BELGICA v.
OCHOA The president does have his own source of fund albeit not
The so-called pork barrel system has been around in the
Philippines since about 1922. Pork Barrel is commonly known
as the lump-sum, discretionary funds of the members of the
Congress. It underwent several legal designations from
“Congressional Pork Barrel” to the latest “Priority
Development Assistance Fund” or PDAF. The allocation for the
pork barrel is integrated in the annual General Appropriations
Act (GAA).
Since 2011, the allocation of the PDAF has been done in the
following manner:
a. P70 million: for each member of the lower house; broken
down to – P40 million for “hard projects” (infrastructure
projects like roads, buildings, schools, etc.), and P30 million
for “soft projects” (scholarship grants, medical assistance,
livelihood programs, IT development, etc.);
b. P200 million: for each senator; broken down to – P100
million for hard projects, P100 million for soft projects;
c. P200 million: for the Vice-President; broken down to –
P100 million for hard projects, P100 million for soft projects.
The PDAF articles in the GAA do provide for realignment of
funds whereby certain cabinet members may request for the
realignment of funds into their department provided that the
request for realignment is approved or concurred by the
legislator concerned.
Presidential Pork Barrel
included in the GAA. The so-called presidential pork barrel
comes from two sources: (a) the Malampaya Funds, from the
Malampaya Gas Project – this has been around since 1976,
and (b) the Presidential Social Fund which is derived from the
earnings of PAGCOR – this has been around since about
1983.
Pork Barrel Scam Controversy
Ever since, the pork barrel system has been besieged by
allegations of corruption. In July 2013, six whistle blowers,
headed by Benhur Luy, exposed that for the last decade, the
corruption in the pork barrel system had been facilitated by
Janet Lim Napoles. Napoles had been helping lawmakers in
funneling their pork barrel funds into about 20 bogus NGO’s
(non-government organizations) which would make it
appear that government funds are being used in legit existing
projects but are in fact going to “ghost” projects. An audit
was then conducted by the Commission on Audit and the
results thereof concurred with the exposes of Luy et al.
Motivated by the foregoing, Greco Belgica and several
others, filed various petitions before the Supreme Court
questioning the constitutionality of the pork barrel system.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not the congressional pork barrel system is
constitutional.
II. Whether or not presidential pork barrel system is
constitutional.
HELD:
I. No, the congressional pork barrel system is
unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it violates the
following principles:
a. Separation of Powers
As a rule, the budgeting power lies in Congress. It regulates
the release of funds (power of the purse). The executive, on
the other hand, implements the laws – this includes the GAA
to which the PDAF is a part of. Only the executive may
implement the law but under the pork barrel system, what’s
happening was that, after the GAA, itself a law, was enacted,
the legislators themselves dictate as to which projects their
PDAF funds should be allocated to – a clear act of
implementing the law they enacted – a violation of the
principle of separation of powers. (Note in the older case of
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez, it was ruled that pork barrel, then
called as CDF or the Countrywide Development Fund, was
constitutional insofar as the legislators only recommend
where their pork barrel funds go).
This is also highlighted by the fact that in realigning the PDAF,
the executive will still have to get the concurrence of the
legislator concerned.
b. Non-delegability of Legislative Power
As a rule, the Constitution vests legislative power in Congress
alone. (The Constitution does grant the people legislative
power but only insofar as the processes of referendum and
initiative are concerned). That being, legislative power cannot
be delegated by Congress for it cannot delegate further that
which was delegated to it by the Constitution.
Exceptions to the rule are:
(i) delegated legislative power to local government units but
this shall involve purely local matters;
(ii) authority of the President to, by law, exercise powers
necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy
in times of war or other national emergency, or fix within
specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
restrictions as Congress may impose, tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties
or imposts within the framework of the national development
program of the Government.
In this case, the PDAF articles which allow the individual
legislator to identify the projects to which his PDAF money
should go to is a violation of the rule on non-delegability of
legislative power. The power to appropriate funds is solely
lodged in Congress (in the two houses comprising it)
collectively and not lodged in the individual members.
Further, nowhere in the exceptions does it state that the
Congress can delegate the power to the individual member
of Congress.
c. Principle of Checks and Balances
One feature in the principle of checks and balances is the
power of the president to veto items in the GAA which he
may deem to be inappropriate. But this power is already
being undermined because of the fact that once the GAA is
approved, the legislator can now identify the project to which
he will appropriate his PDAF. Under such system, how can the
president veto the appropriation made by the legislator if the
appropriation is made after the approval of the GAA –
again, “Congress cannot choose a mode of budgeting which
effectively renders the constitutionally-given power of the
President useless.”
d. Local Autonomy
As a rule, the local governments have the power to manage
their local affairs. Through their Local Development Councils
(LDCs), the LGUs can develop their own programs and
policies concerning their localities. But with the PDAF,
particularly on the part of the members of the house of
representatives, what’s happening is that a congressman can
either bypass or duplicate a project by the LDC and later on
claim it as his own. This is an instance where the national
government (note, a congressman is a national officer)
meddles with the affairs of the local government – and this is
contrary to the State policy embodied in the Constitution on
local autonomy. It’s good if that’s all that is happening under
the pork barrel system but worse, the PDAF becomes more
of a personal fund on the part of legislators.
II. Yes, the presidential pork barrel is valid.
The main issue raised by Belgica et al against the presidential
