Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CASE DIGESTS
MIDTERMS
PART I. DANGEROUS DRUGS CASES
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SUSANA NAPAT-A
LOSS OF EXHIBITS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL The
subsequent loss of exhibits (box and marijuana
leaves) did not affect the case for the trial court had
described the evidence in the records. In People vs
Mate, 103 SCRA 484, we ruled that "even without the
exhibits which have been incorporated into the
records of the case, the prosecution can still
establish the case because the witnesses properly
identified those exhibits and their testimonies are
recorded." Furthermore, in this case, appellant's
counsel had cross-examined the prosecution
witnesses who testified on those exhibits.
SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO vs. THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
In illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the twin
elements of (1) the existence of the subject firearm
and ammunition, and (2) the fact that the accused
who possessed or owned the same
does not have the corresponding license for it.
The Court on several occasions ruled that either the
testimony of a representative of, or a certification
from, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms
and Explosive Office attesting that a person is not a
licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the second element of possession
of illegal firearms. The prosecution more than
complied when it presented both.
Failure to offer an unlicensed firearm as evidence is
not fatal provided there is competent testimony as to
its existence.
We hasten to add that there may also be conviction
where an unlicensed firearm is presented during trial
but through inadvertence, negligence, or fortuitous
event (for example, if it is lost), it is not offered in
evidence, as long as there is competent testimony as
to its existence.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANSON ONG
For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper,
the following elements must be proved: (1) the
identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. What is material is the proof that
the transaction actually took place, coupled with the
presentation before the court of the corpus delicti.
In determining the credibility of prosecution
witnesses regarding the conduct of buybust
operation, the "objective test," as laid down in People
v. Doria, 28 is utilized. It has been held that it is the
duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture
detailing the buy-bust operation from the initial
contact between the poseurbuyer and the pusher,
the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the
consideration, until the consummation of the sale by
the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The manner
by which the initial contact was made, the offer to
purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust
money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be
the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to ensure that
law abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to
commit an offense.
In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution
failed to prove all the material details of the buy-bust
operation. The details of the meeting with the
informant, the alleged source of the information on
the sale of illegal drugs, appear hazy.
value of the
compromised.
confiscated
items
had
not
been
QUINON VS PEOPLE
For failure to return the two super caliber .
38 pistol and their magazines and one 12-gauge
shotgun that were issued to him during his
incumbency and by reason of his function as Station
Commander of Calinog, Iloilo PC/INP, Pablo N. Quion
was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of the crime of
Malversation of Public Property. Thus, he interposed
this petition for review claiming that the
Sandiganbayan erred in holding that he is an
accountable public officer. The Court ruled that
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code is designed to
protect the government and to penalize erring public
officials
and
conspiring
private
individuals
responsible for the loss of public funds and property
by reason of corrupt motives or neglect or disregard
of duty. Its all encompassing provision cannot be
limited by petitioner's absurd interpretation of the
provisions of the Administrative Code restricting the
application thereof only to government funds and to
bonded public officials. Accordingly, the decision of
the Sandiganbayan was affirmed.
The elements of malversation, essential for
the conviction of an accused under the above penal
provision are: 1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he has the custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office; 3. That
the funds or property are public funds or property for
which he is accountable; and 4. That he
appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or
through abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them.
An accountable public officer, within the
purview of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, is
one who has custody or control of public funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office. To be
liable for malversation, an accountable officer need
not be a bonded official. The name or relative
importance of the office or employment is not the
controlling factor. What is decisive is the nature of
DOROMAL VS SANDIGANBAYAN
WHEN THE CHARGE HAS BEEN CHANGED;
RIGHT OF THE
ACCUSED IS SUBSTANTIAL. The petitioner's right to a
preliminary investigation of the new charge is
secured to him by the following provisions of Rule
112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. That
right of the accused is "a substantial one." Its denial
over his opposition is a "prejudicial error, in that it
subjects the accused to
the loss of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law" (U.S. vs. Marfori, 35 Phil. 666).
ACCUSED ALONE MAY WAIVE THE RIGHT.
The Solicitor
General's argument that the right to a preliminary
investigation may be waived and was in fact waived
by the petitioner, impliedly admits that the right
exists. Since the right belongs to the accused, he
alone may waive it. If he demands it, the State may
not withhold it.
ABSENCE OF, IS NOT A GROUND TO QUASH
THE COMPLAINT; CASE MUST BE REMANDED FOR
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. As the absence of a
preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash the
complaint or information (Sec. 3, Rule 117, Rules of
Court), the proceedings upon such information in the
Sandiganbayan should be held in abeyance and the
case should be remanded to the office of the
Ombudsman for him or the Special Prosecutor to
conduct a preliminary investigation. Thus we did rule
in Luciano vs. Mariano, 40 SCRA 187, 201; Ilagan vs.
Enrile, 139 SCRA 349 and more recently in
Sanciangco, Jr. vs. People, 149 SCRA 1, 3-4.
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT;
PRESENCE OF A SIGNED DOCUMENT, NOT A SINE
QUA NON FOR THE PETITIONER TO BE CHARGED. The
Sandiganbayan in its order of August 19, 1988
correctly observed that "the presence of a signed
document bearing the signature of accused Doromal
as part of the application to bid . . . . is not a sine qua
non" (Annex O, p. 179. Rollo), for, the Ombudsman
indicated in his Memorandum/Clearance to the
Special Prosecutor, that the petitioner "can rightfully
be charged . . . with having participated in a business
which act is absolutely prohibited by Section 13 of
CABAL VS KAPUNAN
ANTI-GRAFT
LAW;
FORFEITURE
OF
UNEXPLAINED WEALTH; NATURE OF FORFEITURE AS
PENALTY. The purpose of the charge against
petitioner is to apply the provisions of Republic Act
No. 1379, as amended, otherwise known as the AntiGraft Law, which authorizes the forfeiture to the
State of property of a public officer or employee
which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as
such public officer or employee and his other lawful
income and the income from legitimately acquired
property. Such forfeiture has been held, however, to
partake of the nature of a penalty.
EXEMPTION
OF
DEFENDANTS
FROM
OBLIGATION TO BE WITNESS AGAINST THEMSELVES.
Proceedings for forfeiture of property are deemed
criminal or penal, and hence, the exemption of
defendants in criminal cases from the obligation to
be witness against themselves are applicable
thereto.
FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY IN SUBSTANCE IS
A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION; CASE OF BOYD vs.
U.S. and THURSTON vs. CLARK, CITED. In Boyd vs.
U.S. (116 U.S. 616, 29 L. ed., 746), it was held that
the information, in a proceeding to declare a
forfeiture of certain property because of the evasion
of a certain revenue law, "though technically a civil
proceeding, is in substance and effect a criminal
one", and that suits for penalties and forfeitures are
within the reason of criminal proceedings for the
purposes of that portion of the Fifth Amendment of
the Constitution of the U.S. which declares that no
person shall be compelled in a criminal to be a
witness against himself. Similarly, a proceeding for
the removal of an officer was held, in Thurston vs.
Clark (107 Cal. 285, 40 pp. 435, 437), to be in
substance criminal, for said portion of the Fifth
Amendment applies "to all cases in which the action
prosecuted is not to establish, recover or redress