Crim Pro 1 Cases

8/10/2019 Crim Pro 1 Cases

1/54

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 115407 August 28, 1995

MIGUEL P. PADERANGA, petitioner,vs.COURT O APPEALS !"# PEOPLE O T$E P$ILIPPINES, respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

he adverse decision in this case pro!ul"ated b# respondent Court of $ppeals in C$%&.R. SP No. '(('' onNove!ber (), *++', as ell as its resolution of $pril (-, *++) den#in" the !otion for reconsideration thereof, arechallen"ed b# petitioner Mi"uel P. Paderan"a in this appeal b# certiorari throu"h a petition hich raises issues

centerin" !ainl# on said petitioners ri"ht to be ad!itted to bail.

On /anuar# (0, *++1, petitioner as belatedl# char"ed in an a!ended infor!ation as a co%conspirator in thecri!e of !ultiple !urder in Cri!inal Case No. 0-%'+ of the Re"ional rial Court, 2ranch *0 of Ca"a#an de OroCit# for the 3illin" of !e!bers of the 2uca" fa!il# so!eti!e in *+0) in &in"oo" Cit# of hich petitioner as the!a#or at the ti!e. he ori"inal infor!ation, filed on October -, *+0- ith the Re"ional rial Court of &in"oo"Cit#,1had initiall# indicted for !ultiple !urder ei"ht accused suspect, na!el#, 4elipe &alarion, Manuel SabitCesar Sabit, /ulito $!po, Eddie orion, /ohn Doe, Peter Doe $nd Richard Doe as the alle"ed conspirators in theindiscri!inate sla#in" of the spouses Ro!eo and /uliet 2uca" and their son, Ro!eo, /r. 5oever, onl# one of theaccused, 4elipe &alarion, as apprehended, tried and eventuall# convicted. &alarion later escaped fro! prison.he others have re!ained at lar"e up to the present. 2

In a bi6arre tist of events, one 4eli6ardo 78El#89 Ro:as as i!plicated in the cri!e. In an a!ended infor!ation

dated October -, *+00, he as char"ed as a co%accused therein. $s herein petitioner as his for!er e!plo#erand thus 3ne hi! ell, Ro:as en"a"ed the for!ers services as counsel in said case. Ironicall#, in the course ofthe preli!inar# investi"ation therein, said accused, in a si"ned affidavit dated March '1, *+0+ but hich he laterretracted on /une (1, *++1, i!plicated petitioner as the supposed !aster!ind behind the !assacre of the 2uca"fa!il#.%

hen, upon the inhibition of the Cit# Prosecutor of Ca"a#an de Oro Cit# fro! the case per his resolution of /ul# ;*+0+, the Depart!ent of /ustice, at the instance of said prosecutor, desi"nated a replace!ent, State Prosecutor5enric3 4. &in"o#on, for purposes of both the preli!inar# investi"ation and prosecution of Cri!inal Case No. 0-%'+. Pursuant to a resolution of the ne prosecutor dated Septe!ber -, *+0+, petitioner as finall# char"ed as aco%conspirator in said cri!inal case in a second a!ended infor!ation dated October -, *++(. Petitioner assailedhis inclusion therein as a co%accused all the a# to this Court in &.R. No. +-101 entitled 8$tt#. Mi"uel P.Paderan"a vs. 5on. 4ran3lin M. Drilon, 5on. Silvestre 5. 2ello III, $tt#. 5enric3 4. &in"o#on, 5elen 2. Cano# and

Rebecca 2. an.8 In an en banc decision pro!ul"ated on $pril *+, *++*, the Court sustained the filin" of thesecond a!ended infor!ation a"ainst hi!.4

a!in &ui!on". On Nove!ber =, *++(, the trial court proceeded tohear the application for bail. 4our of petitioners counsel appeared in court but onl# $ssistant Prosecutor Erlindo

$be>o of the Re"ional State Prosecutions Office appeared for the prosecution.5

$s petitioner as then confined at the Ca"a#an Capitol Colle"e &eneral 5ospital due to 8acute costochondritis,8his counsel !anifested that the# ere sub!ittin" custod# over the person of their client to the local chapter


2/54

president of the inte"rated 2ar of the Philippines and that, for purposes of said hearin" of his bail application, heconsidered bein" in the custod# of the la. Prosecutor $be>o, on the other hand, infor!ed the trial court that inaccordance ith the directive of the chief of their office, Re"ional State prosecutor /esus ?o6obrado, theprosecution as neither supportin" nor opposin" the application for bail and that the# ere sub!ittin" the sa!e tothe sound discretion of the trail >ud"e.&

o announced that he as aivin" an# furtherpresentation of evidence. On that note and in a resolution dated Nove!ber =, *++(, the trial court ad!ittedpetitioner to bail in the a!ount of P(11,111.11. he folloin" da#, Nove!ber -, *++(, petitioner, apparentl# stil

ea3 but ell enou"h to travel b# then, !ana"ed to personall# appear before the cler3 of court of the trial courtand posted bail in the a!ount thus fi:ed. 5e as thereafter arrai"ned and in the trial that ensued, he alsopersonall# appeared and attended all the scheduled court hearin"s of the case. 7

he subse@uent !otion for reconsideration of said resolution filed tent# 7(19 da#s later on Nove!ber (-, *++( b#Prosecutor &in"o#on ho alle"edl# received his cop# of the petition for ad!ission to bail on the da# after the hearin",as denied b# the trial court in its o!nibus order dated March (+, *++'. On October *, *++', or !ore than si: 7-9 !onthslater, Prosecutor &in"o#on elevated the !atter to respondent Court of $ppeals throu"h a special civil action for certiorarihus ere the resolution and the order of the trial court "rantin" bail to petitioner annulled on Nove!ber (), *++', in thedecision no under revie, on the "round that the# ere tainted ith "rave abuse of discretion.8

Respondent court observed in its decision that at the ti!e of petitioners application for bail, he as not #et 8in thecustod# of the la,8 apparentl# because he filed his !otion for ad!ission to bail before he as actuall# arrested

or had voluntaril# surrendered. It further noted that apart fro! the circu!stance that petitioner as char"ed ith acri!e punishable b# reclusion perpetua, the evidence of "uilt as stron" as borne out b# the fact that no bail asreco!!ended b# the prosecution, for hich reasons it held that the "rant of bail as doubl# i!provident. Aastl#,the prosecution, accordin" to respondent court, as not afforded an opportunit# to oppose petitioners applicationfor bail contrar# to the re@uire!ents of due process. 5ence, this appeal.

Petitioner ar"ues that, in accordance ith the rulin" of this Court in Santiago vs.Vasquez etc.,et al.,9his filin" othe aforesaid application for bail ith the trial court effectivel# conferred on the latter >urisdiction over his person.In short, for all intents and purposes, he as in the custod# of the la. In petitioners ords, the 8invocation b# theaccused of the courts >urisdiction b# filin" a pleadin" in court is sufficient to vest the court ith >urisdiction over theperson of the accused and brin" hi! ithin the custod# of the la.8

Petitioner "oes on to contend that the evidence on record ne"ates the e:istence of such stron" evidence as

ould bar his provisional release on bail. 4urther!ore, the prosecution, b# reason of the aiver b# Prosecutor$be>o of an# further presentation of evidence to oppose the application for bail and hose representation in courtin behalf of the prosecution bound the latter, cannot le"all# assert an# clai! to a denial of procedural due process.4inall#, petitioner points out that the special civil action for certiorarias filed in respondent court after anun>ustifiable len"th of ti!e.

On the undisputed facts , the le"al principles applicable and the e@uities involved in this case, the Court finds forpetitioner.

*. Section * of Rule **), as a!ended, defines bail as the securit# "iven for the release of a person in custod# ofthe la, furnished b# hi! or a bonds!an, conditioned upon his appearin" before an# court as re@uired under theconditions specified in said Rule. Its !ain purpose, then, is to relieve an accused fro! the ri"ors of i!prison!entuntil his conviction and #et secure his appearance at the trial. 10$s bail is intended to obtain or secure ones

provisional libert#, the sa!e cannot be posted before custod# over hi! has been ac@uired b# the >udiciaauthorities, either b# his laful arrest or voluntar# surrender.11$s this Court has put it in a case 8it ould beincon"ruous to "rant bail to one ho is free.812

he rationale behind the rule is that it discoura"es and prevents resort to the for!er pernicious practice hereb#an accused could >ust send another in his stead to post his bail, ithout reco"ni6in" the >urisdiction of the court b#his personal appearance therein and co!pliance ith the re@uire!ents therefor.1%hus, inFelicianovs.Pasicolan, etc.,et al.,14here the petitioner ho had been char"ed ith 3idnappin" ith !urder ent intohidin" ithout surrenderin" hi!self, and shortl# thereafter filed a !otion as3in" the court to fi: the a!ount of thebail bond for his release pendin" trial, the Supre!e Court cate"oricall# pronounced that said petitioner as noteli"ible for ad!ission to bail.


3/54

$s a para!ount re@uisite then, onl# those persons ho have either been arrested, detained, or other isedeprived of their freedo! ill ever have occasion to see3 the protective !antle e:tended b# the ri"ht to bail. heperson see3in" his provisional release under the auspices of bail need not even ait for a for!al co!plaint orinfor!ation to be filed a"ainst hi! as it is available to 8all persons8 15here the offense is bailable. he rule is, ofcourse, sub>ect to the condition or li!itation that the applicant is in the custody of the law.1&

On the other hand, a person is considered to be in the custod# of the la 7a9 hen he is arrested either b# virtueof a arrant of arrest issued pursuant to Section -, Rule **(, or b# arrantless arrest under Section =, Rule **'in relation to Section ;, Rule **( of the revised Rules on Cri!inal Procedure, or 7b9 hen he has voluntaril#

sub!itted hi!self to the >urisdiction of the court b# surrenderin" to the proper authorities.

17

in this li"ht, therulin", vis-a-vis the facts in Santiago vs.Vasquez, etc.,et al.,18should be e:plained.

