Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THIRD DIVISION
Promulgated:
Nove~,~
x.-------------------------------------------------------~~---------------:x
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
·On leave.
1
Rollo, pp. 40-70. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by
Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q. C. Sadang.
2
Id. at 72.
3
Id. at 90-100. Penend by Presiding Judge Ethel V. Mercado-Gutay.
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 229701
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
The Facts
Prosecution's Evidence:
4
Id. at 41.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 229701
4) After they had closed in, he grabbed Romeo Rimando and told the
latter he was under arrest. Appellant Edwina Rimando, who
accompanied Romeo Rimando, was also arrested by one of the
agents. They proceeded to the vehicle and conducted an inventory of
the 100 pieces of counterfeit notes and marked money. He examined
and v~rified the 100 pieces of notes and concluded that they were
counterfeited;
This is to certify that the one hundred (100) pieces 100 US Dollar
notes submitted for verification as to their genuineness by Mr. Reynaldo
L. Paday,: Senior Currency Specialist, Investigation Division, Cash
Department per memorandum of even date and more particularly
described as follows:
Appellants' Evidence:
b) She and her husband were handcuffed. Agent Armida Superales took
her bag and said: "Boss, negative." She also saw Agent Superales
take out from her side something wrapped in plastic and put it inside
the bag. When they reached the BSP premises in Quezon City, Agent
Superales opened the bag and declared that there were US dollar bills
and a bundle of marked money inside. She and Agent Superales had
an argument;
I
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 229701
c) The agents took Romeo Rimando to another room while she was left
at the front desk. Alex Munez and Reynaldo Paday interrogated her
and she was asked to admit that the counterfeit notes came from her.
She was afraid because they were threatening her. They told her she
could not do anything because there were no witnesses around. The
agents also informed her that they had a companion who was a
shooter. She just kept silent. She was further told that if she admitted
the crime, she would be made a civilian agent, given cash rewards,
and set free after the inquest;
2. They met and talked at the ground floor of the hotel. Afterwards,
Emily invited them to have lunch at a nearby Pizza Hut. There was
no table available at the restaurant so Emily suggested they go to
Andok's on Jupiter Street. On the road, they were arrested by a group
of 10 agents who had 3 vehicles.
3. He and his wife were handcuffed and forced into a Toyota Innova.
Emily and Pong were walking ahead of them and did not notice that
they were already arrested. When Emily and Pong looked back, the
two did not concern themselves with what transpired. They were
taken to a parking lot near the Makati Tower Hotel. Inside the Innova,
he saw through the back mirror that Pong and Emily were talking to
the operatives;
5. When they arrived at BSP, Alex Munez brought him to the storeroom.
Alex Munez took out his pistol and placed it on top of the table. Alex
Munez also had a plastic bag and said it was going to be used on him.
He was interrogated and told to just admit that the confiscated notes
belonged to them;
7. The process ended at 2 o'clock the following day. They were told that
they could sleep on the chairs. Later that day, they were taken for
inquest. 5
5
Id. at 42-50.
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 229701
SO ORDERED.
I.
The RTC gravely erred in finding that all the elements of the crime
charged have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
II.
III.
IV.
The RTC gravely erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies
of agents Alex Munez and Reynaldo Paday despite their contradictory
statements. 6
The CA, in its Decision dated September 6, 2016, affirmed in toto the
Decision of the RTC, to wit:
6
Id. at 75.
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 229701
SO' ORDERED.
Issue
After a careful review of the records of the case, we sustain the ruling
of the CA with respect to the validity of the entrapment operation conducted
by the BSP agents and its findings as to the existence of all the elements of
the crime of illegal possession and use of false treasury bank notes as
defined under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The CA did not also
commit grave abuse of discretion in giving credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and on the basis thereof, convicted Romeo.
7
Id. at 14.
8
Siasat v. Court ofAppeals, 425 Phil. 139, 145 (2002).
9
Quidetv. People, G.R. No. 170289, April 8, 2010, 618 SCRA 1.
10
People v. Balagat, G.R. No. 177163, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 640, 644-645.
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 229701
We do not agree.
11
Rollo, p. 68.
12
People v. De Chavez, G.R. No. 188105, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 464, 476-477.
13
G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010, 615 SCRA 597.
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 229701
Article 168 of the RPC, under which petitioner was charged, provides:
The elements of the crime charged for violation of said law are: (1)
that any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security
payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other document of
credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person; (2) that
the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged or falsified; and
(3) that he either used or possessed with intent to use any of such forged or
falsified instruments. 14
Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission
is not, by itself, sufficient to establish conspiracy. 15 To establish conspiracy,
evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of
an illegal act is required. 16 Nevertheless, mere knowledge, acquiescence or
approval of the act, without the cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not
enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy, but that there must be
intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of
the common design and purpose. 17
14
Tecson v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 113218, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 181, 188.
15
People v. Desoy, G.R. No. 127754, August 16, 1999, 312 SCRA 432, 445; Abadv. Court of
Appeals, 353 Phil. 247, 253 (1998).
16
People v. Tabuso, G.R. No. 113708, October 26, 1999, 317 SCRA 454, 459; People v. Alas, 340
Phil. 423, 436 (1997).
17
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999, 305 SCRA 740, 755.
Resolution 10 G.R. No. 229701
The fact that petitioner accompanied her husband at the restaurant and
allowed her husband to place the money inside her bag would not be
sufficient to justify the conclusion that conspiracy existed. In order to hold
an accused liable as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he or she must be
shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of
conspiracy. 18
18
People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000.
19
People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003, 396 SCRA 62, 95.
20
People v. Marcos, G.R. No. 115006, March 18, 1999, 305 SCRA 1, 13.
21
People v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 129691, June 29, 1999, 309 SCRA 440, 465.
22
Monteverde v. People, G.R. No. 139610, August 12, 2002, 387 SCRA 196, 215.
Resolution 11 G.R. No. 229701
SO ORDERED.
J. VELASCO, JR.
Assatiate Justice
WE CONCUR:
s
Associate Justice Associate Justice
(On Leave)
ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the y>pinion of the
Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION
Divisio,
ov.~:f Chief Justice
T h i 1· d D i ,- i s ~ c n
DEC 1 9 2017"