Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CRUZ, J p:
The issues he raises are mainly factual. The petitioner has not
shown that the findings thereon of the respondent court are
tainted with arbitratriness or are not supported by substantial
evidence. His charge that he was "framed" because Samia
resented his refusal to be bribed is not convincing. It is belied
by his proven acts. The implausibility of his promises does not
mean they were not made or that they did not appear to be
credible, coming as they did from one with his long experience
in the BIR and appeared to know his way around. The Court
finds it especially remarkable that he met Samia at a private
place instead of his office at the BIR, considering that they
were supposed to be discussing official business and it was
Samia who he says was requesting his assistance.
SO ORDERED.
or
or
or
or
TRIESTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 70332-43 November 13, 1986
GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR., petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), respondent.
Arturo M. de Castro for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
ALAMPAY, J.:
The present case relates to an appeal by way of a Petition for
Review of the decision promulgated on November 6, 1984, by
the Sandiganbayan convicting the herein petitioner, Generoso
Trieste, Sr., of twelve (12) separate violations of Section 3
paragraph (h) of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices - Act, which petitioner were
accused of in Criminal Cases Nos. 6856-6867 of said Court.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was
denied by the respondent Sandiganbayan under its Resolution
of March 11, 1985.
The twelve (12) separate Informations filed by the Tanodbayan
against the herein petitioner for violation of Section 3 (h) of the
Anti-Graft Law are all similarly worded as the information
1986, gave due course to the petition and required the parties
to file their respective briefs.
Petitioner's exhaustive and well-reasoned out Brief which was
filed with the Court on April 14, 1986, raised the following legal
questions.
xxx xxx xxx
From the foregoing recital of facts, the following legal questions
arise:
1. Does the mere signing by a Municipal Mayor of municipal
vouchers and other supporting papers covering purchases of
materials previously ordered by the Municipal Treasurer
without the knowledge and consent of the former, subsequently
delivered by the supplier, and, thereafter paid by the same
Municipal Treasurer also without the knowledge and consent of
the Municipal Mayor, constitute a violation of the provisions of
Section 3 (h) of Rep. Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?
2. Does the mere signing of the mere documents above
constitute the kind of intervention of taking part in (his) official
capacity within the context of the above-mentioned law?
3. Was damage or prejudice, as an element of the offense
under Section 3 (h) of the said law, caused to the Government
or the Municipality of Numancia as a result of the contracts in
question and as a corollary thereto, was undue advantage and
gained by the transacting corporation?
4. Was there divestment on the part of the herein petitioner of
his shares in Trigen Agro-Industrial Development Corporation
long before the questioned transactions? (Appellant's Brief,
page 15)
It was then discus and argued by the petitioner that the
prosecution failed to establish the presence of all the elements
of the offense, and more particularly to adduce proof that
petitioner has, directly or indirectly, a financial or pecuniary
interest in the imputed business contracts or transactions.
Discussion of petitioner's arguments in this regard will not
however, be recited anymore as this was obviated when a new
Solicitor General, after seeking and obtaining several
extensions of time to file its Brief in this case at bar, filed on
October 7, 1986, a "Manifestation For Acquittal" (in lieu of the
People's Brief). Rollo, 293).
The new Solicitor General's Office after adopting the statement
of facts recited in the consolidated comment of the former
Solicitor General's Office moved for the acquittal of the
petitioner, upon acknowledging and concluding that:
Even the respondent Court finally found that petitioner did not
intervene during the bidding and award, which of course is a
false assumption because of Vega's testimony that there was
no public bidding at all. Respondent Court said:
A.J. ESCAREAL:
A. Already paid.
ATTY. CONSULTA:
ESCAREAL:
MEJORADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-51065-72 June 30, 1987
ARTURO A. MEJORADA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
CORTES, J.:
This petition for certiorari seeks to reverse the May 23, 1979
decision of the Sandiganbayan finding the accused Arturo A.
Mejorada in Criminal Cases Nos. 002-009 guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(E) of Republic Act No.
3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
Eight informations were filed by the Provincial Fiscal against
the petitioner and jointly tried before the Sandiganbayan. The
eight informations substantially allege the same set of
circumstances constituting the offense charged, Criminal Case
No. 002 reads as follows:
That in (sic) or about and during the period comprised from
October 1977 to February 1978, in the municipality of Pasig,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being employed
in the Office of the Highway District Engineer, Pasig, Metro
Manila, as Right-of-Way-Agent conspiring and confederating
together with two (2) other John Does whose true Identities
and present whereabouts are still unknown, with evident bad
faith, and for personal gain, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, directly intervene, work for, and
facilitate the approval of one Isagani de Leon's claim for the
payment in the removal and reconstruction of his house and a
part of his land expropriated by the government having been
affected by the proposed Pasig-Sta Cruz-Calamba Road. 2nd
IBRD Project at Binangonan, Rizal, while the accused, Arturo
A. Mejorada is in the discharge of his official and/or
administrative functions and after said claim was approved and
the corresponding PNB Check No. SN 5625748 was issued
and encashed in the amount of P7,200.00 given only
P1,000.00 to claimant (Isagani de Leon), appropriating,
applying and converting to themselves the amount of
P6,200.00, thereby causing damage and prejudice to Isagani
de Leon and the government in the aforementioned amount of
P6,200.00.