In said case, the petitioner ho as char"ed before the Sandi"anba#an for violation of the $nti%&raft and CorruptPractices $ct, filed throu"h counsel hat purported to be an 8uries hich shesustained in a !a>or vehicular !ishap. Conse@uentl#, she e:pressl# sou"ht leave 8that she be considered ashavin" placed herself under the >urisdiction of 7the Sandi"anba#an9 for purposes of the re@uired trial and otherproceedin"s.8 On the basis of said ex-parte!otion and the peculiar circu!stances obtainin" in that incident, theSandi"anba#an authori6ed petitioner to post a cash bail bond for her provisional libert# ithout need of herpersonal appearance in vie of her ph#sical incapacit# and as a !atter of hu!ane consideration.

Bhen the Sandi"anba#an later issued a hold departure order a"ainst her, she @uestion the >urisdiction of that

court over her person in a recourse before this Court, on the "round that 8she neither been arrested nor has shevoluntaril# surrendered, aside fro! the fact that she has not validl# posted bail since she never personall#appeared before said court8 In re>ectin" her ar"u!ents, the Court held that she as clearl# estopped fro!assailin" the >urisdiction of the Sandi"anba#an for b# her on representations in the ur"ent ex parte!otion for baishe had earlier reco"ni6ed such >urisdiction. 4urther!ore, b# actuall# postin" a cash bail as accepted b# thecourt, she had effectivel# sub!itted to its >urisdiction over her person. Nonetheless, on the !atter of bail, theCourt too3 pains to reiterate that the sa!e cannot be posted before custod# of the accused has been ac@uired b#the >udicial authorities either b# his arrest or voluntar# surrender.

In the case of herein petitioner, it !a# be conceded that he had indeed filed his !otion for ad!ission to bailbefore he as actuall# and ph#sicall# placed under arrest. 5e !a#, hoever, at that point and in the factuaa!bience therefore, be considered as bein" constructivel# and le"all# under custod#. hus in the li3eisepeculiar circu!stance hich attended the filin" of his bail application ith the trail court, for purposes of the

hearin" thereof he should be dee!ed to have voluntaril# sub!itted his person to the custod# of the la and,necessaril#, to the >urisdiction of the trial court hich thereafter "ranted bail as pra#ed for. In fact, an arrest is!ade either b# actual restraint of the arrestee or !erel# by his subission to the custody of the person !a3in"the arrest.19he latter !ode !a# be e:e!plified b# the so%called 8house arrest8 or, in case of !ilitar# offenders,b# bein" 8confined to @uarters8 or restricted to the !ilitar# ca!p area.

It should be stressed herein that petitioner, throu"h his counsel, e!phaticall# !ade it 3non to the prosecutionand to the trail court durin" the hearin" for bail that he could not personall# appear as he as then confined at thenearb# Ca"a#an Capitol Colle"e &eneral 5ospital for acute costochondritis, and could not then obtain !edicaclearance to leave the hospital. he prosecution and the trial court, notithstandin" their e:plicit 3noled"e of thespecific hereabouts of petitioner, never lifted a fin"er to have the arrest arrant dul# served upon hi!. Certainl#it ould have ta3en but the sli"htest effort to place petitioner in the ph#sical custod# of the authorities, since heas then incapacitated and under !edication in a hospital bed >ust over a 3ilo!eter aa#, b# si!pl# orderin" his

confine!ent or placin" hi! under "uard.

he undeniable fact is that petitioner as b# then in the constructive custod# of the la. $pparentl#, both the trialcourt and the prosecutors a"reed on that point since the# never atte!pted to have hi! ph#sicall# restrainedhrou"h his la#ers, he e:pressl# sub!itted to ph#sical and le"al control over his person, firstl#, b# filin" theapplication for bail ith the trail court secondl#, b# furnishin" true infor!ation of his actual hereabouts and,!ore i!portantl#, b# une@uivocall# reco"ni6in" the >urisdiction of the said court. Moreover, hen it ca!e to his3noled"e that a arrant for his arrest had been issued, petitioner never !ade an# atte!pt or evinced an# intentto evade the clutches of the la or concealed his hereabouts fro! the authorities since the da# he as char"edin court, up to the sub!ission application for bail, and until the da# of the hearin" thereof.

$t the hearin", his counsel offered proof of his actual confine!ent at the hospital on account of an acute ail!enthich facts ere not at all contested as the# ere easil# verifiable. $nd, as a !anifestation of his "ood faith and


4/54

of his actual reco"nition of the authorit# of trial court, petitioners counsel readil# infor!ed the court that the# eresurrenderin" custod# of petitioner to the president of the Inte"rated 2ar of the Philippines, Misa!is OrientaChapter.20In other ords, the !otion for ad!ission to bail as filed not for the purpose or in the !anner of thefor!er practice hich the la proscribes for the bein" dero"ator# of the authorit# and >urisdiction of the courts, ashat had happened inFeliciano.here as here no intent or strate"# e!plo#ed to obtain bail in absentia andthereb# be able to avoid arrest should the application therefore be denied.

(. Section *', $rticle III of the Constitution la#s don the rule that before conviction, all indictees shall be alloed bail,e:cept onl# those char"ed ith offenses punishable b# reclusion perpetuahen the evidence of "uilt is stron". In

pursuance thereof, Section ) of Rule **), as a!ended, no provides that all persons in custod# shall, before convictionb# a re"ional trial court of an offense not punishable b# death, reclusion perpetuaor life i!prison!ent, be ad!itted to baias a !atter of ri"ht. he ri"ht to bail, hich !a# be aived considerin" its personal nature 21and hich, to repeat, arisesfro! the ti!e one is placed in the custod# of the la, sprin"s fro! the presu!ption of innocence accorded ever# accusedupon ho! should not be inflicted incarceration at the outset since after trial he ould be entitled to ac@uittal, unless his"uilt be established be#ond reasonable doubt. 22

hus, the "eneral rule is that prior to conviction b# the re"ional trial court of a cri!inal offense, an accused is entitled to bereleased on bail as a !atter of ri"ht, the present e:ceptions thereto bein" the instances here the accused is char"edith a capital offense or an offense punishable b# reclusion perpetua or life i!prison!ent2%and the evidence of "uilt isstron". ected to, fothese represent onl# hearsa# evidence, and thus are insufficient to establish the @uantu! of evidence that the lare@uires.%1

In this appeal, the prosecution assails hat it considers to be a violation of procedural due process hen the court beloalloed $ssistant Prosecutor Erlindo $be>o of the Re"ional State Prosecutors Office to appear in behalf of theprosecution, instead of State Prosecutor 5enric3 P. &in"o#on ho is clai!ed to be the sole "overn!ent prosecutore:pressl# authori6ed to handle the case and ho received his cop# of the !otion onl# on the da# after the hearin" hadbeen conducted. $ccordin"l#, the prosecution no insists that Prosecutor $be>o had no authorit# at all to aive thepresentation of an# further evidence in opposition to the application for bail and to sub!it the !atter to the sounddiscretion of the trial court. In addition, the# ar"ue that the prosecution as not afforded 8reasonable ti!e8 to oppose thatapplication for bail.

Be disa"ree. 4irstl#, it is undisputed that the Office of the Re"ional State Prosecutor acted as the collaboratin" counsel,ith State Prosecutor 5enric3 &in"o#on, in Cri!inal Case No. 0-%'+ on the basis of an authorit# fro! then Chief StateProsecutor 4ernando de Aeon hich as sent throu"h radio !essa"e on /ul# *1, *++( and dul# received b# the Office ofthe Re"ional State Prosecutor on the sa!e date. his authori6ation, hich as to be continuin" until and unless it ase:pressl# ithdran, as later confir!ed and then ithdran onl# on /ul# *(, *++' b# then Secretar# of /ustice 4ran3linM. Drilon. his as done after one Rebecca 2uca"%tan @uestioned the authorit# of Re"ional State Prosecutor /esus?o6obrado and State Prosecutor II Erlindo $be>o to enter their appearance as collaboratin" "overn!ent prosecutors insaid cri!inal case.%2It as in fact b# virtue of this arran"e!ent that the sa!e Prosecutor ?o6obrado and ProsecutorPerseverando $rana entered their appearance as collaboratin" prosecutor in the previous hearin" in said case. %%5enceon the stren"th of said authorit# and of its receipt of the notice of the hearin" for bail, the Re"ional State ProsecutorsOffice, throu"h Prosecutor $be>o, could validl# represent the prosecution in the hearin" held on Nove!ber =, *++(.


5/54

Secondl#, althou"h it is no clai!ed that Prosecutor $be>o as alle"edl# not fa!iliar ith the case, henonetheless as e:plicitl# instructed about the position of the Re"ional State Prosecutors Office on the !atterProsecutor ?o6obrado, hose office received its cop# of the !otion on the ver# da# hen it as sent, that is,October (0, *++(, dul# instructed Prosecutor $be>o to !anifest to the court that the prosecution as neithersupportin" nor opposin" the application for bail and that the# ere sub!ittin" the !atter to its sound discretion.Obviousl#, hat this !eant as that the prosecution, at that particular posture of the case, as aivin" thepresentation of an# countervailin" evidence. Bhen the courta quosou"ht to ascertain hether or not that as thereal i!port of the sub!ission b# Prosecutor $be>o, the latter readil# ansered in the affir!ative.

he folloin" e:chan"es bear this out

PROSECust noour 5onor.

CO


6/54

co!!ittin" a "ross error or a dereliction of dut#, the court, in the interest of /ustice, !ust in@uire fro! theprosecutor concerned as the nature of his evidence to deter!ine hether or not it is stron". $nd, in the ver#recent ad!inistrative !atter %eFirst &ndorseent $ated 'uly (), )**( of !on.Fernando de +eon,hief StateProsecutor, $epartent of 'usticelicia ..aylon, ity Prosecutor of $agupan ity vs.'udge $eodoroSison, %&the Court, citin" "ucay vs.$oagas, etc.,%7held that here the prosecutor interposes no ob>ection tothe !otion of the accused, the trial court should nevertheless set the application for hearin" and fro! theredili"entl# ascertain fro! the prosecution hether the latter is reall# not contestin" the bail application.

