StatCon Cases.docx

8/10/2019 StatCon Cases.docx

1/27

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997

THE DIRECTOR OF LNDS,petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF PPELS !"# TEODORO $ISTDO, %u&%'('u')# &y MRGRIT, MRISS, MRI$EL, RNOLD !"#

MR* NN, !ll %u+"!)# $ISTO, respondents.

PNGNI$N,J.:

Is nespaper publication of the notice of initial hearin! in an ori!inal land re!istration case "andator# or director#$

Statement of the Case

The %ourt of &ppeals ruled that it as "erel# procedural and that the failure to cause such publication did not deprive the trial court of

its authorit# to !rant the application. 'ut the Solicitor (eneral disa!reed and thus filed this petition to set aside the

Decision1pro"ul!ated on )ul# *, ++ and the subse-uent Resolution 2pro"ul!ated on Nove"ber +, ++ b# Respondent %ourt of

&ppeals-in %&(.R. %V No. /*0+. The dispositive portion of the challen!ed Decision reads1

2H3R34OR3, pre"ises considered, the 5ud!"ent of dis"issal appealed fro" is hereb# set aside, and a ne one entered

confir"in! the re!istration and title of applicant, Teodoro &bistado, 4ilipino, a resident of 'aran!a# 0, Poblacion Ma"burao,

Occidental Mindoro, no deceased and substituted b# Mar!arita, Marissa, Maribel, &rnold and Mar# &nn, all surna"ed&bistado, represented b# their aunt, Miss )osefa &bistado, 4ilipinos, residents of Poblacion Ma"burao, Occidental Mindoro,

to the parcel of land covered under MSI 6IV&78 *+9D located in Poblacion Ma"burao, Occidental Mindoro.

The oppositions filed b# the Republic of the Philippines and private oppositor are hereb# dis"issed for ant of evidence.

:pon the finalit# of this decision and pa#"ent of the correspondin! ta;es due on this land, let an order for the issuance of a

decree be issued.

The Facts

On Dece"ber 7, +7


2/27

hile the second, hich is "entioned in the openin! clause of the sa"e para!raph, refers to publication not onl# in the

Official (aBette but also in a nespaper of !eneral circulation, and is procedural. Neither one nor the other is dispensable. &s

to the first, publication in the Official (aBette is indispensabl# necessar# because ithout it, the court ould be poerless to

assu"e 5urisdiction over a particular land re!istration case. &s to the second, publication of the notice of initial hearin! also

in a nespaper of !eneral circulation is indispensabl# necessar# as a re-uire"ent of procedural due processE otherise, an#

decision that the court "a# pro"ul!ate in the case ould be le!all# infir".

:nsatisfied, private respondents appealed to Respondent %ourt of &ppeals hich, as earlier e;plained, set aside the decision of the

trial court and ordered the re!istration of the title in the na"e of Teodoro &bistado.

The subse-uent "otion for reconsideration as denied in the challen!ed %& Resolution dared Nove"ber +, ++.

The Director of ?ands represented b# the Solicitor (eneral thus elevated this recourse to us. This %ourt notes that the petitionerFs

counsel anchored his petition on Rule of co"pliance ith the re-uired procedure pre5udiced the" in an# a#. Moreover, the other

re-uire"ents of1 publication in the Official (aBette, personal notice b# "ailin!, and postin! at the site and other conspicuousplaces, ere co"plied ith and these are sufficient to notif# an# part# ho is "inded to "a>e an# ob5ection of the

application for re!istration.

The Court's Ruling

2e find for petitioner.

Newspaper Publication Mandatory

The pertinent part of Section /* of Presidential Decree No. +9/ re-uirin! publication of the notice of initial hearin! reads as follos1

Sec. /*.Notice of initial hearing publication etc. @ The court shall, ithin five da#s fro" filin! of the application, issue an

order settin! the date and hour of the initial hearin! hich shall not be earlier than fort#five da#s nor later than ninet# da#s

fro" the date of the order.

The public shall be !iven notice of initial hearin! of the application for land re!istration b# "eans of 6+8 publicationE 6/8

"ailin!E and 6*8 postin!.

+.!y publication. @

2


3/27

:pon receipt of the order of the court settin! the ti"e for initial hearin!, the %o""issioner of ?and Re!istration shall cause a

notice of initial hearin! to be published once in the Official (aBette and once in a nespaper of !eneral circulation in the

Philippines1Pro"ided howe"er, that the publication in the Official (aBette shall be sufficient to confer 5urisdiction upon the

court. Said notice shall be addressed to all persons appearin! to have an interest in the land involved includin! the ad5oinin!

oners so far as >non, and Ato all ho" it "a# concern.A Said notice shall also re-uire all persons concerned to appear in

court at a certain date and ti"e to sho cause h# the pra#er of said application shall not be !ranted.

;;; ;;; ;;;

&d"ittedl#, the above provision provides in clear and cate!orical ter"s that publication in the Official (aBette suffices to confer

5urisdiction upon the land re!istration court. Hoever, the -uestion boils don to hether, absent an# publication in a nespaper of

!eneral circulation, the land re!istration court can validl# confir" and re!ister the title of private respondents.

2e anser this -uer# in the ne!ative. This anser is i"pelled b# the de"ands of statutor# construction and the due process rationale

behind the publication re-uire"ent.

The la used the ter" AshallA in prescribin! the or> to be done b# the %o""issioner of ?and Re!istration upon the latterFs receipt of

the court order settin! the ti"e for initial hearin!. The said ord denotes an i"perative and thus indicates the "andator# character of a

statute.152hile concededl# such literal "andate is not an absolute rule in statutor# construction, as its i"port ulti"atel# depends upon

its conte;t in the entire provision, e hold that in the present case the ter" "ust be understood in its nor"al "andator# "eanin!.

InRepublic "s.Marasigan,1/the %ourt throu!h Mr. )ustice Hilario (. Davide, )r. held that Section /* of PD +9/ re-uires notice of

the initial hearin! b# "eans of 6+8 publication, 6/8 "ailin! and 6*8 postin!, all of hich "ust be co"plied ith. AIf the intention of the

la ere otherise, said section ould not have stressed in detail the re-uire"ents of "ailin! of notices to all persons na"ed in the

petition ho, per Section +9 of the Decree, include oners of ad5oinin! properties, and occupants of the land.A Indeed, if "ailin! of

notices is essential, then b# parit# of reasonin!, publication in a nespaper of !eneral circulation is li>eise i"perative since the la

included such re-uire"ent in its detailed provision.

It should be noted further that land re!istration is a proceedin! in rem.17'ein! in rem, such proceedin! re-uires constructive seiBure

of the land as a!ainst allpersons, includin! the state, ho have ri!hts to or interests in the propert#. &nin remproceedin! is validated

essentiall# throu!h publication. This bein! so, the process "ust strictl# be co"plied ith. Otherise, persons ho "a# be interested

or hose ri!hts "a# be adversel# affected ould be barred fro" contestin! an application hich the# had no >noled!e of. &s has

been ruled, a part# as an oner see>in! the inscription of realt# in the land re!istration court "ust prove b# satisfactor# andconclusive evidence not onl# his onership thereof but the identit# of the sa"e, for he is in the sa"e situation as one ho institutes an

action for recover# of realt#.18He "ust prove his title a!ainst the hole orld. This tas>, hich rests upon the applicant, can best be

achieved hen all persons concerned @ na#, Athe hole orldA @ ho have ri!hts to or interests in the sub5ect propert# are notified

and effectivel# invited to co"e to court and sho cause h# the application should not be !ranted. The ele"entar# nor"s of due

process re-uire that before the clai"ed propert# is ta>en fro" concerned parties and re!istered in the na"e of the applicant, said

parties "ust be !iven notice and opportunit# to oppose.

It "a# be as>ed h# publication in a nespaper of !eneral circulation should be dee"ed "andator# hen the la alread# re-uires

notice b# publication in the Official (aBette as ell as b# "ailin! and postin!, all of hich have alread# been co"plied ith in the

case at hand. The reason is due process and the realit# that the Official (aBette is not as idel# read and circulated as nespapers and

is oftenti"es dela#ed in its circulation, such that the notices published therein "a# not reach the interested parties on ti"e, if at all.

&dditionall#, such parties "a# not be oners of nei!hborin! properties, and "a# in fact not on an# other real estate. In su", the all

enco"passin!in remnature of land re!istration cases, the conse-uences of default orders issued a!ainst the hole orld and the

ob5ective of disse"inatin! the notice in as ide a "anner as possible de"and a "andator# construction of the re-uire"ents for

publication, "ailin! and postin!.

