Criminal Law Digest 2

8/12/2019 Criminal Law Digest 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-law-digest-2 1/24

People vs. Casido G.R. No. 116512, March 7, 1997

Facts: In an effort to seek their release at the soonest possible time, accused-appellants

William Casido and Franklin Alcorin applied for pardon before the Presidential Committee on the

Grant of Bail, Release or Pardon (PCGBRP, as !ell as for amnest" before the #ational

Amnest" Commission (#AC$ %he PCGBRP !as constituted in line !ith the confidence-buildin&

measures of the &o'ernment$ %hereafter, accused-appellants !ere &ranted conditional pardon$

But the Court ruled in resolution that the conditional pardon &ranted to accused-appellants is

'oid for ha'in& been etended durin& the pendenc" of their appeal$ Prior to the resolution, the

#AC fa'orabl" acted on the applications for amnest" of accused-appellants$

Isse: Whether or not the release of accused-appellants is 'alid

!eld: %he release of accused-appellants !as 'alid solel" on the &round of the amnest" &ranted

them and not b" the pardon$

Pardon is &ranted b" the Chief )ecuti'e and as such it is a pri'ate act !hich must be pleaded

and pro'ed b" the person pardoned because the courts take no notice thereof* !hile amnest"

b" the Proclamationof the Chief )ecuti'e !ith the concurrence of Con&ress, and it is a public

act of !hich the courts should take +udicial notice$ Pardon is &ranted to one after con'iction*

!hile amnest" is to classes of persons or communities !ho ma" be &uilt" of political offenses,

&enerall" before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after

con'iction$ Pardon looks for!ard and relie'es the offender from the conseuences of an offense

of !hich he has been con'icted, that is, it abolishes or for&i'es the punishment, and for that

reason it does not !ork the restoration of the ri&hts to hold public office, or the ri&ht of suffra&e,

unless such ri&hts be epressl" restored b" the terms of the pardon, and it in no case eempts

the culprit from the pa"ment of the ci'il indemnit" imposed upon him b" the sentence$ While

amnest" looks back!ard and abolishes and puts into obli'ion the offense itself, it so o'erlooks

and obliterates the offense !ith !hich he is char&ed that the person released b" amnest"

stands before the la! precisel" as thou&h he had committed no offense$

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/people-vs-casido-gr-no-116512-march-7.html

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/people-vs-casido-gr-no-116512-march-7.html



While the pardon in this case !as 'oid for ha'in& been etended durin& the pendenc" of the

appeal or before con'iction b" final +ud&ment and, therefore, in 'iolation of the first para&raph of

ec$ ./, Art$ 0II of the Constitution, the &rant of amnest", for !hich accused-appellants

'oluntaril" applied under Proclamation #o$ 123 !as 'alid$ %his Proclamation !as concurred in

b" both 4ouses of Con&ress$



People o" the Philippi#es vs $e#edicto %ose

FACTS:

5ose !as char&ed for 'iolatin& Act 67 in ./22$ Act 67 !as an act of the #at8l Assembl" of RP

!hile the 5apanese !ere still occup"in& the countr"$ After ser'in& 6 months or in April ./22,

5ose !as &ranted a conditional pardon 9 the simple condition !as for him not to 'iolate an"

other Penal :a!s of RP$ :ater he committed a crime of ualified theft$ %he Fiscal then !ent on

to file an additional char&e a&ainst 5ose for 'iolatin& the conditions of the pardon &ranted him$

5ose ar&ued that he did not 'iolate the pardon conditions at all because there is no pardon at

all$ %he pardon &ranted him is inoperati'e because the la! he 'iolated before !as a political la!

!hich !as abro&ated !hen the ; arm" took o'er the countr" as proclaimed b" <acArthur in

=ct ./22$

I&&'(: Whether the defendant can no! be prosecuted for ha'in& alle&edl" 'iolated the

conditional pardon &ranted b" the President of the so-called Republic of the Philippines$

!()*: %he C held that 5ose cannot be prosecuted criminall" for a 'iolation of the conditional

pardon &ranted b" the President of the so-called RP (durin& the 5ap =ccupation, for the

follo!in& reasons> Because, !ithout necessit" of discussin& and determinin& the intrinsic 'alidit"of the conditional pardon, as an act done b" the President of the so-called RP, after the

restoration of the Common!ealth Go'ernment, no elaborate ar&ument is reuired to sho! that

the effecti'it" of a conditional pardon depends on that of the sentence !hich inflicts upon a

defendant the punishment inflicted b" the sentence ceases to be of an" effect in so far as the

indi'idual upon !hom it is besto!ed is concerned, for the latter cannot be reuired to ser'e a

'oid sentence of penalt" imposed on him, e'en !ithout such pardon$



P(+P)( & FR-NCI&C+ &-))( %R

here the /d0e#t o" co#victio# is still pe#di#0 appeal a#d has #ot et there"ore

attai#ed "i#alit, as i# the i#sta#t case, e3ective clee#c a #ot et 4e 0ra#ted to the

appella#t.

he accepta#ce o" the pardo# shall #ot operate as a#a4a#do#e#t or aiver o" the

appeal.