pork barrel is that it is unconstitutional because it violates
Section 29 (1), Article VI of the Constitution which provides:
No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
Belgica et al emphasized that the presidential pork comes
from the earnings of the Malampaya and PAGCOR and not
from any appropriation from a particular legislation.
The Supreme Court disagrees as it ruled that PD 910, which
created the Malampaya Fund, as well as PD 1869 (as
amended by PD 1993), which amended PAGCOR’s charter,
provided for the appropriation, to wit:
(i) PD 910: Section 8 thereof provides that all fees, among
others, collected from certain energy-related ventures shall
form part of a special fund (the Malampaya Fund) which shall
be used to further finance energy resource development and
for other purposes which the President may direct;
(ii) PD 1869, as amended: Section 12 thereof provides that a
part of PAGCOR’s earnings shall be allocated to a General
Fund (the Presidential Social Fund) which shall be used in
government infrastructure projects.
These are sufficient laws which met the requirement of
Section 29, Article VI of the Constitution. The appropriation
contemplated therein does not have to be a particular
appropriation as it can be a general appropriation as in the
case of PD 910 and PD 1869.
PEOPLE v. AMARELA
People of the Philippines v Juvy Amarela and Junard Rancho
(2018)
G.R.No. 225642-43
FACTS
2 Informations were filed:
On 10 Feb 2009 in Davao, Amarela through force have carnal
knowledge of AAA against her will
On 11 February 2009 in Davao, Rancho had carnal knowledge
of AAA against her will
The facts as found by RTC:
AAA, single, housekeeper, was watching a beauty contest in a
makeshift basketball court at around 6 PM. She walked to the
comfort room beside the cooperative building to urinate. On
her way she was intercepted by Amarela who dragged her to
the day care center and raped her there.
She shouted for help and Amarela fled. The 3 men who came
to her rescue had bad intentions so she escaped them. She
then went to the house of Godo Dumandan, who brought her
to the Racho residence. Neneng Racho asked her son Junard
Racho to take her to her aunt’s house. On the way Racho
raped her by using force.
Amarela presented an alibi - he met AAA at 4 PM at the
cooperative building, she asked him if he knew her boyfriend
Eric Dumandan. He saw Eric later and passed on the
message that AAA was looking fo him. He later drank with his
friends and slept.
Racho said that at around 10 Pm AAA arrived at their house
and was crying because she was allegedly raped. His mother
asked him to accompany her but he left her at some point
because he did not want to accompany her to Ventura, which
was too far.
He also said his hand was impaired due to a hacking incident
a few months back. He presented a medical certificate.
RTC found both Amarela and Racho guilty of rape.
CA affirmed the RTC decision.
According to CA:
1. Her credibility is cemented by lack of motive to testify
against the two appellants.
The appellants’ denials fail in contrast to AAA’s positive
identification… Positive identification prevails over denial.
On the argument that being raped by two different men on two
different occasions only hours apart: There is no typical mode,
norm or circumstance in committing rape. Rape is no respecter
of time or place.
On the argument that, “Testimony is not corroborated by
medical findings as the medical certificate does not show any
physical injuries”: The absence of any superficial abrasion or
contusion does not militate against the claim of the latter
whose clear and candid testimony bears the badges of truth,
honesty or candor. It must be stressed that the absence or
presence of visible signs of injury on the victim depends on the
degree of force employed by the accused to consummate the
purpose which he had in mind. Thus the force employed in
rape need not be so great nor of such a character as could not
be resisted. .. only that it is sufficient to enable him to
consummate his purpose.
SC reversed.
The court’s opinion in People v Tana re the “women’s honor”
doctrine borders on the fallacy of non-sequitur. We should stay
away from such mindset and the Maria Clara stereotype and
accept the realities of a woman’s dynamic role in society… We
evaluate the complainant’s testimony without gender bias or
cultural misconception.
Against Amarela:
The version in her affidavit complaint differs materially from her
testimony in court - in her testimony she said she was on her
way to the comfort room when she was dragged by Amarela to
the day care center. In her affidavit she said she was pulled
from the vicinity of the stage. Court said people would easily
notice a man holding a woman against her will. The
inconsistency put AAA’s credibility in question.
AAA could not have positively identified Amarela because it
was dark and she saw him only for the first time.
Her testimony lacks material details on how she was brought
to the day care center against her will. - The makeshift stage
at the day care center was only 2 feet high and it was
physically impossible for 2 people to move freely under it.
Medical findings do not corroborate physical injuries and are
inconclusive of signs of forced entry. - Her lacerations were at
3 and 9 o’clock. The statistical results of locations of vaginal
lacerations are almost the same whether sex was consensual
or not. Therefore a specific location cannot distinguish if sex
was consensual or otherwise. However other factors should be
considered, such as frequency of lacerations and whether they
are in different positions. If in different areas of the vaginal
orifice, then it is a good indicator that there was sexual
abuse. In this case, the lacerations were only at 3 and 9
o’clock, so we cannot rule out that AAA had sex voluntarily.
The absence of bruises when she said she was punched three
(3) times on the thighs reinforces this theory.
Against Racho, the court said that as her testimony did not
pass the test of credibility, the case against Racho must be
considered in the same light.
The Court said that it was against human experience that AAA
did not report the incident to the proper authorities. She
instead insisted that she be brought to her aunt’s house
instead of to the police.
Also, Racho was able to immediately go home, as
corroborated by his mother’s testimony.
Prosecution must present a detailed story to get a conviction
What really is the Woman’s Honor doctrine, also referred to as
the Maria Clara doctrine?
“It is a well-known fact that women, especially Filipinos, would
not admit that they have been abused unless that abuse had
actually happened. This is due to their natural instinct to
protect their honor. We cannot believe that the offended party
would have positively stated that intercourse took place unless