&d"ittedl#, there as failure to co"pl# ith the e;plicit publication re-uire"ent of the la. Private respondents did not proffer an#

e;cuseE even if the# had, it ould not have "attered because the statute itself allos no e;cuses. Ineludibl#, this %ourt has no

authorit# to dispense ith such "andator# re-uire"ent. The la is una"bi!uous and its rationale clear. Ti"e and a!ain, this %ourt has

declared that here the la spea>s in clear and cate!orical lan!ua!e, there is no roo" for interpretation, vacillation or e-uivocationE

there is roo" onl# for application.19There is no alternative. Thus, the application for land re!istration filed b# private respondents

"ust be dis"issed ithout pre5udice to reapplication in the future, after all the le!al re-uisites shall have been dul# co"plied ith.

2H3R34OR3, the petition is (R&NT3D and the assailed Decision and Resolution are R3V3RS3D and S3T &SID3. The

application of private respondent for land re!istration is DISMISS3D ithout pre5udice. No costs.

SO ORD3R3D.

#a"ide $r% Melo and Francisco $$% concur%

Nar"asa C%$% is on lea"e%

3


4/27

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG


SUPREME COURT

Manila

S3%OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 820 M!+ 25, 1992

OLII S. PSCUL !"# HERMES S. PSCUL,petitioners,

vs.

ESPERN3 C. PSCUL4$UTIST, MNUEL C. PSCUL, JOSE C. PSCUL, SUSN C. PSCUL4$UTIST,

ERLIND C. PSCUL, ENCESLO C. PSCUL, JR., INTESTTE ESTTE OF ELEUTERIO T. PSCUL,

ELINO PSCUL, ISOCELES PSCUL, LEID PSCUL4MRTINES, IRGINI PSCUL4NER, NON

PSCUL4FERNNDO, OCTIO PSCUL, GERNI PSCUL4DU$ERT, !"# THE HONOR$LE PRESIDING

JUDGE MNUEL S. PDOLIN o6 $+. 1/2, RTC, P!%(, M)'+o M!"(l!, respondents.

PRS,J.:

This is a petition for revie on certiorarihich see>s to reverse and set aside1 6a8 the decision of the %ourt of &ppeals 1dated &pril/, +77 in %&(.R. SP. No. +=+ entitled AOlivia S. Pascual and Her"es S. Pascual v. 3speranBa %. Pascual'autista, Manuel %.

Pascual, )ose Pascual, Susana %. Pascual'autista, 3rlinda %. Pascual, 2enceslao %. Pascual, )r., et al.A hich dis"issed the petition

and in effect affir"ed the decision of the trial court and 6b8 the resolution dated )ul# +=, +77 den#in! petitionersF "otion for

reconsideration.

The undisputed facts of the case are as follos1

Petitioners Olivia and Her"es both surna"ed Pascual are the ac>noled!ed natural children of the late 3li!io Pascual, the latter bein!

the full blood brother of the decedent Don &ndres Pascual 6Rollo, petition, p. +08.

Don &ndres Pascual died intestate on October +/, +0* ithout an# issue, le!iti"ate, ac>noled!ed natural, adopted or spurious

children and as survived b# the folloin!1

6a8 &dela Soldevilla de Pascual, survivin! spousesE

6b8 %hildren of 2enceslao Pascual, Sr., a brother of the full blood of the deceased, to it1

3speranBa %. Pascual'autista

Manuel %. Pascual

)ose %. Pascual

Susana %. Pascual'autista

3rlinda %. Pascual

2enceslao %. Pascual, )r.

6c8 %hildren of Pedro'autista, brother of the half blood of the deceased, to it1

&velino Pascual

Isoceles Pascual

?oida PascualMartineB

Vir!inia PascualNer

Nona Pascual4ernando

Octavio Pascual

(eranaia PascualDubertE

6d8 &c>noled!ed natural children of 3li!io Pascual, brother of the full blood of the deceased, to it1

Olivia S. Pascual

Her"es S. Pascual

6e8 Intestate of 3leuterio T. Pascual, a brother of the half blood of the deceased and represented b# the folloin!1

Do"in!a M. Pascual

Ma"erta P. 4u!oso

&braha" S. Sar"iento, III

Re!ina Sar"ientoMacaiba#

3leuterio P. Sar"iento

Do"i!a P. San Die!o

Nelia P. Mar-ueB

Silvestre M. Pascual

3leuterio M. Pascual

6Rollo, pp. =


5/27

&dela Soldevilla de Pascual, the survivin! spouse of the late Don &ndres Pascual, filed ith the Re!ional Trial %ourt 6RT%8, 'ranch

+


6/27

&n ille!iti"ate child has no ri!ht to inherit ab intestatofro" the le!iti"ate children and relatives of his father or

"otherE nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the sa"e "anner fro" the ille!iti"ate child.

The issue in the case at bar, had alread# been laid to rest in#ia& "% IC supra here this %ourt ruled that1

&rticle / of the %ivil %ode provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutel# a succession ab

intestatobeteen the ille!iti"ate child and the le!iti"ate children and relatives of the father or "other of said le!iti"ate

child. The# "a# have a natural tie of blood, but this is not reco!niBed b# la for the purposes of &rticle /. 'eteen the

le!iti"ate fa"il# and ille!iti"ate fa"il# there is presu"ed to be an intervenin! anta!onis" and inco"patibilit#. Theille!iti"ate child is dis!racefull# loo>ed don upon b# the le!iti"ate fa"il#E the fa"il# is in turn hated b# the ille!iti"ate

childE the latter considers the privile!ed condition of the for"er, and the resources of hich it is thereb# deprivedE the for"er,

in turn, sees in the ille!iti"ate child nothin! but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a ble"ish bro>en in lifeE the la

does no "ore than reco!niBe this truth, b# avoidin! further !rounds of resent"ent.

3li!io Pascual is a le!iti"ate child but petitioners are his ille!iti"ate children.

&ppl#in! the above doctrine to the case at bar, respondent I&% did not err in holdin! that petitioners herein cannot represent their

father 3li!io Pascual in the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of the decedent &ndres Pascual, full blood brother of their

father.

In their "e"orandu", petitioners insisted that &rticle / in the li!ht of &rticles / and 7 of the %ivil %ode allos the" 6Olivia

and Her"es8 to represent 3li!io Pascual in the intestate estate of Don &ndres Pascual.

On "otion for reconsideration of the decision in#ia& "% IC this %ourt further elucidated the successional ri!hts of ille!iti"ate

children, hich s-uarel# ansers the -uestions raised b# the petitioner on this point.

The %ourt held1

&rticle /, 7, and clearl# spea>s of successional ri!hts of ille!iti"ate children, hich ri!hts are trans"itted to their

descendants upon their death. The descendants 6of these ille!iti"ate children8 ho "a# inherit b# virtue of the ri!ht of

representation "a# be le!iti"ate or ille!iti"ate. In hatever "anner, one should not overloo> the fact that the persons to be

represented are the"selvesillegitimate% The three na"ed provisions are ver# clear on this "atter. The ri!ht of representationis not available to ille!iti"ate descendants of

legitimate children in the inheritance of a le!iti"ate !randparent. It "a# be

ar!ued, as done b# petitioners, that the ille!iti"ate descendant of a le!iti"ate child is entitled to represent b# virtue of the

provisions of &rticle 7/, hich provides that Athe !randchildren and other descendants shall inherit b# ri!ht of

representation.A Such a conclusion is erroneous. It ould allo intestate succession b# an ille!iti"ate child to the le!iti"ate

parent of his father or "other, a situation hich ould set at nau!ht the provisions of &rticle /. &rticle 7/ is inapplicable

to the instant case because &rticle / prohibits absolutel# a succession ab intestatobeteen the ille!iti"ate child and the

le!iti"ate children and relatives of the father or "other. It "a# not be a"iss to state &rticle 7/ is the !eneral rule and &rticle

/ the e;ception.

The rules laid don in &rticle 7/ that A!randchildren and other descendants shall inherit b# ri!ht of representationA and in

&rticle / that the ri!hts of ille!iti"ate children . . . are trans"itted upon their death to their descendants, hether le!iti"ate

or ille!iti"ate aresub(ect to the limitationprescribed b# &rticle / to the end that an ille!iti"ate child has no ri!ht to

inheritab intestatofro" the le!iti"ate children and relatives of his father or "other. 6&"icus %uriaeFs Opinion b# for"er

)ustice Minister Ricardo %. Puno, p. +/8. DiaB v. Inter"ediate &ppellate %ourt, +7/ S%R& =/0E pp. =*+=*/E C+8.

