G.R. No. L-5877 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-5877, September 28, 1954

People of the Philippines

vs Arturo Mendoza

Ponente: Paras

Facts:

August 1936, Jovita de Asis and Arturo Mendoza got married in Marikina. During their marriage, Arturo was marred to Olga Lema in Manila. When Jovita died, Arturo contracted another marriage with Carmencita Panlillio in Laguna. This last marriage gave rise to his prosecution for bigamy.

Arturo contends that his marriage with Lema is null and void, therefore non-existent at the time he married Jovita. Then his 3rd marriage was valid also because it occurred after the death of Jovita.

Solicitor General argues that, even assuming that Arturo's marriage to Lema is void, he is not exempt from criminal liability in the absence of judicial annulment of said bigamous marriage.

Ruling:

 it is admitted that appellant's second marriage with Olga Lema was contracted during the existence of his first marriage with Jovita de Asis. Section 29 of the marriage law (act 3613), in force at the time the appellant contracted his second marriage in 1941, provides as follows:

Illegal marriages. — Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance, unless:

(a) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved;

(b) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or the absentee being generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, the marriage so contracted being valid in either case until declared null and void by a competent court.

This statutory provision plainly makes a subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the lifetime of his first spouse illegal and void from its performance, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity, as distinguished from mere annullable marriages. There is here no pretence that appellant's second marriage with Olga Lema was contracted in the belief that the first spouse, Jovita de Asis, has been absent for seven consecutive years or generally considered as dead, so as to render said marriage valid until declared null and void by a competent court.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is reversed and the defendant-appellant acquitted, with costs de officio so ordered.

G.R. No. L-19069 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968

People of the Philippines

vs Amadeo Peralta

Facts:

February 1958, Peralta among other inmates of New Bilibid Prisons, conspired and mutually helped one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, armed with deadly weapons, feloniously killed Jose Carriego, Eugene Barnosa and Santos Cruz, also convicts of New Bilibid. Aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism is present because the crime was committed while the offenders were convicted by final judgments.

Upon motion of the fiscal before trial, the lower court dismissed the charge against one of the accused for lack of evidence. After prosecution of the case, the charge against 6 accused were dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case against them. After trial, 5 of the accused were also acquitted, then 1 died.

Issues:

(1) it fails to consider the legality of imposing multiple capital penalties; (2) it fails to distinguish between imposition of penalty and service of sentence; (3) it ignores the fact that multiple death sentences could be served simultaneously; and (4) it overlooks the practical merits of imposing multiple death penalties.

Ruling:

The evidence on record proves beyond peradventure that the accused acted in concert from the moment they bolted their common brigade, up until the time they killed their last victim, Santos Cruz. While it is true that Parumog, Larita and Luna did not participate in the actual killing of Carriego, nonetheless, as co-conspirators they are equally guilty and collectively liable for in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. It is not indispensable that a co-conspirator should take a direct part in every act and should know the part which the others have to perform. Conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony; it is not participation in all the details of the execution of the crime. All those who in one way or another help and cooperate in the consummation of a felony previously planned are co-principals. Hence, all of the six accused are guilty of the slaughter of Carriego, Barbosa and Santos Cruz — each is guilty of three separate and distinct crimes of murder.

Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because they will have to be executed simultaneously. A cursory reading of article 70 will show that there are only two modes of serving two or more (multiple) penalties: simultaneously or successively. The first rule is that two or more penalties shall be served simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit. In the case of multiple capital penalties, the nature of said penal sanctions does not only permit but actually necessitates simultaneous service.

In view of the attendance of the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism, as all of the six accused at the time of the commission of the offenses were serving sentences in the New Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa by virtue of convictions by final judgments the penalty for each offense must be imposed in its maximum period, which is the mandate of the first paragraph of article 160 of the Revised Penal Code. Viada observes, in a position, that the severe penalty imposed on a quasi-recidivist is justified because of his perversity and incorrigibility.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is hereby modified as follows: Amadeo Peralta, Andres Factora, Leonardo Dosal, Angel Parumog, Gervasio Larita and Florencio Luna are each pronounced guilty of three separate and distinct crimes of murder, and are each sentenced to three death penalties; all of them shall, jointly and severally, indemnify the heirs of each of the three deceased victims in the sum of P12,000; each will pay one-sixth of the costs.

G.R. No. 166401 Case Digest

G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006

People of the Philippines

vs Alfredo Bon

Ponente: Tinga

Facts:

8 informations were filed against Alfredo Bon charging him with rape of AAA and BBB, the daughters of his brother. The rape allegedly happened many times in the span of 6 years starting in 1994 were the victims were still minors.