No irre"ularit#, in the conte:t of procedural due process, could therefore be attributed to the trial court here as

re"ards its order "rantin" bail to petitioner. $ revie of the transcript of the steno"raphic notes pertinent to itsresolution of Nove!ber =, *++( and the o!nibus order of March (+, *++' abundantl# reveals scrupulousadherence to procedural rules. $s su!!ari6ed in its afore!entioned order, the loer court e:hausted all !eansto convince itself of the propriet# of the aiver of evidence on the part of the prosecution. Moreover, the o!nibusorder contained the re@uisite su!!ar# of the evidence of both the prosecution and the defense, and onl# aftersiftin" throu"h the! did the court conclude that petitioner could be provisionall# released on bail. Parentheticall#,there is no shoin" that, since then and up to the present, petitioner has ever co!!itted an# violation of theconditions of his bail.

$s to the contention that the prosecutor as not "iven the opportunit# to present its evidence ithin a reasonableperiod of ti!e, e hold otherise. he records indicate that the Re"ional State Prosecutors Office dul# receivedits cop# of the application for bail on the ver# sa!e da# that the it as filed ith the trial court on October (0,*++(. Counted fro! said date up to the da# of the hearin" on Nove!ber =, *++(, the prosecution had !ore thanone 7*9 ee3 to !uster such evidence as it ould have anted to adduce in that hearin" in opposition to the!otion. Certainl#, under the circu!stances, that period as !ore than reasonable. he fact that Prosecutor&in"o#on received his cop# of the application onl# on Nove!ber -, *++( is beside the point for, as alread#established, the Office of the Re"ional State Prosecutor as authori6ed to appear for the People.

). Bhat finall# !ilitates a"ainst the cause of the prosecutor is the indubitabl# unreasonable period of ti!e thatelapsed before it @uestioned before the respondent court the resolution and the o!nibus order of the trial courtthrou"h a special civil action for certiorari. he Solicitor &eneral sub!its that the dela# of !ore than si: 7-9!onths, or one hundred ei"ht#%four 7*0)9 da#s to be e:act, as reasonable due to the attendant difficulties hichcharacteri6ed the prosecution of the cri!inal case a"ainst petitioner. 2ut then, the certiorariproceedin" asinitiated before the respondent court lon" after trial on the !erits of the case had ensued in the court belo iththe active participation of prosecution la#ers, includin" Prosecutor &in"o#on. $t an# rate, the definitive rule noin that the special civil action for certiorari should not be instituted be#ond a period of the three !onths, %8thesa!e to be rec3oned b# ta3in" into account the duration of ti!e that had e:pired fro! the co!!ission of the actsco!plained to annul the sa!e.%9

$CCORDIN&A, the >ud"!ent of respondent Court of $ppeals in C$%&.R. SP No. '(('', pro!ul"ated on Nove!ber ()*++', annullin" the resolution dated Nove!ber =, *++( and the o!nibus order dated March (+, *++' of the Re"ional riaCourt of Ca"a#an de Oro Cit#, as ell as said respondent courts resolution of $pril (-, *++) den#in" the !otion forreconsideration of said >ud"!ent, are hereb# REVERSED and SE $SIDE. he aforesaid resolution and o!nibus order ofthe Re"ional rail Court "rantin" bail to petitioner Mi"uel P. Paderan"a are hereb# REINS$ED.

SO ORDERED.

/arvasa, 0'0, Puno, 1endoza and Francisco, ''0, concur0


7/54

'G.R. No. 125297. (u") &, 200%*

EL+IRA U O$,petitioner, vs. COURT O APPEALS !"# PEOPLE O T$E P$ILIPPINES, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINE, J./

2efore this Court is a petition for revie on certiorariof the decisionG*Hof the Court of $ppeals in C$%&.R. No. CR No*-'+1, pro!ul"ated on /anuar# '1, *++-, affir!in" the conviction of petitioner Elvira u Oh b# the Re"ional rial Court7RC9, 2ranch ++, ue6on Cit# and the resolution dated Ma# '1, *++- hich denied her !otion for reconsideration.

he facts as borne b# the records are as follos

Petitioner purchased pieces of >eelr# fro! Solid &old International raders, Inc., a co!pan# en"a"ed in >eelr#tradin". Due to her failure to pa# the purchase price, Solid &old filed civil cases G(Ha"ainst her for specific perfor!ancebefore the Re"ional rial Court of Pasi". On Septe!ber *;, *++1, petitioner and Solid &old, throu"h its "eneral !ana"er/oa@uin Novales III, entered into a co!pro!ise a"ree!ent to settle said civil cases. G'H he co!pro!ise a"ree!ent, asapproved b# the trial court, provided that petitioner shall issue a total of ninet#%nine post%dated chec3s in the a!ountof P=1,111.11 each, dated ever# *= thand '1thof the !onth startin" October *, *++1 and the balance of over P* !illion to

be paid in lu!p su! on Nove!ber *-, *++) hich is also the due date of the ++

th

and last postdated chec3. Petitioneissued ten chec3s at P=1,111.11 each, for a total of P=11,111.11, dran a"ainst her account at the E@uitable 2an3in"Corporation 7E2C9, &race Par3, Caloocan Cit# 2ranch. Novales then deposited each of the ten chec3s on theirespective due dates ith the 4ar East 2an3 and rust Co!pan# 74E2C9. 5oever, said chec3s ere dishonored b#E2C for the reason J$ccount Closed.K Dishonor slips ere issued for each chec3 that as returned to Novales.G)H

On October =, *++(, Novales filed ten separate Infor!ations, doc3eted as Cri!inal Cases Nos. +(%(-()' to +(%'-(=( before the RC of ue6on Cit# char"in" petitioner ith violation of 2atas Pa!bansa 2ilan" ((, otherise 3nonas the 2ouncin" Chec3s Aa.G=H E:cept for the dates and the chec3 nu!bers, the Infor!ations unifor!l# alle"e

hat on or about the L in ue6on Cit#, Philippines, the said accused did then and there illfull#, unlafull# andfeloniousl# !a3e or dra and issue to /O$


8/54

4indin" the appeal to be ithout !erit, the Court of $ppeals affir!ed the decision of the trial court ith costs a"ainstappellant.

5ence, herein petition raisin" the folloin" errors

I

5$ 5E CO


9/54

effective G*(Hin so far as the retroactive effect of R.$. No. ;-+* is concerned, that sa!e is li!ited onl# to pendin" civilcases that have not reached pre%trial sta"e as provided for in Section ; thereof and as clarified b# this Court in People vs2olanda VelascoG*'H, here it as held JGaH perusal of R.$. No. ;-+* ill sho that its retroactive provisions appl# onl# tocivil cases that have not #et reached the pre%trial sta"e. Neither fro! an e:press proviso nor b# i!plication can it beunderstood as havin" retroactive application to cri!inal cases pendin" or decided b# the RC prior to its effectivit#.KG*)H

On this point, the Court full# a"rees ith the Solicitor &eneral and holds that $rticle (( of the Revised Penal Codefinds no application to the case at bar.

Said provision reads

$R. ((. %etroactive effect of penal laws. Penal las shall have a retroactive effect insofar as the# favor the person"uilt# of a felon#, ho is not a habitual cri!inal, as this ter! is defined in Rule = of $rticle -( of this Code, althou"h at theti!e of the publication of such las a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is servin" sentence.

$ penal la, as defined b# this Court, is an act of the le"islature that prohibits certain acts and establishes penaltiesfor its violations. It also defines cri!e, treats of its nature and provides for its punish!ent. G*=HR.$. No. ;-+* does notprohibit certain acts or provides penalties for its violation neither does it treat of the nature of cri!es and itspunish!ent. Conse@uentl#, R.$. No. ;-+* is not a penal la, and therefore, $rt. (( of the RPC does not appl# in thepresent case.

2. P. 2l". ((, hich too3 effect on $pril (), *+;+, provides the penalt# of i!prison!ent of not less than thirt# da#s butnot !ore than one #ear or b# a fine of not less than but not !ore then double the a!ount of the chec3 hich fine shall inno case e:ceed P(11,111.11, or both such fine and i!prison!ent at the discretion of the court.

R.$. No. ;-+* hich too3 effect on /une *=, *++), a!ended 2.P. 2l". *(+, and vested on the Metropolitan, Municipaand Municipal Circuit rial Courts >urisdiction to tr# cases punishable b# i!prison!ent of not !ore than si: 7-9 #ears.G*-H Since R.$. No. ;-+* vests >urisdiction on courts, it is apparent that said la is substantive.G*;H

In the case of ang vs0 ourt of ppeals,G*0H this Court held that J>urisdiction bein" a !atter of substantive la, theestablished rule is that the statute in force at the ti!e of the co!!ence!ent of the action deter!ines the >urisdiction of thecourt.KG*+H R.$. No. ;-+* as not #et in force at the ti!e of the co!!ence!ent of the cases in the trial court. It too3 effeconl# durin" the pendenc# of the appeal before the Court of $ppeals. G(1H here is therefore no !erit in the clai! ofpetitioner that R.$. No. ;-+* should be retroactivel# applied to this case and the sa!e be re!anded to the MC. heCourt has held that a Jla vestin" additional >urisdiction in the court cannot be "iven retroactive effect.KG(*H

"hird issue Bhether or not the Court of $ppeals erroneousl# construed 2.P. 2l". ((.