Veril#, the interpretation of the la desired b# the petitioner "a# be "ore hu"ane but it is also an ele"entar# rule in statutor#

construction that hen the ords and phrases of the statute are clear and une-uivocal, their "eanin! "ust be deter"ined fro" the

lan!ua!e e"plo#ed and the statute "ust be ta>en to "ean e;actl# hat is sa#s. 6'aranda v. (ustilo, +


7/27

PR3MIS3S %ONSID3R3D, the petition is DISMISS3D for lac> of "erit and the assailed decision of the respondent %ourt of

&ppeals dated &pril /, +77 is &44IRM3D.

SO ORD3R3D.

Melencio)*errera Padilla Regalado and Nocon $$% concur%



SUPREME COURT

Manila

3N '&N%

G.R. No. L422-01 uu%' -0, 19/7

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,

vs.

MRIO MP * MPULONG,defendantappellant.

Francisco P% Cabigao for defendant)appellant%

+ffice of the Solicitor ,eneral rturo % lafri& ssistant Solicitor ,eneral F% R% Rosete and Solicitor +% C% *ernande& for plaintiff)

appellee%

FERNNDO,J.:

The sole -uestion in this appeal fro" a 5ud!"ent of conviction b# the loer court is hether or not the appoint"ent to and holdin! of

the position of a secret a!ent to the provincial !overnor ould constitute a sufficient defense to a prosecution for the cri"e of ille!al

possession of firear" and a""unition. 2e hold that it does not.

The accused in this case as indicted for the above offense in an infor"ation dated &u!ust +=, +ed

the folloin! -uestion1 ADoes the accused ad"it that this pistol cal. // revolver ith si; rounds of a""unition "entioned in the

infor"ation as found in his possession on &u!ust +*, +


8/27

Thereafter on Nove"ber /0, +en to this %ourt. The decision "ust be affir"ed.

The la is e;plicit that e;cept as thereafter specificall# alloed, Ait shall be unlaful for an# person to . . . possess an# firear",

detached parts of firear"s or a""unition therefor, or an# instru"ent or i"ple"ent used or intended to be used in the "anufacture of

firear"s, parts of firear"s, or a""unition.A9

The ne;t section provides that Afirear"s and a""unition re!ularl# and lafull# issued toofficers, soldiers, sailors, or "arines Cof the &r"ed 4orces of the Philippines, the Philippine %onstabular#, !uards in the e"plo#"ent

of the 'ureau of Prisons, "unicipal police, provincial !overnors, lieutenant !overnors, provincial treasurers, "unicipal treasurers,

"unicipal "a#ors, and !uards of provincial prisoners and 5ails,A are not covered Ahen such firear"s are in possession of such

officials and public servants for use in the perfor"ance of their official duties.A is e-uall# clear. The first

and funda"ental dut# of courts is to appl# the la. A%onstruction and interpretation co"e onl# after it has been de"onstrated that

application is i"possible or inade-uate ithout the".A0The conviction of the accused "ust stand. It cannot be set aside.

&ccused hoever ould rel# onPeople "% Macarandang,7here a secret a!ent as ac-uitted on appeal on the assu"ption that the

appoint"ent Aof the accused as a secret a!ent to assist in the "aintenance of peace and order ca"pai!ns and detection of cri"es,

sufficientl# put hi" ithin the cate!or# of a Apeace officerA e-uivalent even to a "e"ber of the "unicipal police e;pressl# covered b#

section 70.A Such reliance is "isplaced. It is not ithin the poer of this %ourt to set aside the clear and e;plicit "andate of a

statutor# provision. To the e;tent therefore that this decision conflicts ith hat as held in People "% Macarandang, it no lon!er

spea>s ith authorit#.

2herefore, the 5ud!"ent appealed fro" is affir"ed.

Concepcion C%$% Reyes $%!%2% #i&on Ma3alintal !eng&on $%P% 4aldi"ar Sanche& Castro and ngeles $$% concur%

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIISION

G.R. No. 11/719 J!"u!+y 18, 199/

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,

vs.

PTRICIO MIGO alias$E$OT,accusedappellant.

D E C I S I O N

MELO,J.

Initiall#, Patricio &"i!o as char!ed ith frustrated "urder in an Infor"ation readin! as follos1

The undersi!ned accuses the abovena"ed accused of the cri"e of 4R:STR&T3D M:RD3R, under &rt. /=7, in relation to

&rt. 9 of the Revised Penal %ode, co""itted as follos1

That on or about Dece"ber /, +7, in the %it# of Davao, Philippines, and ithin the 5urisdiction of this Honorable %ourt,

the above"entioned accused, ar"ed ith a >nife, ith treacher# and evident pre"editation and ith intent to >ill ilfull#,

unlafull# and feloniousl# attac>ed, assaulted and stab ith said eapon one 'enito N! Su#, thereb# inflictin! in5uries uponthe latter, the folloin! in5uries, to it1

M:?TIP?3 ST&' 2O:NDS?34T &RM, ?34T %H3ST, &'DOM3N &ND ?34T THI(H 2ITH

P3N3TR&TION TO ?34T P?3:R&? %&VITK, DI&PHR&(M STOM&%H, D:OD3N:M, P&N%R3&S &ND

MIDTR&NV3RS3 %O?ON.

thus perfor"in! all the acts of e;ecution hich should have produced the cri"e of "urder as a conse-uence but nevertheless,

did not produce it b# reason of causes independent of his ill, that is, because of the ti"el# and able "edical assistance

i""ediatel# rendered to the said 'enito N! Su#.

8


9/27

6p. +,Rollo.8

to hich he pleaded not !uilt#.

Subse-uentl#, due to the death of the victi", an a"ended Infor"ation as filed char!in! no the cri"e of "urder, to it1

That on or about Dece"ber /, +7, in the %it# of Davao, Philippines, and ithin the 5urisdiction of this Honorable %ourt,

the above"entioned accused, ar"ed ith a >nife, ith treacher# and evident pre"editation and ith intent to >ill ilfull#,

unlafull# and feloniousl# attac>ed, assaulted and stabbed ith said eapon one 'enito N! Su#, thereb# inflictin! upon thelatter "ultiple ounds hich caused his death and the conse-uent loss and da"a!e to the heirs of the victi".

6p. *,Rollo.8

&fter trial on the "erits, the court a 5uorendered a decision, disposin!1

2H3R34OR3, findin! the accused Patricio &"i!o !uilt# be#ond reasonable doubt of the cri"e of M:RD3R punishable

under &rt. /=7 of the Revised Penal %ode, ith no "odif#in! circu"stance present, the accused is hereb# sentenced to the

penalt# of reclusion perpetuahich is the "ediu" period of the penalt# ofreclusion temporal in its "a;i"u" to death and

to pa# the costE to inde"nif# the offended part# the a"ount of P*,/+=.0 as actual da"a!es and P9,. as

co"pensator# da"a!es and P9,. as "oral da"a!es.

6p. */,Rollo.8

Reversal thereof is no sou!ht, ith accusedappellant ar!uin! that error as co""itted b# the trial court in i"posin! or "etin! out

the penalt# of reclusion perpetuaa!ainst hi" despite the fact that Sec. + 6+8, &rticle III of the +70 %onstitution as alread# in effect

hen the offense as co""itted.

The facts of the case, as briefl# su""ariBed in the brief sub"itted b# the Office of the Solicitor (eneral and as borne out b# the

evidence, are as follos1

On Dece"ber /, +7, at around +1 P.M., after havin! spent halfda# at their store, located at No. + of %ar&sia, 'a5ada, Davao %it#. 2ith hi" durin! that ti"e ere his dau!hters, )ocel#n N! Su# and a #oun!er one to!ether ith his

to #ear old son, ho ere all seated at the front seat beside hi" hile a five #ear old bo# as also seated at the bac> of the

said vehicle. 6TSN, &pril /, ++, pp. *9E TSN, March *+, +/8

On their a# ho"e and hile traversin! the National Hi!ha# of 'a5ada, Davao %it#, an oran!e To#ota Ta"ara driven b#

one Vir!ilio &bo!ada, suddenl# "ade a left turn in front of the Re!ional Hospital, 'a5ada, Davao %it#, ithout noticin! the

4ord 4iera co"in! fro" the opposite direction. This Ta"ara as headin! for Sterl#n itchenette, hich as situated at the

co"er of the said hospital. 6TSN, &pril /, ++, p. =E TSN, March *+, +/, pp. * and +*8

2ith Vir!ilio as Patricio &"i!o alias 'ebot, a vulcaniBer at ?in!lin!Fs vulcaniBin! shop oned and operated b# a certain

(aladua. He as also seated at the ri!ht front seat beside Vir!ilio.