Contrary to law.
Except for the date of the commission of the offense, the name
of the aggrieved private party, the PNB Check number, the
amount involved and the number or John Does, the seven
other informations are verbatim repetitions of the above.
The facts are found by the respondent Sandiganbayan are as
follows:
Third, the injury to any party, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference was done
through manifest, partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.
... Even without the authority provided by Article 70, courts can
still impose as many penalties as there are separate and
distinct offenses committed, since for every individual crime
committed, a corresponding penalty is prescribed by law. Each
single crime is an outrage against the State for which the latter,
thru the courts of justice, has the power to impose the
appropriate penal sanctions.
(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as coprincipals, accomplices or accessories, with public officials or
employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same
penal liabilities as the public officials or employees and shall be
tried jointly with them.
Section 17. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after thirty
(30) days following the completion of its publication in the
Official Gazette or in two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation.
(e) The total amount of his government salary and other proper
earnings and incomes from legitimately acquired property, and
(f) Such other information as may enable the court to
determine whether or not the respondent has unlawfully
acquired property during his incumbency.
Section 4. Period for the answer. The respondent shall have a
period of fifteen days within which to present his answer.
Section 5. Hearing. The Court shall set a date for a hearing,
which may be open to the public, and during which the
respondent shall be given ample opportunity to explain, to the
satisfaction of the court, how he has acquired the property in
question.
Section 6. Judgment. If the respondent is unable to show to
the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the
property in question, then the court shall declare such property,
forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of such judgment
the property aforesaid shall become property of the
State: Provided, That no judgment shall be rendered within six
months before any general election or within three months
before any special election. The Court may, in addition, refer
this case to the corresponding Executive Department for
administrative or criminal action, or both.
Section 7. Appeal. The parties may appeal from the judgment
of the Court of First Instance as provided in the Rules of Court
for appeals in civil cases.
Section 8. Protection against self-incrimination. Neither the
respondent nor any other person shall be excused from
attending and testifying or from producing books, papers,
correspondence, memoranda and other records on the ground
that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise,
required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to
prosecution; but no individual shall be prosecuted criminally for
or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning
which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege
against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence,
documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so
testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and conviction
for perjury or false testimony committed in so testifying or from
administrative proceedings.
Section 9. Immunity. The Solicitor General may grant immunity
from criminal prosecution to any person who testifies to the
unlawful manner in which the respondent has acquired any of
the property in question in cases where such testimony is
necessary to prove violations of this Act.
Section 10. Effect of record of title. The fact that any real
property has been recorded in the Registry of Property or office
of the Register of Deeds in the name of the respondent or of
PD No. 749
MALACAANG
Manila
RA No. 9485
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Thirteenth Congress
Third Special Session
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the nineteenth
day of February, two thousand seven.
Republic Act No. 9485
PLUNDER
RA No. 7080
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Eighth Congress
Republic Act No. 7080
MALVERSATION
LABATAGOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 71581 March 21, 1990
PADILLA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
Sandiganbayan (Third Division) * in Criminal Case No. 4799,
finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principal of the crime of malversation of public funds defined
and penalized under Article 217, par. 4 of the Revised Penal
Code.
From January 1978 to December 1980, petitioner Carmen
Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of the
Mindanao State University MSU General Santos City. She filed
a leave of absence for the months of March, April and May
1978 and did not discharge her duties for the said period.
On 1 October 1980, Francisco T. Rivera, under Commission on
Audit (COA) General Order No. 8022-117 (Exh. C) was
designated leader of a team to conduct the examination of the
cash and accounts of the petitioner. When the team conducted
the examination, the petitioner did not have any cash in her
posssession, so she was asked to produce all her records,
books of collection, copies of official receipts and remittance
advices and her monthly reports of collections.
Based on the official receipts and the record of remittances for
the period from January to August 1978, the audit examination
disclosed that the petitioner collected the total amount of
P113,205.58 (Exhs. A-1 and A-2) and made a total remittance
to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), the
depository bank of the university, in the amount of P78,868.69,
leaving an unremitted amount of P34,336.19.
On the basis of similar official receipts and record of
remittances, the audit examination further disclosed that for the
period from January 1979 to June 6, 1980, the petitioner made
a total collection of P327,982.00 (Exhs. B, B-1, and B-1-a) and
remitted to the DBP the total amount of P256,606.25 (Exhs. B2 and B-2-a) incurring a shortage of P71,365.75.
The petitioner signed without exception both Reports of
Examination (Exhs. A and B) as well as their supporting
summaries.
EN BANC
G.R. No. 102356
February 9, 1993
cash items
allowed 13,012.00 P 53,128.13
Shortage P 118,871.29 1
=========
P 118,003.10 2
=========
In the light of the above finding and under the plain language of
the applicable laws, We hold that the evidence was sufficient to
sustain the verdict finding the petitioner guilty of the crime
charged. The judgment of the Sandiganbayan is hereby
AFFIRMED and the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS
RODILLAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-58652
WHETHER
PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION
BY
THE
SANDIGANBAYAN BASED ONLY ON HIS ADMISSIONS
WITHOUT THE PROSECUTION HAVING PRESENTED
EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS NEGLIGENCE WILL LIE.
