation before the cases #ere assi,ned to the #riter of the opinion of the !ourtIs Division. NGE$!N S N"O( $-GUT!ERREZ "ssociate 9ustice "ctin, !hairperson, Second Division ! RT I F I !"T I O N Pursuant to Section &1, "rticle VIII of the !onstitution and the Division "ctin, !hairpersonIs "ttestation, it is hereb+ certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the cases #ere assi,ned to the #riter of the opinion of the !ourtIs Division. RTEM!O (. P NG N!# N !hief 9ustice &oot0otes
& ' 1

Rollo, pp. A05*(. 3d. at ()5&'1. 3d. at $A)5$*(.

$ "t

that ti/e, the Special First Division #as co/posed of the /e/bers of the First Division as #ell as 9ustice Nicode/o T. Ferrer and 9ustice Francisco Villaru8, 9r.

% A 0 * (

Rollo, pp. '&15'1). Republic v. Sandi anbayan" 4.R. No. &%'&%$, 9ul+ &%, '))1, $)A S!R" &(). !ri/inal !ase Nos. ''*A0 to ''*0). !ri/inal !ase Nos. &0'*0 to &0'(& and &(''%. Rollo, pp. 'A05'A*.

&)

Public respondent filled in for 9ustice Ricardo M. Ilarde #ho #as unable to attend the trial or participate in the deliberations of the Third Division on Nove/ber &A, '))&.
&& &' &1

Rollo, pp. &1%5&10. 3d. at &$)5&$'.

9ustice De !astro #as a for/er /e/ber of the Third Division #hich ori,inall+ tried si3 of the ten cri/inal cases a,ainst private respondent.
&$ &% &A &0 &*

Rollo, pp.&$A5&$0. 3d. at &&. 3bid. 3d. at '&)5'&'.

In support of this alle,ation, petitioner cites the fact that -&. public respondent chan,ed his position in the forfeiture case and #rote a separate concurrin, opinion favorin, the respondentsJ and -'. public respondent concurred in ,rantin, private respondentIs Motion to Travel dated Septe/ber 1, '))1 to the >nited States and urope. -See rollo, pp. &A&5&A1, &*1..
&( ') '& '' '1 '$ '% 'A '0 '*

Rollo, pp. ')05')(. 3d. at &15&$. Rollo, pp. A05*(. 3d. at ()5&'1. Rollo, pp. '*5'(. 3d. at '%%5%)'. 3d. at '*). Rollo, pp. 'A%5'0%. @utierre( v. Santos, 4.R. No. 75&%*'$, Ma+ 1), &(A&, ' S!R" '$(.

Rallos v. @a4o, ".M. Nos. RT95((5&$*$ and RT95((5&$*$ -"., March &0, '))), 1'* S!R" 1'$.
'( 1) 1& 1'

Latorre v. Ansaldo" A.M. No. R8#?++?1B.," May ,1" :++1" ,B; SCRA ,11. @utan v. CA, 1%$ Phil. 00 -&((*.. People v. Eho, 4.R. No. &1(1*&, "pril '), '))&, 1%0 S!R" '(). @acayan v. Pamintuan, ".M. No. RT95((5&$*1, Septe/ber &0, &(((, 1&$ S!R" A*'.

11 Lebb 1$ Lebb 1%

v. People, 4.R. No. &'0'A', 9ul+ '$, &((0, '0A S!R" '$1. v. People, supra note 11.

San #uan vs. 1a alacsa, 4.R. No. ".M. No. RT95(05&1(%, Dece/ber '', &((0, '*1 S!R" $&A.
1A 10

7spiritu v. #ovellanos, ".M. MT95(05&&1(, October &A, &((0, '*) S!R" %0(.

Concerned 7mployees of the R8C of 2a upan City v. Galloran?Aliposa , ".M. No. RT95((5 &&$A, March (, '))), '10 S!R" $'0.
1* 1(

Contreras v. Solis, ".M. No. RT95($5&'AA, "u,ust '&, &((A, 'A) S!R" %0'. Concerned 7mployees of the R8C of 2a upan City v. Galloran?Aliposa, supra note 10.