Due to the une;pected veer "ade b# Vir!ilio, an accidental head on collision occurred beteen the 4iera and the Ta"ara,

causin! a sli!ht da"a!ed to the ri!ht bu"per of the latter. 6TSN, March *+, +/, p. =8

Ri!ht after the collision, 'enito i""ediatel# ali!hted fro" the driverFs seat and confronted Vir!ilio &bo!ada ho also ent

don fro" his vehicle. 6TSN, &pril /, ++, p. 98

'enito, ho as a bi! "an ith a loud voice told Vir!ilio, AKou ere not loo>in!,A to hich Vir!ilio retorted, I did not see

#ouA. 6TSN, &pril /, ++, p. +edE AKou are %hinese, is it #ou$A 2ith a read# anser 'enito

saidE AKes, I a" a %hinese and h#$A Patricio in turn repliedE So, #ou are a %hinese, ait for a hile,A then left. 6 ibid. pp. 0

and +8

9


10/27

I""ediatel# thereafter, 'enito ordered )ocel#n to call a police"an, but after a lapsed of about one "inute, Patricio returned

and arro!antl# approached 'enito, as>in! the latter once a!ain, AKou are a %hinese, is it not$A To this 'enito cal"l#

responded in the affir"ative. 6ibid. pp. 0, +/8

:pon hearin! the response, Patricio "u"bled A&h, so #ou are a %hinese,A and suddenl# too> a five inch >nife fro" his aist

and si"ultaneousl# stabbed 'enito hittin! hi" tice on the chest. 6Ibid. p. /8

&fter bein! hit, 'enito ounded and sensin! that his life as in peril, tried to evade his assailant b# pushin! Patricio aa#

and run around the Ta"ara but Patricio ieldin! the sa"e >nife and not content ith the in5uries he had alread# inflicted,still chased 'enito and upon overta>in! the latter e"braced hi" and thrusted his >nife on the victi" several ti"es, the last of

hich hit 'enito on the left side of his bod#. 6ibid. pp. 7, +, //8

It as at this 5uncture that )ocel#n ho as still inside the 4ord 4iera, pleadin! for "erc# to spare her father tried to !et out

of the vehicle but it as ver# unfortunate that she could not open its door. 6Ibid. p. +8

noin! that Patricio as reall# deter"ined to >ill her father b# refusin! to heed her pleas, )osel#n shouted for help, since

there ere alread# several people around itnessin! that fatal incident, but to her consternation nobod# lifted a sin!le fin!er

to help the". 6ibid. pp. e hi", thus,

she instead decided to !o bac> to here her father as and carried hi" inside the Ta"ara ho bu"ped the" and

conse-uentl# brou!ht hi" to San Pedro Hospital here he as attended to at the 3"er!enc# Roo". 6ibid. p +*8

2hile at the 3"er!enc# Roo", 'enito ho as on a ver# critical condition, due to "ultiple 6+*8 stabbed ounds, as

operated b# Dr. Rolando %hiu. &fter the operation, he as subse-uentl# brou!ht to the I%: and sta#ed there for three 6*8

ee>s. 6)ul# +/, ++, pp. * and =8

In a last ditch effort to save his life, havin! onl# + to / percent survival, 'enito as airlifted to Manila and as directl#confined at the %hinese (eneral Hospital. &fter three 6*8 ee>s of confine"ent, 'enito e;pired. %&:S3 O4 D3&TH @

S3PSIS 6an overhel"in! infection8. This "eans that the infection has alread# circulated in the blood all over the bod#.

6ibid. pp.


11/27

The %ourt has reconsidered the above cases and, after e;tended discussion, co"e to the conclusion that the doctrine

announced therein does not reflect the intention of the fra"ers as e"bodied in &rticle III, Section +6+8 of the %onstitution.

This conclusion is not unani"ous, to be sure. Indeed, there is "uch to be said of the opposite vie, hich as in fact shared

b# "an# of those no votin! for its reversal. The "a5orit# of the %ourt, hoever, is of the belief that the ori!inal

interpretation should be restored as the "ore acceptable readin! of the constitutional provision in -uestion.

The advocates of the Masan!>a# rulin! ar!ue that the %onstitution abolished the death penalt# and thereb# li"ited the

penalt# for "urder to the re"ainin! periods, to it, the "ini"u" and the "ediu". These should no be divided into three

ne periods in >eepin! ith the three!rade sche"e intended b# the le!islature. Those ho disa!ree feel that &rticle III,Section +6+8 "erel# prohibits the i"position of the death penalt# and has not, b# reducin! it to reclusion perpetuaalso

correspondin!l# reduced the re"ainin! penalties. These should be "aintained intact.

& readin! of Section +6+8 of &rticle III ill readil# sho that here is reall# nothin! therein hich e;pressl# declares the

abolition of the death penalt#. The provision "erel# sa#s that the death penalt# shall not be i"posed unless for co"pellin!

reasons involvin! heinous cri"es the %on!ress hereafter provides for it and, if alread# i"posed, shall be reduced to reclusion

perpetua. The lan!ua!e, hile rather a>ard, is still plain enou!h. &nd it is a settled rule of le!al her"eneutics that if the

lan!ua!e under consideration is plain, it is neither necessar# nor per"issible to resort to e;trinsic aids, li>e the records of the

constitutional convention, for its interpretation.

;;; ;;; ;;;

The -uestion as e see it is not hether the fra"ers intended to abolish the death penalt# or "erel# to prevent its i"position.

2hatever the intention as, hat e should deter"ine is hether or not the# also "eant to re-uire a correspondin!

"odification in the other periods as a result of the prohibition a!ainst the death penalt#.

It is definite that such a re-uire"ent, if there reall# as one, is not at all e;pressed in &rticle III, Section +6+8 of the

%onstitution or indicated therein b# at least clear and un"ista>able i"plication. It ould have been so eas#, assu"in! such

intention, to state it cate!oricall# and plainl#, leavin! no doubts as to its "eanin!.

One searches in vain for such a state"ent, e;press or even i"plied. The riter of this opinion "a>es the personal observation

that this "i!ht be still another instance here the fra"ers "eant one thin! and said another or @ stran!el#, considerin! their

lo-uacit# elsehere @ did not sa# enou!h.

The ori!inal rulin! as applied in the (avarra, Masan!>a#, &tencio and Intino cases represented the unani"ous thin>in! of the

%ourt as it as then constituted. &ll but to "e"bers at that ti"e still sit on the %ourt toda#. If e have seen fit to ta>e a

second loo> at the doctrine on hich e ere all a!reed before, it is not because of a chan!e in the co"position of this bod#.

It is virtuall# the sa"e %ourt that is chan!in! its "ind after reflectin! on the -uestion a!ain in the li!ht of ne perspectives.

&nd ell it "i!ht, and can, for the tenets it la#s don are not i""utable. The decisions of this %ourt are not petrified rules

!ron ri!id once pronounced but vital, !roin! thin!s sub5ect to chan!e as all life is. 2hile e are told that the trodden path

is best, this should not prevent us fro" openin! a fresh trial or e;plorin! the other side or testin! a ne idea in a spirit of

continuin! in-uir#.

&ccordin!l#, ith the hope that Aas 5ud!es, 6e8 ill be e-ual to 6our8 tas>s,A hatever that "eans, e hereb# reverse the

current doctrine providin! for three ne periods for the penalt# for "urder as reduced b# the %onstitution. Instead, e return

to our ori!inal interpretation and hold that &rticle III, Section +6+8 does not chan!e the periods of the penalt# prescribed b#

&rticle /=7 of the Revised Penal %ode e;cept onl# insofar as it prohibits the i"position of the death penalt# and reduces it

to reclusion perpetua. The ran!e of the "ediu" and "ini"u" penalties re"ains unchan!ed.

The %ourt realiBes that this interpretation "a# lead to certain ine-uities that ould not have arisen under &rticle /=7 of the

Revised Penal %ode before its "odification. Thus, a person ori!inall# sub5ect to the death penalt# and another ho

co""itted the "urder ithout the attendance of an# "odif#in! circu"stance ill no be both punishable ith the sa"e

"ediu" period althou!h the for"er is concededl# "ore !uilt# than the latter. True enou!h. 'ut that is the ill not of this

%ourt but of the %onstitution. That is a -uestion of isdo", not construction. Of so"e relevance perhaps is the parable in the

'ible of the or>"an ho as paid the stipulated dail# a!e of one penn# althou!h he had or>ed lon!er than others hired

later in the da# also paid the sa"e a"ount. 2hen he co"plained because he felt un5ustl# treated b# the hoe 5urisdiction of thecourt over the person. &n appearance "a# be "adt a!ree ith "e for a penn#$

The proble" in an# event is addressed not to this %ourt but to the %on!ress. Penalties are prescribed b# statute and are

essentiall# and e;clusivel# le!islative. &s 5ud!es, e can onl# interpret and appl# the" and have no authorit# to "odif# the"

or revise their ran!e as deter"ined e;clusivel# b# the le!islature. 2e should not encroach on this prero!ative of the

la"a>in! bod#.