it did actually take place.”
Isn’t it only an exercise of court’s discretionary judicial notice
under Section 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court?
RULE 129
What Need Not Be Proved
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals, the political constitution and history of the
Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may
take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge,
or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to
be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a)
Will court still examine credibility and testimony of rape victim
and Woman’s Honor doctrine is just additional evidentiary tool
utilized by court?
Yes, the court emphasised this in its decision in People v
Amarela when it appreciated both affidavit and testimony and
found material inconsistencies that cast doubt on
complainant’s credibility. It said: “The court’s opinion in People
v Tano re the “women’s honor” doctrine borders on the fallacy
of non-sequitur. We should stay away from such mindset and
the Maria Clara stereotype and accept the realities of a
woman’s dynamic role in society… We evaluate the
complainant’s testimony without gender bias or cultural
misconception.”
***************
There is opinion however that this decision is void: “It,
however, must be recalled that the case was decided by the
Supreme Court's Third Division under the ponencia of Justice
Martires. Under Article 8.4.3 of the 1987 Constitution, "Cases
or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved
with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of
at least three of such Members. When the required number is
not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided,
that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a
decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or
reversed except by the court sitting en banc."
(https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2018/02/abandonment-
of-maria-clara-doctrine-may.html)Article 8353 the Anti-Rape
Law of 1997, re-defined the crime of Rape. Since then it was
treated as a crime against persons, not a crime against
chastity.
I. Elements of Rape
Below are the articles in the RPC. Paragraph 1 lists the
elements of traditional rape or how it is usually committed, and
Paragraph 2 provides for the elements of rape by sexual
assault.
"Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is
committed:
"1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
"a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
"b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
"c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
"d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age
or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
"2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances
mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act
of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the
genital or anal orifice of another person.
"Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.
"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
become insane, the penalty shall become reclusion perpetua
to death.
"When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.
"When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is
committed, the penalty shall be death.
"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
"l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
"2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or
military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;
"3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse,
parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third
civil degree of consanguinity;
"4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate
religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be
such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of
the crime;
"5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
"6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the
Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually
transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to
the victim;
"7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine
National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal
institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to
facilitate the commission of the crime;
"8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim
has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;
"9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended
party at the time of the commission of the crime; and
"10) When the offender knew of the mental disability,
emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended
party at the time of the commission of the crime.
"Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be
punished by prision mayor.
"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision
mayor to reclusion temporal.
"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.
"When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
"When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is
committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
"Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is committed
with any of the ten aggravating/ qualifying circumstances
mentioned in this article.
Article 266-C retained the effects of pardon.
"Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid
marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty imposed.
"In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That
the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be
abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Article 266-D provides for presumptions of rape when the
offended party resists the sexual advances.
"Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act
manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree
from the offended party, or where the offended party is so
situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent,
may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts
punished under Article 266-A."

In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following

principles:

(1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove the

accusation is difficult, though the accused may be innocent;

(2) inasmuch as only two persons are usually involved in the

crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be
scrutinized with great caution; and

(3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its
own merit and should not be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense. So long as the
private complainant’s testimony meets the test of credibility,
the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. [People v
Patentes, G.R. No. 190178, 12 February 2014]
Carpio Marales v. CA