II
WHETHER THE ACTS OF PETITIONER COULD BE
QUALIFIED AS DEFINITE LAXITY AMOUNTING TO
DELIBERATE NON-PERFORMANCE OF DUTY TO SUSTAIN
HIS CONVICTION. (Brief for the petitioner, p. 5)
In essence, the sole question to be resolved in the case at bar
is whether, under the foregoing facts and circumstances, the
respondent Sandiganbayan committed a reversible error in
holding the petitioner guilty of infidelity in the custody of a
prisoner through negligence penalized under Art. 224 of the
Revised Penal Code.
The petitioner specifically alleges that his conviction by the
Sandiganbayan was based merely on his admissions without
the prosecution presenting evidence to prove his negligence.
Sec. 22, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that "the act,
declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him. The admissions and
declarations in open court of a person charged with a crime are
admissible against him. (See U.S. v. Ching Po, 23 Phil. 578).
The records show that the elements of the crime for which the
petitioner was convicted are present. Article 224 of the Revised
Penal Code states:
ART. 224. Evasion through negligence. If the evasion of the
prisoner shall have taken place through the negligence of the
officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping
prisoner, said officer shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor
in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and temporary special disqualification.
The elements of the crime under the abovementioned article
are: a) that the offender is a public officer; b) that he is charged
with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention
prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and c) that such
prisoner escapes through his negligence (See Reyes, L.B.,
Revised Penal Code, Book II, 1977 ed., p. 407).
There is no question that the petitioner is a public officer.
Neither is there any dispute as to the fact that he was charged
with the custody of a prisoner who was being tried for a
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
The petitioner appeals by petition for review on certiorari the
decision dated January 15, 2007 rendered by the
Sandiganbayan, finding him guilty in Criminal Case No. 24655
of a violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, 1 and in
Criminal Case No. 24656 of usurpation of judicial functions as
defined and penalized under Article 241, Revised Penal
Code. 2
Antecedents
Belen Lopez Vda. de Guia (Belen) was the registered absolute
owner of two parcels of agricultural land with an area of
197,594 square meters located in Santa Barbara, Baliwag,
Bulacan and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
209298 of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. On March 19,
1975, Belens son, Carlos de Guia (Carlos), forged a deed of
sale, in which he made it appear that his mother had sold the
land to him. Consequently, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan
cancelled TCT No. 209298 by virtue of the forged deed of sale
and issued TCT No. 210108 in Carlos name.
On March 20, 1975, Carlos sold the land to Ricardo San Juan
(Ricardo). On the same date, Ricardo registered the deed of
sale in the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, which cancelled TCT
No. 210108 and issued TCT No. 210338 in Ricardos name.
Subsequently, Ricardo mortgaged the land to Simeon Yangco
(Simeon).
Upon learning of the transfers of her land, Belen filed on
December 20, 1975 an adverse claim in the Register of Deeds
of Bulacan. Her adverse claim was annotated on TCT No.
210338. She also filed in the then Court of First Instance (CFI)
of Baliwag, Bulacan a civil action for cancellation of sale,
reconveyance, and damages against Carlos, Ricardo and
Simeon, docketed as Civil Case No. 655-B.
SO ORDERED.
On January 20, 1981, the CFI decided Civil Case No. 655-B,
dismissing Belens complaint and affirming the validity of the
deeds of sale between Belen and Carlos and between Carlos
and Ricardo. Belen filed a motion for reconsideration but her
motion was denied.
Belen appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC),
docketed as AC-G.R. CV No. 5524-UDK.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 177105-06
Fourteenth Congress
Third Regular Session
C.
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twentyseventh day of July, two thousand nine.
Penalties
Section 1. Short Title. - This Ad shall be known as the "AntiTorture Act of 2009".
Section 2. Statement of Policy. - It is hereby declared the
policy of the State:
(a) To value the dignity of every human person and guarantee
full respect for human rights;
(b) To ensure that the human rights of all persons, including
suspects, detainees and prisoners are respected at all times;
and that no person placed under investigation or held in
custody of any person in authority or, agent of a person
authority shall be subjected to physical, psychological or
mental harm, force, violence, threat or intimidation or any act
that impairs his/her free wi11 or in any manner demeans or
degrades human dignity;
(c) To ensure that secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado or other similar forms of detention, where
torture may be carried out with impunity, are prohibited; and
(d) To fully adhere to the principles and standards on the
absolute condemnation and prohibition of torture as provided
for in the 1987 Philippine Constitution; various international
instruments to which the Philippines is a State party such as,
but not limited to, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDA W) and the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CAT); and all other relevant
international human rights instruments to which the Philippines
is a signatory.
Section 3. Definitions. - For purposes of this Act, the following
terms shall mean:
(e) The approximate time and date when the injury, pain,
disease and/or trauma was/were sustained;
(f) The place where the injury, pain, disease and/or trauma
was/were sustained;