%o"in! bac> to the case at bar, e find that there bein! no !eneric a!!ravatin! or "iti!atin! circu"stance attendin! the

co""ission of the offenses, the applicable sentence is the "ediu" period of the penalt# prescribed b# &rticle /=7 of the

11


12/27

Revised Penal %ode hich, confor"abl# to the ne doctrine here adopted and announced, is still reclusion perpetua. This is

the penalt# e i"posed on all the accusedappellants for each of the three "urders the# have co""itted in conspirac# ith

the others. The aard of civil inde"nit# for the heirs of each of the victi"s is affir"ed but the a"ount thereof is hereb#

increased to P*,. in line ith the present polic#.

6at pp. +/+/9.8

The above rulin! as reiterated inPeople "s.Parominog6/* S%R& o sa F#o, a#a >un! 6sic8 "a! e;plain >a, >asi han!!an! +1 p."., >inabu>asan hindi >a

na pu"aso>. N!a#on a>o an! babali> sa F#o, na!aapl# >a sa States, na!aapl# >a sa revie "o, >un! >a>ailan!anin an!

certification "o, >ali"utan "o na >asi hindi >a sa a>in "a>a>ahin!i.

12


13/27

%H:%HI @ Hindi MFa". asi an! ano >o tala!a noon icocontinue >o up to +1 p.".

3S( @!astos 3a na>ali"utan "o na >un! paano >a pu"aso> dito sa hotel. Ma!su"bon! >a sa :nion >un! !usto "o.

Na>ali"utan "o na >un! paano >a na>apaso> dito ADo #ou thin> that on #our on "a>a>apaso> >a >un! hindi a>o.

Panunu"b#o#an na >ita 6Sinusu"batan na >ita8.

%H:%HI @ Itutulo# >o na MFa" sana an! dut# >o.

3S( @ aso ilan! beses na a>on! binabali>an doon n! "!a no 6sic8 >o.

3S( @ Na>ali"utan "o na ba >un! paano >a pu"aso> sa hotel, >un! on #our on "erit ala" >o na"an >un! !aano >a

A>a boboA "o. Mara"i an! na!aapl# ala" >on! hindi >a papasa.

%H:%HI @ u"uha >a"i n! e;a" noon.

3S( @ Oo, pero hindi >a papasa.

%H:%HI @ 3h, ba>it a>o an! na>uha ni Dr. Ta"a#o

3S( @ u>unin >a >asi a>o.

%H:%HI @ 3h, di sana @

3S( @ Hua! "on! ipa!"ala>i na "a# uta> >a >asi wala 3ang uta3. &>ala "o ba "a>u>uha >a dito >un! hindi a>o.

%H:%HI @ Ma!ee;plain a>o.

3S( @ Hua! na, hindi a>o "a!papae;plain sa F#o, "a>aalala >a >un! paano >a pu"arito. APutang)inaA sasabi

sabihin "o >a"a!ana> n! nana# at tata# "o an! "!a "a!ulan! >o.

3S( @ 2ala na a>on! pa>iala", dahil nandito >a sa loob, nasa labas >a puede >a n! hindi pu"aso>, o>e# #an nasaloob

>a u"alis >a doon.

%H:%HI @ asi MFa", binbali>an a>o n! "!a ta!a :nion.

3S( @ Nandi#an na rin a>o, pero hua! "on! >ali"utan na hindi >a "a>a>apaso> >un! hindi a>o. un! hindi "o

>ini>ilala #an o>e# lan! sa a>in, dahil tapos >a na.

%H:%HI @ Inaano >o "Fa" na utan! na loob.

3S( @ Hua! na lan!, hindi "o utan! na loob, >asi >un! ba!a sa no, nilapastan!an "o a>o.

%H:%HI @ Paano >ita nilapastan!anan$

3S( @ Mabuti pa lu"abas >a na. Hindi na a>o "a>i>ipa!usap sa F#o. ?u"abas >a na. Ma!su"bon! >a.-

&s a result of petitionerFs recordin! of the event and alle!in! that the said act of secretl# tapin! the confrontation as ille!al, private

respondent filed a cri"inal case before the Re!ional Trial %ourt of Pasa# %it# for violation of Republic &ct =/, entitled A&n &ct to

prohibit and penaliBe ire tappin! and other related violations of private co""unication, and other purposes.A &n infor"ation

char!in! petitioner of violation of the said &ct, dated October


14/27

Pasa# %it#, Metro Manila, Septe"ber +en ord, to tap an# ire or cable, or b# usin! an# other device or arran!e"ent, to secretl# overhear, intercept,

or record such co""unication or spo>en ord b# usin! a device co""onl# >non as a dictaphone or dicta!raph or

detectaphone or al>ietal>ie or tape recorder, or hoever otherise described.

The aforestated provision clearl# and une-uivocall# "a>es it ille!al for an# person, not authoriBed b# all the parties to an# private

co""unication to secretl# record such co""unication b# "eans of a tape recorder. The la "a>es no distinction as to hether the

part# sou!ht to be penaliBed b# the statute ou!ht to be a part# other than or different fro" those involved in the private

co""unication. The statuteFs intent to penaliBe all persons unauthoriBed to "a>e such recordin! is underscored b# the use of the

-ualifier Aan#A. %onse-uentl#, as respondent %ourt of &ppeals correctl# concluded, Aeven a 6person8 priv# to a co""unication ho

records his private conversation ith another ithout the >noled!e of the latter 6ill8 -ualif# as a violatorA 1-under this provision of

R.&. =/.

& perusal of the Senate %on!ressional Records, "oreover, supports the respondent courtFs conclusion that in enactin! R.&. =/ our

la"a>ers indeed conte"plated to "a>e ille!al, unauthoriBed tape recordin! of private conversations or co""unications ta>en eitherb# the parties the"selves or b# third persons. Thus1

;;; ;;; ;;;

Senator Taada1 That -ualified onl# AoverhearA.

Senator Padilla1 So that hen it is intercepted or recorded, the ele"ent of secrec# ould not appear to be "aterial. No,

suppose, Kour Honor, the recordin! is not "ade b# all the parties but b# so"e parties and involved not cri"inal cases that

ould be "entioned under section * but ould cover, for e;a"ple civil cases or special proceedin!s hereb# a recordin! is

14


15/27

"ade not necessaril# b# all the parties but perhaps b# so"e in an effort to sho the intent of the parties because the actuation

of the parties prior, si"ultaneous even subse-uent to the contract or the act "a# be indicative of their intention. Suppose there

is such a recordin!, ould #ou sa#, Kour Honor, that the intention is to cover it ithin the purvie of this bill or outside$

Senator Taada1 That is covered b# the purvie of this bill, Kour Honor.

Senator Padilla1 3ven if the record should be used not in the prosecution of offense but as evidence to be used in %ivil %ases

or special proceedin!s$

Senator Taada1 That is ri!ht. This is a complete ban on tape recorded con"ersations ta3en without the authori&ation of all

the parties.

Senator Padilla1 No, ould that be reasonable, #our Honor$

Senator Taada1 I believe it is reasonable because it is not sporting to record the obser"ation of one without his 3nowing it

and then using it against him.It is not fair it is not sportsmanli3e . If the purposeE Kour honor, is to record the intention of the

parties. I believe that all the parties should >no that the observations are bein! recorded.

Senator Padilla1 This "i!ht reduce the utilit# of recorders.

Senator Taada1 2ell no. 4or e;a"ple, I as to sa# that in "eetin!s of the board of directors here a tape recordin! is ta>en,

there is no ob5ection to this if all the parties >no. It is but fair that the people hose re"ar>s and observations are bein!

"ade should >no that the observations are bein! recorded.

Senator Padilla1 No, I can understand.

Senator Taada1 That is h# hen e ta>e state"ents of persons, e sa#1 APlease be infor"ed that hatever #ou sa# here

"a# be used a!ainst #ou.A That is fairness and that is hat e de"and. No, in spite of that arnin!, he "a>es da"a!in!

state"ents a!ainst his on interest, ell, he cannot co"plain an# "ore. !ut if you are going to ta3e a recording of the

obser"ations and remar3s of a person without him 3nowing that it is being taped or recorded without him 3nowing that what

is being recorded may be used against him I thin3 it is unfair.