Petitioner insists that penal statutes !ust be strictl# construed and here there is an# reasonable doubt, it !ustala#s be resolved in favor of the accusedG((Hthe Court of $ppeals, in construin" that 2.P. 2l". (( e!braces cases of JnofundsK or Jclosed accountsK hen the e:press lan"ua"e of 2.P. 2l". (( penali6es onl# the issuance of chec3s that aresubse@uentl# dishonored b# the draee ban3 for Jinsufficienc#K of funds or credit, has enlar"ed b# i!plication the!eanin" of the statute hich a!ounts to >udicial le"islationG('Ha postdated chec3, not bein" dran pa#able on de!and, istechnicall# not a special 3ind of a bill of e:chan"e, called chec3, but an ordinar# bill of e:chan"e pa#able at a fi:ed date,hich is the date indicated on the face of the postdated chec3, hence, the instru!ent is still valid and the obli"ationcovered thereb#, but onl# civill# and not cri!inall#G()Hthe trial court also erroneousl# cited a portion in the case of +ozanovs0 1artinezG(=H that the Jlan"ua"e of 2.P. 2l". (( is broad enou"h to cover all 3inds of chec3s, hether present dated orpostdated, or hether issued in pa#!ent of pre%e:istin" obli"ations or "iven in !utual or si!ultaneous e:chan"e forso!ethin" of value,K since the sa!e is !ere obiter dictuG(-Hin the interpretation of the !eanin" of a Jchec3K, here thela is clear and una!bi"uous, the la !ust be ta3en as it is, devoid of >udicial addition or subtraction.G(;H

he Solicitor &eneral counters that a postdated chec3 is still a chec3 and its bein" a postdated instru!ent does not

necessaril# !a3e it a bill of e:chan"e Jpa#able at a fi:ed or deter!inable future ti!eK since it is still paid on de!and onthe date indicated therein or thereafter >ust li3e an ordinar# chec3. G(0H It also points out that the doctrine laid donin +ozano vs0 1artinezas reiterated in People vs0 /itafan,G(+Hhence, it can no lon"er be ar"ued that the state!ent in thecase of +ozanore"ardin" the scope of Jchec3sK is !ere obiter dictu.

$"ain, e a"ree ith the Solicitor &eneral and find petitioners clai! to be ithout !erit.

he rationale behind 2.P. 2l". (( as initiall# e:plained b# the Court in the land!ar3 case of +ozano vs1artinezG'1Hhere e held that

he "rava!en of the offense punished b# 2.P. 2l". (( is the act of !a3in" and issuin" a orthless chec3 or a chec3 thatis dishonored upon its presentation for pa#!ent L he thrust of the la is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the!a3in" or orthless chec3s and puttin" the! in circulation. 2ecause of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sept%201998/105308.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sept%201998/105308.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn30


10/54

practice is proscribed b# la. he la punished the act not as an offense a"ainst propert#, but an offense a"ainst publicorder.G'*H

. . .

he effects of the issuance of a orthless chec3 transcend the private interests of the parties directl# involved in thetransaction and touches the interests of the co!!unit# at lar"e. he !ischief it creates is not onl# a ron" to the pa#eeor holder but also an in>ur# to the public. he har!ful practice of puttin" valueless co!!ercial papers in circulation!ultiplied a thousandfold, can ver# ell pollute the channels of trade and co!!erce, in>ure the ban3in" s#ste! and

eventuall# hurt the elfare of societ# and the public interest.G'(H

he sa!e is reiterated inuee vs0 PeopleG''Hhere e pronounced that

. . . 2.P. 2l". (( as purposel# enacted to prevent the proliferation of orthless chec3s in the !ainstrea! of dail#business and to avert not onl# the under!inin" of the ban3in" s#ste! of the countr# but also the infliction of da!a"e andin>ur# upon trade and co!!erce occasioned b# the indiscri!inate issuances of such chec3s. 2# its ver# nature, theoffenses defined under 2.P. 2l". (( are a"ainst public interest. G')H

In %ecuerdo vs0 People,this Court also held that the ter!s and conditions surroundin" the issuance of the chec3sare irrelevant since its pri!ordial intention is to ensure the stabilit# and co!!ercial value of chec3s as bein" virtualsubstitutes for currenc#.G'=H

Petitioners clai! that cases of Jclosed accountsK are not included in the covera"e of 2.P. 2l". (( has no !eritconsiderin" the clear intent of the la, hich is to discoura"e the issuance of orthless chec3s due to its har!ful effect tothe public. his Court, in +ozano vs0 1artinez, as e:plicit in rulin" that the lan"ua"e of 2.P. 2l". (( is broad enou"h tocover all 3inds of chec3s, hether present dated or postdated, or hether issued in pa#!ent of pre%e:istin" obli"ations or"iven in !utual or si!ultaneous e:chan"e for so!ethin" of value.G'-H

In People vs0 /itafan,G';Hthe Supre!e Court reiterated this point and held that

2.P. 2l". (( L does not distin"uish but !erel# provides that JGaHn# person ho !a3es or dras and issues an# chec33noin" at the ti!e of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit ith the draee ban3 L hich chec3 issubse@uentl# dishonored L shall be punished b# i!prison!ent L 3bi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debeus0

2ut even if Be retrace the enact!ent of the J2ouncin" Chec3 AaK to deter!ine the para!eters of the concept of Jchec3K

e can easil# "lean that the !e!bers of the then 2atasan" Pa!bansa intended it to be co!prehensive as to include allchec3s dran a"ainst ban3s.G'0H

In this li"ht, it is eas# to see that the clai! of petitioner that 2.P. 2l". (( does not include postdated chec3s andcases of closed accounts has no le" to stand on. he ter! Jclosed accountsK is ithin the !eanin" of the phrase Jdoesnot have sufficient funds in or credit ith the draee ban3K.

$nent the second issue hether or not notice of dishonor is dispensable in the case at bar. Petitioner failed to shoan# co"ent reason for us to disturb the findin"s of the RC and the Court of $ppeals.

2.P. 2l". (( or the 2ouncin" Chec3s Aa see3s to prevent the act of !a3in" and issuin" chec3s ith the 3noled"ethat at the ti!e of issue, the draer does not have sufficient funds in or credit ith the ban3 for pa#!ent and the chec3sere subse@uentl# dishonored upon present!ent.G'+H o be convicted thereunder, the folloin" ele!ents !ust be proved

*. he accused !a3es, dras or issues an# chec3 to appl# to account or for value

(. he accused 3nos at the ti!e of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or crediith, the draee ban3 for the pa#!ent of the chec3 in full upon its present!ent and

'. he chec3 is subse@uentl# dishonored b# the draee ban3 for insufficienc# of funds or credit or it ouldhave been dishonored for the sa!e reason had not the draer, ithout an# valid reason, ordered theban3 to stop pa#!ent.G)1H

4or liabilit# to attach under 2.P. 2l". ((, it is not enou"h that the prosecution establishes that chec3s ere issued andthat the sa!e ere subse@uentl# dishonored. he prosecution !ust also prove that the issuer, at the ti!e of the chec3s
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/june2000/133325.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/june2000/133325.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/june2000/133325.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/133036.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/133036.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/june2000/133325.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/133036.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn40


11/54

issuance, had 3noled"e that he did not have enou"h funds or credit in the ban3 of pa#!ent thereof upon itspresent!ent.G)*H

Since the second ele!ent involves a state of !ind hich is difficult to establish, Section ( of 2.P. 2l". (( createdapria faciepresu!ption of such 3noled"e, as follos

SEC. (. Evidence of #nowledge of insufficient funds. he !a3in", drain" and issuance of a chec3 pa#!ent of hich isrefused b# the draee because of insufficient funds in or credit ith such ban3, hen presented ithin ninet# 7+19 da#sfro! the date of the chec3, shall bepria facieevidence of 3noled"e of such insufficienc# of funds or credit unless such!a3er or draer pa#s the holder thereof the a!ount due thereon, or !a3es arran"e!ents for pa#!ent in full b# the

draee of such chec3 ithin five 7=9 ban3in" da#s after receivin" notice that such chec3 has not been paid b# the draee.

2ased on this section, the presu!ption that the issuer had 3noled"e of the insufficienc# of funds is brou"ht intoe:istence only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonorand that ithin five da#s fro! receipthereof, he failed to pa# the a!ount of the chec3 or to !a3e arran"e!ent for its pa#!ent. G)(H he presu!ption orpriafacieevidence as provided in this section cannot arise, if such notice of non%pa#!ent b# the draee ban3 is not sent tothe !a3er or draer, or if there is no proof as to hen such notice as received b# the draer, since there ould si!pl#be no a# of rec3onin" the crucial =%da# period.G)'H

In this case, it is not disputed that chec3s ere issued b# petitioner and said chec3s ere subse@uentl#dishonored. he @uestion hoever is, as petitioner furnished a notice of dishonorF If not, is it sufficient >ustification toe:onerate petitioner fro! her cri!inal and civil liabilities for issuin" the bouncin" chec3sF

he trial court ruled that the second ele!ent is present because

L the accused 3ne at the ti!e of issuance of the chec3s that she did not have sufficient funds in or credit ith herdraee ban3 for the pa#!ent of the chec3s in full upon their present!ent 4as5 aditted by her in the ounter-ffidavit sheexecuted during the preliinary investigation of these criinal cases7itals. ours9, to it

). hat the ti!e of the issuance of the said chec3s, due notice and infor!ation had been so "iven to Solid &oldanent the actual status of the chec3s that the sa!e !i"ht not be able to cover the a!ount of the said chec3s so statedtherein L 7E:hibit JNK, J*K, underscorin" supplied9.

his fact beca!e evident a"ain durin" the cross%e:a!ination b# the accuseds counsel of the prosecutions itness,/oa@uin Novales III

$. $&$N$S

$nd the reason #ou a"reed to the ter!s and conditions for the issuance of post%dated chec3s because #ouare also aare the particular ti!e the accused Mrs. Elvira u Oh did not also have enou"h funds or !one#in the ban3 ithin hich to cover the a!ount of the chec3sF

$ I a! not aare, sir.

. . .

o #our 3noled"e hen the accused had alread# ad!itted to #ou that she had not enou"h !one# to pa##ouF

$ hat is the ter!s and pro!ise and a"reed upon, sir.

2ut inspite of the fact that she alread# told #ou about that, that #ou never suspected that she did not haveenou"h !one# to cover the chec3s a"reed upon and issued to #ouF

$ es, sir.