RTC convicted Bon on all 8 counts of rape, denying the alibi presented by Bon. RTC considered qualifying circumstances of minority of the victims and the relationship of the victims and Bon.

On appeal on the penalty, CA ruled affirming the 6 counts rape but modified the 2 as attempted rape. According to the CA, the evidence on the 2 rapes was insufficient to make Bon guilty beyond reasonable doubt. CA then reduced the penalty for the 2 counts of rape from death to indeterminate penalty of 10 years as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum for attempted rape.

Issues: (1) Whether the Court should affirm the conviction of appellant Alfredo Bon (appellant) for six counts of rape and two counts of attempted rape, the victims being his then-minor nieces.

(2) Whether his penalty for attempted qualified rape, which under the penal law should be two degrees lower than that of consummated qualified rape, should be computed from death or reclusion perpetua.

Ruling:

(1) Court affirms. The Court thus affirms the conclusions of the Court of Appeals that it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of six (6) counts of rape and two (2) counts of attempted rape. However, in light of Rep. Act No. 9346, the appropriate penalties for both crimes should be amended.

(2) We close by returning to the matter of appellant Alfredo Bon. By reason of Rep. Act No. 9346, he is spared the death sentence, and entitled to the corresponding reduction of his penalty as a consequence of the downgrading of his offense from two (2) counts consummated rape to two (2) counts of attempted rape. For the six (6) counts of rape, we downgrade the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole, pursuant to Rep. Act No. 9346. For each of the two (2) counts of attempted rape, we downgrade by one degree lower the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. We hold that there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty of prision mayor should be imposed in it medium period. Consequently, we impose the new penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.

G.R. No. 173473 Case Digest

G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008

People of the Philippines

vs Beth Temporada

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago

Facts:

Accused Rosemarie Robles, Bernadette Miranda, Nenita Catacotan, Jojo Resco and Beth Temporada are all employees of ATTC, a Travel and Tour Company, recruited and promised overseas employment for a fee to Rogelio Legaspis Jr, as a technician in Singapore, and other overseas workers. The accused were holding office in Makati but eventually transferred to Manila. After paying placements fees, none of the overseas recruits was able to leave or recover what they have paid, thus they filed separate criminal complaints against accused in Manila.

The accused were then sentenced to life imprisonment for illegal recruitment and estafa. Then the case was referred to the CA for intermediate review, CA affirmed with modification on the penalty. The penalty was lowered for the lower court due to insufficiency of evidence.

Issue: Whether the accused were guilty of 5 counts of estafa and illegal recruitment, and be charged of the penalty of life imprisonment.

Ruling:

The Court affirms the modification of the CA, except for the penalty on the 5 counts of estafa.

Although Temporada is saying that she is not a principal to the illegal recruitment and estafa because she is a mere employee of ATTC and that she was just echoing the requirement of her employer, the Court believes that Temporada actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment.

The Court agrees with the lower court that the accused were guilty of illegal recruitment by a syndicate with the penalty of life imprisonment. The accused were convicted separately also for 5 counts of estafa. 

G.R. No. 186227 Case Digest

G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011

People of the Philippines

vs Allen Udtojan Mantalaba

Ponente: Peralta

Facts:

Task Forcer Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a report that Mantalaba who was 17 yrs old was selling shabu. After a buy-bust operation, two informations was filed against Mantalaba which was later on consolidated. Mantalaba pleaded not guilty.

RTC found Mantalaba guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was penalized of reclusion perpetua to death and fine of 500k for selling shabu and  (2) for illegally possessing shabu, Mantalaba was penalized, in application of the ISL, 6 yrs and 1 day as minimum and 8 yrs as maximum of prision mayor and fine of 300k. CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Thus, the present appeal.

Mantalaba: the lower court gravely erred in convicting him and that there was no evidence of actual sale between him and the poser-buyer during the buy-bust operation. He also claims that the chain of custody of the seized shabu was not established.

Issue: Whether Mantalaba is guilty of drug trafficking and possession.

Ruling:

The petition is without merit.

The buy-bust operation was valid, establishing the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore. From the above testimony of the prosecution witness, it was well established that the elements have been satisfactorily met. The seller and the poseur-buyer were properly identified. The subject dangerous drug, as well as the marked money used, were also satisfactorily presented. The testimony was also clear as to the manner in which the buy-bust operation was conducted.

Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.

As to his minority, Mantalaba was minor during the buy-bust operation but was of legal age during the promulgation of the decision. It must be noted that RA 9344 took effect after the promulgation of the RTC's decision against Mantalaba. The RTC did not suspend the sentence in accordance with PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code) and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law that were applicable at the time of the promulgation of the judgment. However, as ruled in People vs Sarcia, suspension of sentence can still be applied but NOT when the offender upon the promulgation of judgment is 21 yrs old. or older. Mantalaba is now 21 yrs old, therefore his suspension of sentence is already moot and academic.