;;; ;;; ;;;

6%on!ression Record, Vol. III, No. *+, p. 97=, March +/, +no1 Do #ou understand, Mr. Senator, that under Section + of the bill as no orded, if a party secretly records a

public speech, he ould be penaliBed under Section +$ 'ecause the speech is public, but the recordin! is done secretl#.

Senator Taada1 2ell, that particular aspect is not conte"plated b# the bill. It is the communication between one person and

another person 9 not between a spea3er and a public.

;;; ;;; ;;;

6%on!ressional Record, Vol. III, No. **, p.


16/27

!estures8A 1/These definitions are broad enou!h to include verbal or nonverbal, ritten or e;pressive co""unications of A"eanin!s

or thou!htsA hich are li>el# to include the e"otionall#char!ed e;chan!e, on 4ebruar# //, +77, beteen petitioner and private

respondent, in the privac# of the latterFs office. &n# doubts about the le!islative bod#Fs "eanin! of the phrase Aprivate

co""unicationA are, further"ore, put to rest b# the fact that the ter"s AconversationA and Aco""unicationA ere interchan!eabl#

used b# Senator Taada in his 3;planator# Note to the bill -uoted belo1

It has been said that innocent people have nothin! to fear fro" their con"ersationsbein! overheard. 'ut this state"ent

i!nores the usual nature of con"ersationsas ell the undeniable fact that "ost, if not all, civiliBed people have so"e aspects

of their lives the# do not ish to e;pose. 4reecon"ersationsare often characteriBed b# e;a!!erations, obscenit#, a!reeablefalsehoods, and the e;pression of antisocial desires of vies not intended to be ta>en seriousl#. The ri!ht to the pri"acy of

communication, a"on! others, has e;pressl# been assured b# our %onstitution. Needless to state here, the fra"ers of our

%onstitution "ust have reco!niBed the nature of con"ersationsbeteen individuals and the si!nificance of "anFs spiritual

nature, of his feelin!s and of his intellect. The# "ust have >non that part of the pleasures and satisfactions of life are to be

found in the unaudited, and free e;chan!e of

communicationbeteen individuals @ free fro" ever# un5ustifiable intrusion

b# hatever "eans.17

In ,aanan "s.Intermediate ppellate Court, 18a case hich dealt ith the issue of telephone iretappin!, e held that the use of a

telephone e;tension for the purpose of overhearin! a private conversation ithout authoriBation did not violate R.&. =/ because a

telephone e;tension devise as neither a"on! those Adevice6s8 or arran!e"ent6s8A enu"erated therein, 19folloin! the principle that

Apenal statutes "ust be construed strictl# in favor of the accused.A 20The instant case turns on a different note, because the applicable

facts and circu"stances pointin! to a violation of R.&. =/ suffer fro" no a"bi!uit#, and the statute itself e;plicitl# "entions the

unauthoriBed Arecordin!A of private co""unications ith the use of taperecorders as a"on! the acts punishable.

2H3R34OR3, because the la, as applied to the case at bench is clear and una"bi!uous and leaves us ith no discretion, the instant

petition is hereb# D3NI3D. The decision appealed fro" is &44IRM3D. %osts a!ainst petitioner.



SUPREME COURT

Manila

3N '&N%

G.R. No. 1095 Noillin! of 4ederico 'o#on and the oundin! of the latterFs ife 4lorida and his son Tirso, at Palo, %alanu!a,

RapuRapu, &lba#, on the ni!ht of )une /


17/27

clai" as filed ith the 'oard of %lai"s of the Depart"ent of )ustice, but the clai" as denied on the !round that hile petitionerFs

presence at the scene of the >illin! as not sufficient to find hi" !uilt# be#ond reasonable doubt, #et, considerin! that there as bad

blood beteen hi" and the deceased as a result of a land dispute and the fact that the convicted "urderer is his soninla, there as

basis for findin! that he as Aprobabl# !uilt#.A

On appeal, respondent Secretar# of )ustice affir"ed the 'oardFs rulin!. Said the Secretar# of )ustice in his resolution dated March ++,

+*1

It is believed therefore that the phrase Aan# person . . . un5ustl# accused, convicted and i"prisonedA in Section *6a8of R.&. No. 0* refers to an individual ho as ron!l# accused and i"prisoned for a cri"e he did not co""it,

thereb# "a>in! hi" Aa victi" of un5ust i"prison"ent.A In the instant case, hoever, %lai"antJ&ppellant cannot be

dee"ed such a victi" since a readin! of the decision of his ac-uittal shos that his e;culpation is not based on his

innocence, but upon, in effect, a findin! of reasonable doubt.

Petitioner brou!ht this petition for revie on certiorari. Neither Rule =9 nor Rep. &ct No. 0*, hoever, provides for revie

b# certiorariof the decisions of the Secretar# of )ustice. Nonetheless, in vie of the i"portance of the -uestion tendered, the %ourt

resolved to treat the petition as a special civil action for certiorariunder Rule noin!l# renderin! an un5ust 5ud!"entA in art. /= of the Revised Penal

%ode. 2hat this %ourt held inIn re Rafael C.Climaco /applies1

17


18/27

In order that a 5ud!e "a# be held liable for 3nowingly renderingan un5ust 5ud!"ent, it "ust be shon be#ond doubt

that the 5ud!"ent is un5ust as it is contrary to lawor is not supported by the e"idence, and the sa"e as "ade ith

conscious and deliberate intent to do an in5ustice . . . .

To hold a 5ud!e liable for the rendition of "anifestl# un5ust 5ud!"ent b# reason of ine;cusable ne!li!ence or

i!norance, it "ust be shon, accordin! to (roiBard, that althou!h he has acted ithout "alice, he failed to observe

in the perfor"ance of his dut#, that dili!ence, prudence and care hich the la is entitled to e;act in the renderin! of

an# public service. Ne!li!ence and i!norance are ine;cusable if the# i"pl# a "anifest in5ustice hich cannot be

e;plained b# a reasonable interpretation. Ine;cusable "ista>e onl# e;ists in the le!al concept hen it i"plies a"anifest in5ustice, that is to sa#, such in5ustice hich cannot be e;plained b# a reasonable interpretation, even

thou!h there is a "isunderstandin! or error of the la applied, #et in the contrar# it results, lo!icall# and reasonabl#,

and in a ver# clear and indisputable "anner, in the notorious violation of the le!al precept.

Indeed, sec. *6a8 does not refer solel# to an un5ust conviction as a result of hich the accused is un5ustl# i"prisoned, but, in addition,

to an un5ust accusation. The accused "ust have been Aun5ustl# accused, in conse-uence of hich he is un5ustl# convicted and then

i"prisoned. It is i"portant to note this because if fro" its inception the prosecution of the accused has been ron!ful, his conviction

b# the court is, in all probabilit#, also ron!ful. %onversel#, if the prosecution is not "alicious an# conviction even thou!h based on

less than the re-uired -uantu" of proof in cri"inal cases "a# be erroneous but not necessaril# un5ust.

The reason is that under Rule ++/, sec. =, the -uestion for the prosecutor in filin! a case in court is not hether the accused is !uilt#

be#ond reasonable doubt but onl# hether Athere is reasonable !round to believe that a cri"e has been co""itted and the accused

isprobably guiltythereof.A Hence, an accusation hich is based on Aprobable !uiltA is not an un5ust accusation and a conviction based

on such de!ree of proof is not necessarilyan un5ust 5ud!"ent but onl# an erroneous one. The re"ed# for such error is appeal.

In the case at bar there is absolutel# no evidence to sho that petitionerFs conviction b# the trial court as ron!ful or that it as the

product of "alice or !ross i!norance or !ross ne!li!ence. To the contrar#, the court had reason to believe that petitioner and his co

accused ere in lea!ue, because petitioner is the fatherinla of 2ilfredo 'alderra"a and it as petitioner ho bore the victi" a

!rud!e because of a land dispute. Not onl# that. Petitioner and his coaccused arrived to!ether in the hut of the victi"s and forced their

a# into it.

The %ourt of &ppeals ruled there as no conspirac# onl# because there as no proof that he did or sa# an#thin! on the occasion. Said

the appellate court.