$nd inspite of the fact she told #ou #ou never suspected that she did not have enou"h !one# to cover#ou . . .

ou still believe that althou"h she does not have enou"h !one# she still issued chec3s to #ouF

$ es, sir. 7SN, $pril -, *++', pp. ()%(-9

$t an# rate, there is alread#pria facieevidence of 3noled"e of insufficienc# of funds on the part of the accused fro!her failure to pa# the a!ount due on the chec3s or to !a3e arran"e!ents for pa#!ent in full b# the draee ban3 ithin
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/125297.htm#_ftn43


12/54

five ban3in" da#s after she received notice of their dishonor, each of the chec3s havin" been presented ithin ninet# da#sfro! their respective dated 72.P. 2l". ((, Sec. (9. he defense did not controvert this evidence. 7itals. ours9G))H

$lthou"h the trial court in its decision, !entioned that herein petitioner received notices of dishonor, nohere in therecords is there proof that the prosecution ever presented evidence that petitioner received or as furnished a notice ofdishonor. he notices of dishonor that ere presented in court and !ar3ed as E:hibits JD%(K, JE%(K, J4%(K, J&%(K, J5%(K, JI%(K, J/%(K, JQ%(K, JA%(K, JC%(K G)=Here all sent to the private co!plainant, Solid &old, and notto petitioner. In convictin"petitioner, the trial court, "ave probative ei"ht on the ad!ission of petitioner in her Counter%$ffidavit hich she sub!itteddurin" the preli!inar# investi"ation that at the ti!e of issuance of the sub>ect chec3s, she as aare and even told

private co!plainant that the chec3s !i"ht not be able to cover the a!ount stated therein.he Court of $ppeals sustained the RC, to it

. . . Neither can Be a"ree that accused%appellant as still entitled to notice of dishonor of the bouncin" chec3s as she hadno !ore chec3in" account ith the draee ban3 at the ti!e of the dishonor of the ten chec3s in @uestion. $ccusedappellant !ust have reali6ed that b# closin" her chec3in" account after issuin" the ten postdated chec3s, all of saidchec3s ould bounce. Qnoin" that she had alread# closed her chec3in" account ith the draee ban3, certainl#accused%appellant ould not have e:pected, even in her ildest i!a"ination, that her postdated chec3s ould be honoredb# the draee ban3. hus, accused%appellant need not be notified an#!ore of the obvious dishonor of her rubbechec3s. 7itals. ours9G)-H

2ased on the la and e:istin" >urisprudence, e find that the appellate court erred in convictin" petitioner.

In cases for violation of 2.P. 2l". ((, it is necessar# that the prosecution prove that the issuer had received a notice ofdishonor. Since service of notice is an issue, the person alle"in" that the notice as served !ust prove the fact ofservice. 2asic also is the doctrine that in cri!inal cases, the @uantu! of proof re@uired is proof be#ond reasonabledoubt. 5ence, for cases of 2.P. 2l". (( there should be clear proof of notice. G);H

Indeed, this re@uire!ent cannot be ta3en li"htl# because Section ( provides for an opportunit# for the draer toeffect full pa#!ent of the a!ount appearin" on the chec3, ithin five ban3in" da#s fro notice of dishonor. he absenceof said notice therefore deprives an accused of an opportunit# to preclude cri!inal prosecution. In other ordsprocedural due process de!ands that a notice of dishonor be actuall# served on petitioner. In the case at bar, appellanhas a ri"ht to de!and and the basic postulate of fairness re@uires that the notice of dishonor be actuall# sent to andreceived b# her to afford her to opportunit# to aver prosecution under 2.P. 2l". ((.G)0H

he Solicitor &eneral contends that notice of dishonor is dispensable in this case considerin" that the cause of thedishonor of the chec3s as J$ccount ClosedK and therefore, petitioner alread# 3ne that the chec3s ill bounce

an#a#. his ar"u!ent has no !erit. he Court has decided nu!erous cases here chec3s ere dishonored for thereason, J$ccount ClosedKG)+Hand e have e:plicitl# held in said cases that Jit is essential for the !a3er or draer to benotified of the dishonor of her chec3, so she could pa# the value thereof or !a3e arran"e!ents for its pa#!ent ithin theperiod prescribed b# laKG=1Hand o!ission or ne"lect on the part of the prosecution to prove that the accused receivedsuch notice of dishonor is fatal to its cause.G=*H

$ perusal of the testi!on# of the prosecution itness /oa@uin Novales III, &eneral Mana"er of co!plainant Solid&old, discloses that no personal de!ands ere !ade on appellant before the filin" of the co!plaints a"ainst her. G=(H husabsent a clear shoin" that petitioner actuall# 3ne of the dishonor of her chec3s and as "iven the opportunit# to !a3earran"e!ents for pa#!ent as provided for under the la, e cannot ith !oral certaint# convict her of violation of 2.P2l". ((. he failure of the prosecution to prove that petitioner as "iven the re@uisite notice of dishonor is a clear "roundfor her [email protected]='H

Moreover, as understood b# the trial court itself in the herein afore@uoted portion of its decision, &eneral Mana"er

Novales 3ne of the non%availabilit# of sufficient funds hen appellant issued the sub>ect chec3s to hi!. his Court hasheld that there is no violation of 2.P. (( if co!plainant as told b# the draer that he has no sufficient funds in the ban3. G=)

4or these reasons, e reverse the rulin" of the Court of $ppeals affir!in" the trial courts conviction of petitioner forviolation of 2.P. 2l". ((. his is ithout pre>udice, hoever, to her civil liabilit# toards private co!plainant Solid &old inthe a!ount of P=11,111.11 plus interest thereon at the rate of *( per annu! fro! date of finalit# of herein >ud"!ent. G==H

$EREORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of $ppeals are hereb# REVERSED and SE$SIDE. Petitioner Elvira u Oh is $C


13/54

.ellosillo, 6hairan7, 8uisubing, andalle9o, Sr0, ''0, concur0

(UAN G. RI+ERA, &.R. No. *-'++-

Petitioner, Present

Davide, /r., 0'. 7Chair!an9,

% versus % uisu!bin", nares%Santia"o,

Carpio, and $6cuna, ''0

PEOPLE O T$E P$ILIPPINES, Respondent. Pro!ul"ated

/une +, (11=: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% :

DECISION

NARES-SANTIAGO, J.

his petition for revie on certiorari under Rule )= of the Rules of Court assails the decision dated Ma# ', (11) of

the Sandi"anba#an,G*Hhich convicted petitioner of telve counts of the cri!e of falsification b# a public officer under$rticle *;* and one count of the cri!e of !alversation of public funds under $rticle (*; 7)9, both of the Revised PenaCode and its resolution dated /une *1, (11),G(Hden#in" reconsideration thereof and disalloin" hi! to present evidence.

he antecedent facts are as follosPetitioner /uan &. Rivera and Eric O. &arcia, !unicipal !a#or and disburse!ent officer, respectivel#, of

&uinobatan, $lba#, ere char"ed before the Sandi"anba#an ith telve counts of falsification of public docu!ents andone count of !alversation of public funds involvin" the a!ount of P*,+'-,;+0.-) "iven to the Municipalit# of &uinobatanas cala!it# fund for the victi!s of the Ma#on volcanic eruption. &arcia died on $u"ust (=, (11* and as accordin"l#dropped fro! the a!ended infor!ation.


14/54

B5ERE4ORE

$. In Cri!inal Cases No. (--0- to (--+;, the Court finds the accused /uan &.

Rivera GUILTbe#ond reasonable doubt for BEAVE 7*(9 COustice he be alloed to present evidence in vie of the severit# of thepenalt# i!posed on hi! hich is i!prison!ent of about *)1 #ears. 5e asserts that he as unaare of the conse@uencesof the action ta3en b# his for!er counsel hen he !anifested that the# ere optin" to file a de!urrer to evidence. 5ealso clai!s that the Sandi"anba#an !ade no searchin" in@uir# to deter!ine hether he full# understood the le"ara!ifications of filin" a de!urrer to evidence ithout leave of court. 5e sub!its that b# its filin", he as totall# unaareand did not co!prehend that he as in effect aivin" his constitutional ri"ht to present evidence and be heard.

he petition is !eritorious.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn9


15/54

Be reco"ni6e the i!portance of procedural rules in insurin" the effective enforce!ent of substantive ri"htsthrou"h the orderl# and speed# ad!inistration of >ustice. G*1H 5oever, the rules of procedure ou"ht not to be applied in aver# ri"id technical sense, as the# are used onl# to help secure, not override substantial >ustice. If a technical and ri"idenforce!ent of the rules is !ade, their ai! ould be defeated. G**H hat the Court has the poer to set aside its on rulesin the hi"her interests of >ustice is ell%entrenched in our >urisprudence.G*(H

he ad>udication of cases involvin" the transcendental !atter of life and libert# of a person, re@uires our ut!ost

consideration.G*'H he Constitution ordains that due process !ust be observed in cases involvin" a possible deprivation oflife, libert#, or propert#.G*)H

In the case at bar, the e:tre!e penalt# of !ore than a double%life sentence as i!posed. No less than his libert#is at sta3e here.G*=H Conse@uentl#, this case deserves to be deliberated upon, !oreso because after the initial assess!enb# the Sandi"anba#an, petitioners onl# and last resort is ith this Court.

$ deurrer to evidenceis defined as Jan ob>ection b# one of the parties in an action, to the effect that theevidence hich his adversar# produced is insufficient in point of la, hether true or not, to !a3e out a case or sustainthe issueK.G*-H he part# de!urrin" challen"es the sufficienc# of the hole evidence to sustain a verdict.G*;H In passin"upon the sufficienc# of the evidence raised in a de!urrer, the court is !erel# re@uired to ascertain hether there isco!petent or sufficient proof to sustain the indict!ent or to support a verdict of "uilt. G*0H

he transcript of steno"raphic notes ta3en durin" the hearin" held on Septe!ber (+, (11' is reproduced herein,

to it

C5$IRM$NCall the cases.

INERPREER

Cri!inal Cases Nos. (--0-%+; and (--+0 entitled, People versus /uan Rivera, for trial.PROSEC


16/54

CO


17/54

heard, it shall be the une@uivocal dut# of the trial court to observe, as a prere@uisite to the validit# of suchaiver, a procedure a3in to a Jsearching inquiryK as specified in People v0 ranzadohen an accusedpleads "uilt#, particularl#

*. he trial court shall hear both the prosecution and the accused ith their respective

counsel on the desire or !anifestation of the accused to aive the ri"ht to present evidence and beheard.