But as to the penalty, CA must have appreciated Mantalaba's minority as privileged mitigating circumstance in fixing the penalty. Thus, applying the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance. 

G.R. No. 206666 Case Digest

G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015

Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal, Alfredo Lim

vs COMELEC and Joseph Ejercito Estrada

Ponente: Leonardo-de Castro

Facts:

September 2007, Sandiganbayan convicted Estrada for the crime of plunder with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and accessory penalties of civil interdiction during the period of sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification.

October 2007, President Arroyo extended executive clemency, by way of pardon to Estrada with "WHEREAS, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office,IN VIEW HEREOF and pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant executive clemency to JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, convicted by the Sandiganbayan of Plunder and imposed a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights." Which Estrada received and accepted by affixing his signature.

November 2009, Estrada filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of President and has earned 3 oppositions in the COMELEC. In 2012, Estrada filed a COC vying for the position of Manila City Mayor. Then, Risos-Vidal filed a petition for disqualification against Estrada.

COMELEC: petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Risos-Vidal failed to present cogent proof sufficient to reverse Estrada's right to seek public office as effectively restored by the pardon vested by Arroyo.

Risos-Vidal then invoked the Court's jurisdiction saying that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to disqualify Estrada for having been convicted of plunder, an offense involving moral turpitude. And for failing to consider the perpetual disqualification of Estrada.

Issue: whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that former President Estrada is qualified to vote and be voted for in public office as a result of the pardon granted to him by former President Arroyo.

Ruling:

ART. 36. Pardon; its effects.– A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.

A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.

ART. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal – Their accessory penalties.– The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully restored all his civil and political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek public elective office, the focal point of this controversy. The wording of the pardon extended to former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified.

The third preambular clause of the pardon did not operate to make the pardon conditional.

Contrary to Risos-Vidal’s declaration, the third preambular clause of the pardon, i.e., "[w]hereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office," neither makes the pardon conditional, nor militate against the conclusion that former President Estrada’s rights to suffrage and to seek public elective office have been restored.

This is especially true as the pardon itself does not explicitly impose a condition or limitation, considering the unqualified use of the term "civil and political rights"as being restored. Jurisprudence educates that a preamble is not an essential part of an act as it is an introductory or preparatory clause that explains the reasons for the enactment, usually introduced by the word "whereas." Whereas clauses do not form part of a statute because, strictly speaking, they are not part of the operative language of the statute. In this case, the whereas clause at issue is not an integral part of the decree of the pardon, and therefore, does not by itself alone operate to make the pardon conditional or to make its effectivity contingent upon the fulfilment of the aforementioned commitment nor to limit the scope of the pardon.

G.R. No. 152644 Case Digest

G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006

John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid and Pedro Hernandez

vs People of the Philippines

Ponente: Carpio

Facts:

Loney, Reid and Hernandez are the President, CEO and Senior Manager and Resident Manager for Mining Operation of Marcopper in Marinduque. Marcopper built concrete plug at the tunnels discharging tons of tailing into Boac and Makalupnit rivers.

DOJ then filed separate charges against the petitioners in MTC Marinduque for violation of Art. 19 of PD 1067 or the Water code of the Philippines, Section 8 of PD 984 or the National Pollution Control Decree, Section 108 of RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 2005 and Art. 365 of the RPC for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property.

Petitioners moved to quash the information saying that the (1) information was duplicitous for it charges more than one offense for a single act, (2) that Loney and Reid were not yet officers when this incident took place and (3) that the informations contain allegations which constitute legal excuse or justification.

MTC: partially granted the quashing of the informations for violation of PD 1067 and PD 984 but maintained violation of RA 7942 and RPC. MTC then  issued a consolidated order in so far as the offense against RPC. With such, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with RTC-Marinduque assailing the Consolidated Order.

RTC: granted appeal but denied the petition for certiorari. Consolidated Order was affirmed and ordered the reinstatement of the informations pertaining to the violation of PD 1967 and PD 984. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion reiterating the defense that the informations were made out from a single act.

CA: affirmed RTC

Issues: Whether all the charges filed against petitioners except one should be quashed for duplicity of charges and only the charge for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property should stand.

Ruling:

No duplicity. Duplicity of charges means a single complaint or information charges more than on offense. The filing of several charges is proper. A single act or incident might offend two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution for more than one offense. The only limit is double jeopardy.