'oth e#eitness testi"onies fail to sho the appellant 4elicito 'asbacio to have co""itted an# act at all. 'oth fail

to sho 4elicito 'asbacio as havin! said an#thin! at all. 'oth fail to sho 4elicito 'asbacio as havin! co""itted

an#thin! in furtherance of a conspirac# to co""it the cri"es char!ed a!ainst the defendants. It see"s to be a frail

and fli"s# basis on hich to conclude that conspirac# e;isted beteen actual >iller 2ilfredo 'alderra"a and

4elicito 'asbacio to co""it "urder and to frustrated "urders on that ni!ht of )une / shados of that ni!ht. . . .

One "a# ta>e issue ith this rulin! because precisel# conspirac# "a# be shon b# concert of action and other circu"stances. 2h#

as petitioner ith his soninla$ 2h# did the# apparentl# flee to!ether$ &nd hat about the fact that there as bad blood beteen

petitioner and the victi" 4ederico 'o#on$ These -uestions "a# no lon!er be passed upon in vie of the ac-uittal of petitioner but

the# are relevant in evaluatin! his clai" that he had been un5ustl# accused, convicted and i"prisoned before he as released because

of his ac-uittal on appeal. 2e hold that in vie of these circu"stances respondent Secretar# of )ustice and the 'oard of %lai"s did not

co""it a !rave abuse of its discretion in disalloin! petitionerFs clai" for co"pensation under Rep. &ct No. 0*.

2H3R34OR3, the petition is DISMISS3D.

SO ORD3R3D.

Nar"asa C%$% Padilla !idin Regalado #a"ide $r% Romero !ellosillo Melo :uiason Puno ;itug and


19/27

G.R. No. 1098-5 Noeise !uarantee co"pliance ith the provisions of the %ode and its i"ple"entin! rules and re!ulations relating

to recruitment and placement, the Rules of the &d"inistration and relevant issuances of the Depart"ent and all

liabilities which the dministration may impose. The suret# bonds shall include the condition that the notice to the

principal is notice to the suret# and that an# 5ud!"ent a!ainst the principal in connection ith "atters fallin! under

PO3&Fs 5urisdiction shall be bindin! and conclusive on the suret#. The suret# bonds shall be coter"inus ith the

validit# period of license. 63"phasis supplied8

In addition, the petitioner clai"s it has placed in escro the su" of P/, ith the Philippine National 'an> in co"pliance ith

Section +0, Rule II, 'oo> II of the sa"e Rule, Ato pri"aril# anser for valid and le!al clai"s of recruited or>ers as a result of

recruit"ent violations or "one# clai"s.A

Re-uired to co""ent, the Solicitor (eneral sustains the appeal bond re-uire"ent but su!!est that the rules cited b# the N?R% are

applicable onl# to decisions of the ?abor &rbiters and not of the PO3&. &ppeals fro" decisions of the PO3&, he sa#s, are !overned

b# the folloin! provisions of Rule V, 'oo> VII of the PO3& Rules1

Sec. 9.Re5uisites for Perfection of ppeal. The appeal shall be filed ithin the re!le"entar# period as provided in

Section + of this RuleE shall be under oath with proof of payment of the re5uired appeal fee and the posting of a cash

or surety bond as pro"ided in Section = of this RuleE shall be acco"panied b# a "e"orandu" of appeal hich shall

state the !rounds relied upon and the ar!u"ents in support thereofE the relief pra#ed forE and a state"ent of the date

hen the appellant received the appealed decision andJor aard and proof of service on the other part# of such

appeal.

& "ere notice of appeal ithout co"pl#in! ith the other re-uisites aforestated shall not stop the runnin! of the

period for perfectin! an appeal.

19


20/27

Sec. ers that "a# be ad5ud!ed a!ainst the e"plo#er. This

a"ount "a# not even be enou!h to cover such clai"s and, even if it could initiall#, "a# eventuall# be e;hausted after satisf#in! other

subse-uent clai"s.

&s it happens, the decision sou!ht to be appealed !rants a "onetar# aard of about P+0, to the dis"issed e"plo#ee, the herein

private respondent. The standb# !uarantees re-uired b# the PO3& Rules ould be depleted if this aard ere to be enforced not

a!ainst the appeal bond but a!ainst the bonds and the escro "one#, "a>in! the" inade-uate for the satisfaction of the other

obli!ations the recruiter "a# incur.

Indeed, it is possible for the "onetar# aard in favor of the e"plo#ee to e;ceed the a"ount of P*9,, hich is the su" of the

bonds and escro "one# re-uired of the recruiter.

It is true that these standb# !uarantees are not i"posed on local e"plo#ers, as the petitioner observes, but there is a si"ple e;planation

for this distinction. Overseas recruiters are sub5ect to "ore strin!ent re-uire"ent because of the special ris>s to hich our or>ers

abroad are sub5ected b# their forei!n e"plo#ers, a!ainst ho" there is usuall# no direct or effective recourse. The overseas recruiter

is solidaril# liable ith a forei!n e"plo#er. The bonds and the escro "one# are intended to insure "ore care on the part of the local

a!ent in its choice of the forei!n principal to ho" our overseas or>ers are to be sent.

It is a principle of le!al her"eneutics that in interpretin! a statute 6or a set of rules as in this case8, care should be ta>en that ever# part

thereof be !iven effect, on the theor# that it as enacted as an inte!rated "easure and not as a hod!epod!e of conflictin!

provisions. 6t res magis "aleat 5uam pereat. 2:nder the petitionerFs interpretation, the appeal bond re-uired b# Section < of the

afore"entioned PO3& Rule should be disre!arded because of the earlier bonds and escro "one# it has posted. The petitioner ould

in effect nullif# Section < as a superfluit# but e do not see an# such redundanc#E on the contrar#, e find that Section < co"ple"ents

Section = and Section +0. The rule is that a construction that ould render a provision inoperative should be avoidedE instead,

apparentl# inconsistent provisions should be reconciled henever possible as parts of a coordinated and har"onious hole.

&ccordin!l#, e hold that in addition to the "onetar# obli!ations of the overseas recruiter prescribed in Section =, Rule II, 'oo> II of

the PO3& Rules and the escro a!ree"ent under Section +0 of the sa"e Rule, it is necessar# to post the appeal bond re-uired under

Section >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

20


21/27


SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 75222 July 18, 1991

RDIOL4TOSHI$ PHILIPPINES, INC., '+ou ('% !%%("))4("4("%oleted as Special Proceedin! No. +9=7 of the then %ourt of 4irst

Instance 6no Re!ional Trial %ourt8 of Pa"pan!a and &n!eles %it#.

On )ul# , +7, the respondent court issued an order ta>in! co!niBance of the said petition and statin!inter aliathat1

. . . the %ourt forbids the pa#"ent of an# debts, and the deliver# of an# propert# oin! and

belon!in! to said respondentsdebtors fro" other persons, or, to an# other persons for the use and

benefit of the sa"e respondentsdebtors andJor the transfer of an# propert# b# and for the said

respondentsdebtors to another, upon petitionersF puttin! up a bond b# a# of certified and

reputable sureties. 6&nne; +, %o""ent8.

%ounsel for the petitionerscreditors infor"ed respondent sheriff &n!eles %it# of the aforesaid order 6&nne; /, Ibid8 and

on March /


22/27

On 4ebruar# *, +7=, actin! upon petitionerFs "otion clai"in! that onership of certain real properties of the insolvents had

passed to it b# virtue of foreclosure proceedin!s conducted in %ivil %ase No. *9=< of the for"er %ourt of 4irst Instance of

RiBal, 'ranch II, Pasi!, Metro Manila, hich properties ere not redee"ed ithin the period of rede"ption, respondent court

issued an order disposin!, thus1

2H3R34OR3, the %ourt hereb#, confir"s the election of Mr. 3"ilio %. Patino, as assi!nee of all the re!istered

clai"ants in this case, and, in conse-uence thereof, the said assi!nee is hereb# directed to post a bond in the a"ount

of P*,. and to ta>e his oath thereafter so as to be able to perfor" his duties and dischar!e his functions, as

such.

The %ourt, li>eise, sets the "eetin! of all the creditors ith the attendance, of course, of the assi!nee, on March ,

+7=, at 71*., as b# that ti"e the proposals, hich the respective representatives of the partiesclai"ants desire to

clear ith their principals, shall have alread# been reported.

The assi!nee shall see to it that the properties of the insolvents hich are no in the actual or constructive custod#

and "ana!e"ent of the receiver previousl# appointed b# the %ourt on petitionersF and clai"antsF proposals be placed

under this actual or constructive custod# and "ana!e"ent, such as he is able to do so, as the %ourt hereb# dissolves

the receivership previousl# authoriBed, it havin! beco"e a superfluit#. 6&nne; A4A8.