(. he trial court shall ensure the attendance of the prosecution and especiall# the accused

ith their respective counsel in the hearin" hich !ust be recorded. heir presence !ust be dul#entered in the !inutes of the proceedin"s.

'. Durin" the hearin", it shall be the tas3 of the trial court to

a. as3 the defense counsel a series of @uestion to deter!ine hether hehad conferred ith and co!pletel# e:plained to the accused that he had the ri"ht topresent evidence and be heard as ell as its !eanin" and conse@uences, to"ether iththe si"nificance and outco!e of the aiver of such ri"ht. If the la#er for the accusedhas not done so, the trial court shall "ive the latter enou"h ti!e to fulfill this professionalobli"ation.

b. in@uire fro! the defense counsel ith confor!it# of the accused hetherhe ants to present evidence or sub!it a !e!orandu! elucidatin" on the contradictions

and insufficienc# of the prosecution evidence, if an#, or in default theor#, file a de!urrerto evidence ith prior leave of court, if he so believes that the prosecution evidence is soea3 that it need not even be rebutted. If there is a desire to do so, the trial court shall"ive the defense enou"h ti!e to this purpose.

c. elicit infor!ation about the personalit# profile of the accused, such as hisa"e, socio%econo!ic status, and educational bac3"round, hich !a# serve as atrustorth# inde: of his capacit# to "ive a free and infor!ed aiver.

d. all @uestions posed to the accused should be in a lan"ua"e 3non andunderstood b# the latter, hence, the record !ust state the lan"ua"e used for this purposeas ell as reflect the correspondin" translation thereof in En"lish.

In passin", trial courts !a# also abide b# the fore"oin" procedure even hen the aiver of theri"ht to be present and be heard is !ade in criminal cases involving non&capital offenses. $fter all, inhatever action or foru! the accused is situated, the aiver that he !a3es if it is to be bindin" andeffective !ust still be e:hibited in the case records to have been validl# underta3en, that is, it as donevoluntaril#, 3noin"l# and intelli"entl# ith sufficient aareness of the relevant circu!stances and li3el#conse@uences. $s a !atter of "ood court practice, the trial court ould have to rel# upon the !ostconvenient, if not pri!ar#, evidence of the validit# of the aiver hich ould a!ount to the sa!e thin" asshoin" its adherence to the step%b#%step process outlined above.G(*H7E!phasis supplied9Si!ilarl#, in People v0 Flores,G((Hcounsel for accused !anifested that 4lores as aivin" his ri"ht to present

evidence and re@uested for ti!e to file a de!urrer to evidence. he records ere bereft of an# indications that accusedvoluntaril# aived his ri"ht to present evidence and ith full co!prehension. In that case, e ruled thus

he loer court, in vie of the severit# of the i!posable penalt#, ou"ht to have in@uired into the

voluntariness and full 3noled"e of the conse@uences of accused%appellants aiver. hou"h the Rulesre@uire no such in@uir# to be underta3en b# the court for the validit# of such aiver or an# >ud"!ent !adeas result of the aiver,prudence, hoever, re@uires the Court to ascertain the sa!e to avoid an# "rave!iscarria"e of >ustice. $lthou"h accused%appellants aiver a!a6ed the loer court, nevertheless, therecord is devoid of an# facts hich ould indicate that the loer court too3 steps to assure itself ofaccused%appellants voluntariness and full 3noled"e of the conse@uences of their aiver.

2esides, counsels aiver should have put the court on "uard. $n# la#er orth his salt ou"ht to

3no that the filin" of a de!urrer to evidence ith leave of court as as done belo, has the beneficialeffect of reservin" the !ovants ri"ht to present evidence if the de!urrer is denied b# the court. hus, acounsel ho files a de!urrer ith leave of court, but at the sa!e ti!e e:pressl# aives his ri"ht topresent evidence should put a >ud"e on "uard that said counsel !a# not entirel# co!prehend the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn22


18/54

conse@uences of the aiver. he trial court should have e:ercised prudence b# arnin" counsel aboutthe pre>udicial effects of their aiver, that ith such a aiver, the case ould be dee!ed sub!itted fordecision, and their leave to f ile !otion for de!urrer to evidence ill have no effect.G('H

4inall#, the evidence on record of the instant case do not clearl# sho here and to ho! the alle"edl# !alversed

!one# ere "iven after it as encashed. Bhat is clear is that the cala!it# fund as released to $l!eda O. Ai!, theMunicipal reasurer of &uinobatan, $lba# to hich Official Receipt No. 0;)+()(5 as issued. hereafter, chec3s bearin"her si"nature and that of Riveras ere personall# encashed b# her hile she as alle"edl# acco!panied b# &arcia.Bitnesses ho oned the for"ed receipts testified that the# handed the blan3 receipts to &arcia and not to petitioner.hen, after receipt of the cash, the disburse!ent vouchers and other for!s re@uired to li@uidate the a!ount erealle"edl# prepared b# $l!eda O. Ai! and thereafter, trans!itted to Rivera for approval, and finall# to the provincia&overn!ent. It has not been satisfactoril# established hether petitioner has appropriated, ta3en or !isappropriated, ohas consented to the ta3in" b# another person, of such funds.

Due to the precipitate filin" b# the defense of the de!urrer to evidence, the Sandi"anba#an deter!ined petitioners"uilt based onl# on the prosecutions evidence. o our !ind, the presentation of evidence b# the defense ould resolvean# doubt as to petitioners co!plicit# and avoid possible !iscarria"e of >ustice. Clearl#, hen Jtranscendental !attersli3e life, libert# or State securit# are involved, suspension of the rules is li3el# to be elco!ed !ore "enerousl#. G()H heRules on procedure are !erel# tools desi"ned to facilitate the attain!ent of >ustice. Bhen the# are ri"id and strict inapplication, resultin" in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than pro!ote >ustice, the Court is e!poered to suspendthe rules.G(=H

In the interest of substantial >ustice, e are therefore constrained to re!and the case to the Sandi"anba#an for

further proceedin"s.

$EREORE, the petition is GRANTED. he decision dated Ma# ', (11) and the resolution dated /une *1, (11)of the Sandi"anba#an are hereb# SET ASIDE. Aet the records of Cri!inal Case Nos. (--0-%+0 be REMANDEDto theSandi"anba#an for further proceedin"s.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/163996.htm#_ftn25


19/54

ANNA LERIMA PATULA,

Petitioner,

%versus%

PEOPLE O T$E P$ILIPPINES,

Respondent.

G.R. No. 1&4457

Present

CORON$,0'0,hairperson,

AEON$RDO%DE C$SRO,

2ERS$MIN,

DEA C$SIAAO, and

VIAA$R$M$, /R.,''.

Pro!ul"ated

$pril **, (1*(

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N

ERSAMIN, J./

In the trial of ever#cri!inal case, a >ud"e !ust ri"idl#test the States evidence of "uilt in order to ensure that such

evidenceadheres to the basic rules of ad!issibilit# before pronouncin" an accused "uilt# of the cri!e char"ed upon such

evidence. Nothin" less is de!anded of the >ud"e otherise, the "uarantee of due process of la is nullified.he accused

need notadducean#thin"to rebut evidence that is discredited for failin" the test.$c@uittal should then follo.

A"t))#)"ts

Petitioner as char"ed ithestafaunder an infor!ationfiled in the Re"ional rial Court 7RC9 in Du!a"ueteCit#tha

averred

hat on or about and durin" the period fro! March *- to (1, *++; and for so!eti!e prior thereto, inthe Cit# of Du!a"uete, Philippines, and ithin the >urisdiction of this 5onorable Court, the said accused,bein" then a saleso!an of 4ootluc3ers Chain of Stores, Inc., Du!a"uete Cit#, havin" collected andreceived the total su! of P*'*,(0-.+; fro! several custo!ers of said co!pan# under the e:pressobli"ation to account for the proceeds of the sales and deliver the collection to the said co!pan#, but farfro! co!pl#in" ith her obli"ation and after a reasonable period of ti!e despite repeated de!andstherefore, and ith intent to defraud the said co!pan#, did, then and there illfull#, unlafull# andfeloniousl# fail to deliver the said collection to the said co!pan# but instead, did, then and there illfull#unlafull# and feloniousl# !isappropriate, !isappl# and convert the proceeds of the sale to her on useand benefit, to the da!a"e and pre>udice of the said co!pan# in the aforesaid a!ount of P*'*,(0-.+;.

Contrar# to $rt. '*=, par * 7b9 of the Revised Penal Code.G*H

Petitioner pled not guiltyto the offense char"ed in the infor!ation. $t pre%trial, no stipulation of factsas had, and

petitioner did not avail herself of plea bar"ainin". hereafter, trial on the !erits ensued.he Prosecutions first itness as Aa!berto &o, ho testified that he as the branch !ana"er of 4ootluc3ers

Chain of Stores, Inc. 74ootluc3ers9 in Du!a"uete Cit# since October 0, *++) that petitioner as an e!plo#ee of4ootluc3ers, startin" as a saleslad# in *++- until she beca!e a sales representative that as a sales representative sheas authori6ed to ta3e orders fro! holesale custo!ers co!in" fro! different tons 7li3e 2acon", ?a!boan"uita,Valencia, Au!ban"an and Mabina# in Ne"ros Oriental, and Si@ui>or9, and to collect pa#!ents fro! the! that she couldissue and si"n official receipts of 4ootluc3ers for the pa#!ents, hich she ould then re!it that she ould then sub!itthe receipts for the pa#!ents for tall#in" and reconciliation that at first her volu!e of sales as @uite hi"h, but later on
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/164457.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/164457.htm#_ftn1


20/54

dropped, leadin" hi! to confront her that she responded that business as slo that he su!!oned the accountin" cler3to verif# that the accountin" cler3 discovered erasures on so!e collection receipts that he decided to sub>ect her to anaudit b# co!pan# auditor Qaren &uivencan that he learned fro! a custo!er of petitioners that the custo!ersoutstandin" balance had alread# been full# paid althou"h that balance appeared unpaid in 4ootluc3ers records and thatone ni"ht later on, petitioner and her parents ent to his house to den# havin" !isappropriated an# !one# of 4ootluc3ersand to plead for hi! not to push throu"h ith a case a"ainst her, pro!isin" to settle her account on a !onthl# basis andthat she did not settle after that, but stopped reportin" to or3.G(H

On March ;, (11(, &os cross e:a!ination, re%direct e:a!ination and re%crosse:a!ination ere co!pleted.he onl# other itness for the Prosecution as Qaren &uivencan, ho!4ootluc3ers e!plo#ed as its store

auditor since Nove!ber *-, *++= until her resi"nation on March '*, (11*. She declared that &o had re@uested her toaudit petitioner after so!e custo!ers had told hi! that the# had alread# paid their accounts but the office led"er had stillreflected outstandin"balances for the! that she first conducted her audit b# "oin" to the custo!ers in places fro!Mabina# to ?a!boan"uitain Ne"ros Oriental, and then in Si@ui>or thatshe discovered in the course of her audit that thea!ounts appearin" on the ori"inal copies of receipts in the possession of around =1 custo!ers varied fro! the a!ountsritten on the duplicate copies of the receipts petitioner sub!itted to the office that upon co!pletin" her audit, shesub!ittedto &o a ritten report deno!inated as JAist of Custo!ers Covered b# Saleso!an AERIM$ P$ection on the

"round that the fi"uresentered in E:hibits 2 to and their derivatives, inclusive, ere hearsa# because the persons hohad !ade the entries ere not the!selves presented in court. G)HBith that, petitioners counsel did not an#!ore cross%e:a!ine &uivencan, apparentl# re"ardin" her testi!on# to be irrelevant because she thereb# tended to provefalsification, an offense not alle"ed in the infor!ation.

heProsecution thenfor!all# offered its docu!entar# e:hibits, includin" E:hibits 2 to and their derivatives 7li3e

the ori"inals and duplicates of the receipts supposedl# e:ecuted and issued b# petitioner9, inclusive, the confir!ationsheets used b# &uivencan in auditin" the accounts served b# petitioner, and &uivencans so%called Su!!ar# 74ina

Report9 of Discrepancies.G=H

$fter the Prosecution rested its case, the Defense decided not to file a de!urrer to evidence althou"h it had

!anifested the intention to do so, and instead rested itscase.he Prosecution and Defense sub!itted their respective!e!oranda, and sub!itted the case for decision.G-H

On /anuar# (0, (11), the RC, statin" that inas!uch as petitioner had opted Jnot to present evidence for her

defenseK the Prosecutions evidence re!ained Junrefuted and uncontroverted,K G;Hrendered its decision findin" petitioner"uilt# of estafa, to it

Bherefore, in the li"ht of the fore"oin" facts and circu!stances, the Court finds $NN$ AERIM$

P$


21/54

Insistin" that the RCs >ud"!ent J"rossl# violated GherH Constitutional and statutor# ri"ht to be infor!ed of the

nature and cause of the accusation a"ainst her because, hile the char"e a"ainst her is estafa under $rt. '*=, par. * 7b9of the Revised Penal Code, the evidence presented a"ainst her and upon hich her conviction as based, asfalsification, an offense not alle"ed or included in the Infor!ation under hich she as arrai"ned and pleaded not "uilt#,Kand that said >ud"!ent li3eise Jblatantl# i"nored and !anifestl# disre"arded the rules on ad!ission of evidence in thatthe docu!entar# evidence ad!itted b# the trial court ere all private docu!ents, the due e:ecution and authenticit# ofhich ere not proved in accordance ith Sec. (1 of Rule *'( of the Revised Rules on Evidence,K petitioner has directl#appealed to the Court viapetition for revie on certiorari, positin" the folloin" issues, to it

*. B5E5ER 5E $CC


22/54

). Bhether or not &uivencanstesti!on# onthe led"ers and receipts 7E:hibits 2 to , and theirderivatives, inclusive9 to prove petitioners !isappropriation or conversion asinad!issible for bein"hearsa#.

Ru3"ghe petition is !eritorious.

I!3u) o6 "6o!to" to !33)g) 6!3s6!to"## "ot o3!t) )tto"):s g;t to ustifiable.Rule **1 of the %evised %ules of ourt, the rule then in effect hen the infor!ation as filed in the RC,

contained the folloin" provisions on the proper !anner of alle"in" the nature and cause of the accusation in theinfor!ation, to it

Section 0.$esignation of the offense. Bhenever possible, a co!plaint or infor!ation should state

the desi"nation "iven to the offense b# the statute, besides the state!ent of the acts or o!issionsconstitutin" the sa!e, and if there is no such desi"nation, reference should be !ade to the section orsubsection of the statute punishin" it. 7;9

Section +.ause of accusation. he acts or o!issions co!plained of as constitutin" the offense

!ust be stated in ordinar# and concise lan"ua"e ithout repetition, not necessaril# in the ter!s of thestatute definin" the offense, but in such for! as is sufficient to enable a person of co!!on understandin"to 3no hat offense is intended to be char"ed, and enable the court to pronounce proper >ud"!ent. 709he i!portance of the proper !anner of alle"in" the nature and cause of the accusation in the infor!ationshould

never be ta3en for "ranted b# the State. $n accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearl# char"ed in theco!plaint or infor!ation. o convict hi! of an offense other than that char"ed in the co!plaint or infor!ation ould beviolative of the Constitutional ri"ht to be infor!ed of the nature and cause of the accusation. G**HIndeed, the accusedcannot be convicted of a cri!e, even if dul# proven, unless the cri!e is alle"ed or necessaril# included in the infor!ationfiled a"ainst hi!.

he cri!e of estafachar"ed a"ainst petitioner as defined and penali6ed b# $rticle '*=, para"raph * 7b9, %evised

Penal ode, viz

$rticle '*=. Swindling 6estafa7. T $n# person ho shall defraud another b# an# of the !eans!entioned hereinbelo shall be punished b#
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/164457.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/164457.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/164457.htm#_ftn11


23/54

)st0he penalt# ofprision correccionalin its !a:i!u! period toprision ayorin its !ini!u!period, if the a!ount of the fraud is over *(,111 pesos but does not e:ceed ((,111 pesos, and if sucha!ount e:ceeds the latter su!, the penalt# provided in this para"raph shall be i!posed in its !a:i!u!period, addin" one #ear for each additional *1,111 pesos but the total penalt# hich !a# be i!posedshall not e:ceed tent# #ears. In such cases, and in connection ith the accessor# penalties hich !a#be i!posed under the provisions of this Code, the penalt# shall be ter!ed prision ayoror reclusionteporal, as the case !a# be.

(nd0he penalt# ofprision correccionalin its !ini!u! and !ediu! periods, if the a!ount of the

fraud is over -,111 pesos but does not e:ceed *(,111 pesos;rd0he penalt# of arresto ayorin its !a:i!u! period toprision correccional in its !ini!u!

period if such a!ount is over (11 pesos but does not e:ceed -,111 pesos andu#) o6 !"ot;), o")?, goo#s, o !"?

ot;) )so"!3 o)t? )))#


24/54

In her Me!orandu!, it is the contention of GtheH accused that GtheH prosecutions evidence utterl#

fails to prove the cri!e char"ed. $ccordin" to the defense, the essence of Qaren &uivencans testi!on#is that the accused falsified the receipts issued to the custo!ers served b# her b# chan"in" or alterin" thea!ounts in the duplicates of the receipts and therefore, her testi!on# is i!!aterial and irrelevant as thechar"e is !isappropriation under $rt. '*=, para"raph 7*b9 of the Revised Penal Code and there is noalle"ation hatsoever of an# falsification or alteration of a!ounts in the GiHnfor!ation under hich theaccused as arrai"ned and pleaded NO &


25/54

ell as on the unsorn state!ents of so!e of the custo!ers. $ccordin"l#, her bein" the onl# itness ho testified on theentries effectivel# deprived the RC of the reasonable opportunit# to validate and test the veracit# and reliabilit# of theentries as evidence of petitioners !isappropriation or conversion throu"h cross%e:a!ination b# petitioner. he denial ofthat opportunit# rendered theentire proof of !isappropriation or conversion hearsa#, and thus unreliable and untrustorth#for purposes of deter!inin" the "uilt or innocence of the accused.

o elucidate h# the Prosecutions hearsa# evidence as unreliable and untrustorth#, and thus devoid ofprobative value, reference is !ade toSection '- of Rule *'1,%ules of ourt, a rule that states that a itness can testif#onl# to those facts that she 3nos of her personal 3noled"e that is, hich are derived fro! her on perception, e:ceptas otherise provided in the %ules of ourt. he personal 3noled"e of a itness is a substantive prere@uisite foracceptin" testi!onial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. $ itness bereft ofpersonal 3noled"e of thedisputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her testi!on# derives its value not fro! the credit accordedto her as a itness presentl# testif#in" but fro! the veracit# and co!petenc# of the e:tra>udicial source of her infor!ation.

In case a itness is per!itted to testif# based on hat she has heard another person sa# about the facts in

dispute, the person fro! ho! the itness derived the infor!ation on the facts in dispute is not in courtand under oathtbe e:a!ined and cross%e:a!ined. he ei"ht of such testi!on# thendepends not upon theveracit# of the itness buupon the veracit# of the other person "ivin" the infor!ation to the itness ithout oath. he infor!ation cannot be testedbecause the declarant is not standin" in court as a itness andcannot, therefore, be cross%e:a!ined.