On Ma# +7, +7=, the Re!ional Trial %ourt, 'ranch %?II, Pasi!, Metro Manila, in %ivil %ase No. *9=


23/27

+. 2H3TH3R OR NOT C7RTI+RRI

IS & R3M3DK D3SI(N&T3D 4OR TH3 %ORR3%TION O4 3RRORS O4 ):RISDI%TION

ON?KE and

/. 2H3TH3R OR NOT TH3 R34:S&? O4 TH3 %O:RTS TO 3N4OR%3 TH3 ?I3N O4 P3TITION3R &RISIN( 4ROM &

?3VK O4 &TT&%HM3NT NOT M&D3 2ITHIN ON3 MONTH N3T PR3%3DIN( TH3 %OMM3N%3M3NT O4 TH3

INSO?V3N%K PRO%33DIN( IS (R&V3 &':S3 O4 DIS%R3TION.

The "ain issue in this case is hether or not the lev# on attach"ent in favor of the petitioner is dissolved b# the insolvenc#

proceedin!s a!ainst respondent spouses co""enced four "onths after said attach"ent.

On this issue, Section */ of the Insolvenc# ?a 6&ct No. +9s, and papers relatin! thereto, and such assi!n"ent shall relate bac> to the co""ence"ent of

the proceedin!s in insolvenc#, and shall relate bac> to the acts upon the ad5udication as founded, and b# operation of la

shall vest the title to all such propert#, estate, and effects in the assi!nee, althou!h the sa"e is then attached on "esne

process, as the propert# of the debtor. Such assi!n"ent shall operate to vest in the assi!nee all of the estate of the insolvent

debtor not e;e"pt b# la fro" e;ecution.It shall dissol"e any attachment le"ied within one month ne?t preceding the

commencement of the insol"ency proceedings and "acate and set aside any (udgment entered in any action commenced

within thirty days immediately prior to the commencement of insol"ency proceedings and shall set aside any (udgment

entered by default or consent of the debtor within thirty days immediately prior to the commencement of the insol"ency

proceedings. 63"phasis supplied8

Relative thereto, the findin!s of the then Inter"ediate &ppellate %ourt are undisputed that the lev# on attach"ent a!ainst the sub5ect

properties of the (at"a#tans, issued b# the then %ourt of 4irst Instance of Pasi! in %ivil %ase No. *9=noled!e of the proceedin!s in the insolvent case, ar!ue that the subse-uent

%ertificate of Sale on &u!ust *, +7+, issued in favor of petitioner over the sub5ect properties, as issued in bad faith, in violation of

the la and is not e-uitable for the creditors of the insolvent debtorsE and pursuant to the above -uoted Section 0, petitioner should

not be entitled to the transfer of the sub5ect properties in its na"e.

PetitionerFs contention is i"pressed ith "erit. The provision of the above-uoted Section */, of the Insolvenc# ?a is ver# clear @

that attach"ents dissolved are those levied ithin one 6+8 "onth ne;t precedin! the co""ence"ent of the insolvenc# proceedin!s and

5ud!"ents vacated and set aside are 5ud!"ents entered in an# action, includin! 5ud!"ent entered b# default or consent of the debtor,

here the action as filed ithin thirt# 6*8 da#s i""ediatel# prior to the co""ence"ent of the insolvenc# proceedin!s. In short,

there is a cut off period @ one 6+8 "onth in attach"ent cases and thirt# 6*8 da#s in 5ud!"ents entered in actions co""enced prior to

the insolvenc# proceedin!s. Section 0, on the other hand, relied upon b# private respondents, provides for the ri!ht of the plaintiff if

the attach"ent is not dissolved before the co""ence"ent of proceedin!s in insolvenc#, or is dissolved b# an underta>in! !iven b# the

defendant, if the clai" upon hich the attach"ent suit as co""enced is proved a!ainst the estate of the debtor. Therefore, there is

no conflict beteen the to provisions.

'ut even !rantin! that such conflict e;ists, it "a# be stated that in construin! a statute, courts should adopt a construction that ill

!ive effect to ever# part of a statute, if at all possible. This rule is e;pressed in the "a;i", ut ma5is "aleat 5uam pereator that

construction is to be sou!ht hich !ives effect to the hole of the statute @ its ever# ord. Hence, here a statute is susceptible of"ore than one interpretation, the court should adopt such reasonable and beneficial construction as ill render the provision thereof

operative and effective and har"onious ith each other 6)avellana vs. Ta#o, < S%R& +=/ C+


24/27

4inall#, petitioner correctl# ar!ued that the properties in -uestion ere never placed under the 5urisdiction of respondent insolvenc#

court so as to be "ade available for the pa#"ent of clai" filed a!ainst the (at"a#tans in the insolvenc# proceedin!s.

Hence, the denial b# respondent insolvenc# court to !ive due course to the attach"ent and e;ecution of %ivil %ase No. *9=< of the

%4I of RiBal constitutes a freeBin! of the disposition of sub5ect properties b# the for"er hich ere not ithin its 5urisdictionE

undeniabl#, a !rave abuse of discretion a"ountin! to ant of 5urisdiction, correctable b# certiorari.

2H3R34OR3, the March *+, +7< decision of the then Inter"ediate &ppellate %ourt is hereb# Reversed and S3T &SID3. The

attach"ent and e;ecution sale in %ivil %ase No. *9=< of the for"er %4I of RiBal are !iven due course and petitionerFs onership ofsub5ect properties covered b# T%T Nos. +79 and ==* is ordered consolidated.

SO ORD3R3D.

Fernan C%$% ,utierre& $r% Feliciano and #a"ide $r% $$% concur%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


SUPREME COURT

Manila

3N '&N%

G.R. No. 10712 M!y /, 1992

MNUEL T. DE GUI, (" (% !:!('y !% Cou"(lo+ o6 ') Mu"((:!l('y o6 P!+!@!Au), M)'+o M!"(l!,petitioner,

vs.

HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

$ELLOSILLO,J.:

This is a petition for certiorariand prohibition assailin! the validit# and the enforce"ent b# respondent %o""ission on 3lections

6%OM3?3%8 of its R3SO?:TION NO. /*+*, adoptin! rules and !uidelines in the apportion"ent, b# district, of the nu"ber of

elective "e"bers of the San!!unian! Panlalai!an in provinces ith onl# one 6+8 le!islative district and the San!!unian! 'a#an of

"unicipalities in the Metro Manila &rea for the preparation of the Pro5ect of District &pportion"ent b# the Provincial 3lection

Supervisors and 3lection Re!istrars 6&nne; A&A, Petition8, R3SO?:TION NO. /*0, approvin! the Pro5ect of District

&pportion"ent sub"itted pursuant to Resolution No. /*+* 6&nne; A'A, Petition8, and R3SO?:TION :ND. /+ holdin! that pars.

6a8, 6b8 and 6c8, and the first sentence of par. 6d8, all of Sec. *, R.&. 0+


25/27

No on the "eat of the dispute.

On Nove"ber +7, ++, %on!ress passed R.&. 0+in! authorit# of the %onstitution, the O"nibus 3lection %ode, R.&.


26/27

par. 6c8, to be apportioned at once into to 6/8 districts each if the "e"bers of their respective san!!unian after all ould still be

elected at lar!e as the# ere in the +77 elections.

No la is ever enacted that is intended to be "eanin!less, "uch less inutile. 2e "ust therefore, as far as e can, divine its "eanin!,

its si!nificance, its reason for bein!. &s it has oft been held, the >e# to open the door to hat the le!islature intended hich is va!uel#

e;pressed in the lan!ua!e of a statute is its purpose or the reason hich induced it to enact the statute. If the statute needs construction,

as it does in the present case, the "ost do"inant in that process is the purpose of the act. Statutes should be construed in the li!ht of

the ob5ect to be achieved and the evil or "ischief to be suppressed, 5and the# should be !iven such construction as ill advance the

ob5ect, suppress the "ischief, and secure the benefits intended.

/

& construction should be re5ected that !ives to the lan!ua!e used in astatute a "eanin! that does not acco"plish the purpose for hich the statute as enacted, and that tends to defeat the ends hich are

sou!ht to be attained b# the enact"ent. 7

The reason for the pro"ul!ation of R.&. 0+eise be elected b# district in the re!ular elections of Ma# ++, +/.

Then, that should leave us the San!!unian! Panlun!sod of the sin!ledistrict cities and the San!!unian! 'a#an of the "unicipalities

outside Metro Manila, hich re"ain sin!ledistricts not havin! been ordered apportioned under Sec. * of R.&. 0+


27/27

full i"ple"entation of the letter and spirit of R.&. 0+

Documents

StatCon Cases.docx