It is apparent, too, that a person ho relates a hearsa# is not obli"ed to enter into an# particular, to anser an#

@uestion, to solve an# difficulties, to reconcile an# contradictions, to e:plain an# obscurities, to re!ove an# a!bi"uities

and that she entrenches herself in the si!ple assertion that she as told so, and leaves the burden entirel# upon the deador absent author.G*+Hhus, the rule a"ainst hearsa# testi!on# rests !ainl# on the "round that there as no opportunit# tocross%e:a!ine the declarant.G(1Hhe testi!on# !a# have been "iven under oath and before a court of >ustice, but if it isoffered a"ainst a part# ho is afforded no opportunit# to cross%e:a!ine the itness, it is hearsa# >ust the sa!e. G(*H

Moreover, the theor# of the hearsa# rule is that hen a hu!an utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the

fact asserted, the credit of the assertor beco!es the basis of inference, and, therefore, the assertion can be received asevidence onl# hen !ade on the itness stand, sub>ect to the test of cross%e:a!ination. 5oever, if an e:tra>udiciautterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove the !atter asserted but ithout reference to the truth of the !atteasserted, the hearsa# rule does not appl#. 4or e:a!ple, in a slander case, if a prosecution itness testifies that he heardthe accused sa# that the co!plainant as a thief, this testi!on# is ad!issible not to prove that the co!plainant as reall#a thief, but !erel# to sho that the accused uttered those ords.G((Hhis 3ind of utterance ishearsa# in character but is nole"al hearsa#.G('Hhe distinction is, therefore, beteen 7a9 the fact that the state!ent as !ade, to hich the hearsa# rule

does not appl#, and 7b9 the truth of the facts asserted in the state!ent, to hich the hearsa# rule applies.G()H

Section '-, Rule *'1 of the %ules of ourtis understandabl# not the onl# rule that e:plains h# testi!on# that is

hearsa# should be e:cluded fro! consideration. E:cludin" hearsa# also ai!s to preserve the ri"ht of the opposin" part#to cross%e:a!ine the originaldeclarant clai!in" to have a direct 3noled"e of the transaction or occurrence. G(=HIf hearsa# isalloed, the ri"ht stands to be denied because the declarant is not in court. G(-HIt is then to be stressed that the ri"ht tocross%e:a!ine the adverse part#s itness,

bein" the onl# !eans of testin" the credibilit# of itnesses and their testi!onies, is essential to the ad!inistration of

>ustice.o address the proble! of controllin" inad!issible hearsa# as evidence to establish the truth in a dispute hile

also safe"uardin"a part#s ri"ht to cross%e:a!ine her adversar#s itness,the %ules of ourtoffers tsolutions. he firstsolution is to re@uire that allthe itnesses in a >udicial trial or hearin" be e:a!ined onl# in courtundeoath or affiration. Section *, Rule *'( of the %ules of ourtfor!ali6es this solution,viz

Section *. Exaination to be done in open court. % he e:a!ination of itnesses presented in a

trial or hearin" shall be done in open court, and under oath or affir!ation.


26/54

direct e:a!ination, or connected thereith, ith sufficient fullness and freedo! to test his accurac# andtruthfulness and freedo! fro! interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all i!portant facts bearin" uponthe issue. 70a9

$lthou"h the second solution traces its e:istence to a Constitutional precept relevant to cri!inal cases, i0e., Section *)7(9, $rticle III, of the *+0; onstitution,hich "uarantees that J&n all criinal prosecutions, the accused shall xxx en9oy theright xxx to eet the witnesses face to face xxx,K the rule re@uirin" the cross%e:a!ination b# the adverse part# e@uall#applies to non%cri!inal proceedin"s.

Be thus stress that the rule e:cludin" hearsa# as evidence is based upon serious concerns about the

trustorthiness andreliabilit# ofhearsa#evidence due to its not bein" "iven under oath or sole!n affir!ation and due toits not bein" sub>ected to cross%e:a!ination b# the opposin" counsel to test the perception, !e!or#, veracit# andarticulateness of the out%of%court declarant or actor upon hosereliabilit# the orth of the out%of%court state!ent depends'27*

2ased on the fore"oin" considerations, &uivencans testi!on# as ell as E:hibits 2 to , and their derivatives,

inclusive, !ust be entirel# re>ected as proof of petitioners !isappropriation or conversion.

IIIL!@ o6 t;) o) !ut;)"t!to" )"#))#E;


27/54

here is no @uestion that E:hibits 2 to and their derivatives ere private docu!ents because privateindividuals e:ecuted or "enerated the! for private or business purposes or uses. Considerin" that none of the e:hibitsca!e under an# of the four e:ceptions, the# could not be presented and ad!itted as evidence a"ainst petitioner ithoutthe Prosecution dutifull# seein" to their authentication in the !anner provided in Section(1 of Rule *'( of the %ules ofourt,viz

Section (1. Proof of private docuents. )6o) !"? !t) #ou)"toffered as authentic s

)))# " )#)"), its #u) ))uto" !"# !ut;)"tt? ust ust fore"o ith the testi!on# of the itness but eill >ust present the sa!e us"g t;) t)sto"? o6 !"ot;) =t")ss, 6o uos)s o6#)"t6?"g t;) sg"!tu) o6 t;) !us)#.Be ill re@uest that this si"nature hich hasbeen identified to b# the itness in this case be !ar3ed, our 5onor, ith the reservation topresent the ori"inal cop# and present the sa!e to offer as our e:hibits but for the !eanti!e,this is onl# for the purposes of recordin", our 5onor, hich e re@uest the sa!e, the receipthich has >ust been identified ahile a"o be !ar3ed as our E:hibit J$K ou 5onor.

CO


28/54

CO


29/54

$. ?ERN$ Be pra# that the si"nature be brac3eted and !ar3ed as E:hibit J2%'%aKCO

!ou"t o6 P10,791.75$. DIE? he @uestion ansers itself, ou 5onor, hat is the basis, office record.CO

$. ?ERN$ to itness. Bhat about the receiptsFCO


30/54

. O3a#, ou said there are discrepancies beteen the ori"inal and the duplicate, =33 ?ou 3)!s))"3g;t)" t;) $o"o!

$. ?ERN$ he confir!ation sheet %%%

COections. et, the RC !#steriousl# overruled the ob>ections and alloedthe Prosecutiontopresent the unauthenticated led"ers, as follos

7Continuation of the Direct E:a!ination ofBitness Qaren &uivencan on Septe!ber **, (11(9

$. ?ERN$CONIN


31/54

hat is correct, our 5onor, but t;) )so" =;o !#) t;) )"t)s s "ot t;s =t")ss, ou$o"o. $o= #o =) @"o= t;!t t;) )"t)s t;)) s Bs o)t o" t;) ))ts suection be noted.

7o Bitness9 T;) 3)@ =;o !33)g)#3? =!s t;) o") =;o )!)# t;) )"t)s o" t;os)3)#g)s, s s;) st33 o"")t)# =t; oot3u@)s

$ She is no lon"er connected no, our 5onor,CO


32/54

personall# assi"ned to handle and !onitor the i!portation of Philippine Nails and Bires Corporation,herein respondent, this cannot be e@uated ith personal 3noled"e of the facts hich "ave rise torespondents cause of action. 4urther, petitioner asserts, even thou"h she personall# prepared thesu!!ar# of ei"ht of steel billets received b# respondent, she did not have personal 3noled"e of theei"ht of steel billets actuall# shipped and delivered.

$t the outset, e !ust stress that respondents cause of action is founded on breach of insurance

contract coverin" car"o consistin" of i!ported steel billets. o hold petitioner liable, respondent has toprove, first, its i!portation of *1,1='.)11 !etric tons of steel billets valued at P-;,*=-,'11.11, andsecond, the actual steel billets delivered to and received b# the i!porter, na!el# the respondent. Bitness/eanne Qin", ho as assi"ned to handle respondents i!portations, includin" their insurance covera"e,has personal 3noled"e of the volu!e of steel billets bein" i!ported, and therefore co!petent to testif#thereon. 5er testi!on# is not hearsa#, as this doctrine is defined in Section '-, Rule *'1 of the Rules ofCourt.5oever,s;) s "ot u!36)# to t)st6? o" t;) s;ot!g) " t;) #)3)? o6 t;) ot)# st))3On the second issue, petitioner avers that Qin" failed to properl# authenticate

respondents docu!entar# evidence. U"#) S)to" 20, Ru3) 1%2, Ru3)s o6 Cout,


33/54

his as another "rave error of the RC.he terse #et seepin" !annerof >ustif#in" the application of Section )'as unacceptable due to the need to sho the concurrence of the severalre@uisites before entries in the course obusiness could be e:cepted fro! the hearsa# rule. he re@uisites are as follos

6a7he person ho !ade the entr# !ust be dead or unable to testif#

6b7he entries ere !ade at or near the ti!e of the transactions to hich the# refer

6c7 he entrant as in a position to 3no the facts stated in the entries

6d7he entries ere !ade in his professional capacit# or in the perfor!ance of a dut#, hether le"al,contractual, !oral, or reli"ious

6e7 he entries ere !ade in the ordinar# or re"ular course of business or dut#.G)*H

he Court has to ac@uit petitioner for failure of the State to establish her "uilt be#ond reasonable doubt. he Courtreiterates that in the trial of ever# cri!inal case, a >ud"e !ust ri"idl# test the States evidence of "uilt in order to ensurethat such evidence adhered to the basic rules of ad!issibilit# before pronouncin" an accused "uilt# of the cri!e char"edupon such evidence. he failure of the >ud"e to do so herein nullified the "uarantee of due of process of la in favor of theaccused, ho had no obli"ation to prove her innocence. 5erac@uittal should follo.

I+No )3!udice to a civil action brou"ht a"ainst her for

the recover#of an# a!ount still oin" in favor of 4ootluc3ers Chain of Stores, Inc.No pronounce!ent on costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/164457.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/164457.htm#_ftn41


34/54

T$IRD DI+ISION

G.R. No. 198554 (u3? %0, 2012

MA(OR GENERAL CARLOS . GARCIA, AP BRET., Petitioner,vs.T$E EKECUTI+E SECRETAR, ))s)"t"g t;) OICE O T$E PRESIDENT T$E SECRETAR O NATIONALDEENSE +OLTAIRE T. GAMIN T$E C$IE O STA

Documents

Crim Pro 1 Cases