Facts:

=n #o'ember .//., Francisco alle, 5r$ and Rick" <en&ote !ere con'icted of the compound

crime of murder and destructi'e arson before the R%C of ?ue@on Cit"$ alle and <en&ote filed

their #otice of Appeal !hich !as accepted b" the upreme Court on <arch 2, .//1$

In .//2, alle filed an ;r&ent <otion to Withdra! Appeal$ %he Court reuired alles counsel,

Att"$ Ida <a" :ao of the Free :e&al Assistance Group (F:AG to 'erif" the 'oluntariness of the

motion$

Att"$ :ao manifested that alle si&ned the motion !ithout the assistance of counsel on his

misimpression that the motion !as necessar" for his earl" releasefrom the #e! Bilibid Prisonfollo!in& the &rant of a conditional pardon b" the President on ecember /, .//1$ he also

stated that <en&ote !as also &ranted conditional pardon and that he immediatel" left for his

pro'ince !ithout consultin& her$ he pra"ed that the Court &rant alles motion to !ithdra! his

appeal$

=n <arch 1, .//2, the Court &ranted alles motion$

After takin& into consideration ection ./, Article 0II of the Constitution !hich pro'ides that thePresident ma", ecept in cases of impeachment or as other!ise pro'ided in the Constitution,

&rant pardon after conviction by final judgment , the Court reuired (. the olicitor General and

the counsel for accused-appellants to submit their memoranda on the issue of the enforceabilit"

of the conditional pardon and ( the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release or



Pardon to inform the Court !h" it recommended to the President the &rant of the conditional

pardon despite the pendenc" of the appeal$

In its <emorandum, the =ffice of the olicitor General maintains that the conditional pardon

&ranted to appellant <en&ote is unenforceable because the +ud&ment of con'iction is not "et

final in 'ie! of the pendenc" in this Court of his appeal$

=n the other hand, the F:AG, throu&h Att"$ :ao, submits that the conditional pardon etended

to <en&ote is 'alid and enforceable$ Citin& Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr $, it ar&ues that althou&h

<en&ote did not file a motion to !ithdra! the appeal, he !as deemed to ha'e abandoned the

appeal b" his acceptance of the conditional pardon !hich resulted in the finalit" of his

con'iction$

Isse:

Whether or not a pardon &ranted to an accused durin& the pendenc" of his appeal from a

+ud&ment of con'iction b" the trial court is enforceable$

!eld:

ection ./, Article 0II thereof reads as follo!s>

“!ce"t in cases of im"eac#ment, or as ot#er$ise "rovided in t#is Constitution, t#e %resident

may grant re"rieves, commutations, and "ardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after

conviction by final judgment.

&e s#all also #ave t#e "o$er to grant amnesty $it# t#e concurrence of a majority of all

t#e Members of t#e Congress.'

Where the pardonin& po!er is sub+ect to the limitation of conviction, it ma" be eercised at any

time after conviction e'en if the +ud&ment is on appeal$ It is, of course, entirel" different !here

the reuirement is D final conviction, D as !as mandated in the ori&inal pro'ision of ection .2,

Article IE of the ./31 Constitution, or Dconviction by final judgment ,D as presentl" prescribed in

ection ./, Article 0II of the ./3 Constitution$ In such a case, no pardon ma" be etended

before a +ud&ment of con'iction becomes final$



A +ud&ment of con'iction becomes final (a !hen no appeal is seasonabl" perfected, (b !hen

the accused commences to ser'e the sentence, (c !hen the ri&ht to appeal is epressl" !ai'ed

in !ritin&, ecept !here the death penalt"!as imposed b" the trial court, and (d !hen the

accused applies for probation, thereb" !ai'in& his ri&ht to appeal$ Where the +ud&ment of

con'iction is still pendin& appeal and has not "et therefore attained finalit", as in the instant

case, eecuti'e clemenc" ma" not "et be &ranted to the appellant$

%he Dcon'iction b" final +ud&mentD limitation under ection ./, Article 0II of the present

Constitution prohibits the &rant of pardon, !hether full or conditional, to an accused durin& the

pendenc" of his appeal from his con'iction b" the trial court$ An" application therefor, if one is

made, should not be acted upon or the process to!ard its &rant should not be be&un unless the

appeal is !ithdra!n$ Accordin&l", the a&encies or instrumentalities of the Go'ernmentconcerned must reuire proof from the accused that he has not appealed from his con'iction or

that he has !ithdra!n his appeal$ uch proof ma" be in the form of a certification issued b" the

trial court or the appellate court, as the case ma" be$

%he acceptance of the pardon shall not operate as an abandonment or !ai'er of the appeal ,

and the release of an accused b" 'irtue of a pardon, commutation of sentence, or parole before

the !ithdra!al of an appeal shall render those responsible therefor administrati'el" liable$

Accordin&l", those in custod" of the accused must not solel" rel" on the pardon as a basis forthe release of the accused from confinement$

!(R(F+R(, counsel for accused-appellant Rick" <en&ote " Cuntado is hereb" &i'en thirt"

(1 da"s from notice hereof !ithin !hich to secure from the latter the !ithdra!al of his appeal

and to submit it to this Court$ %he conditional pardon &ranted the said appellant shall be

deemed to take effect onl" upon the &rant of such !ithdra!al$ In case of non-compliance !ith

this Resolution, the irector of the Bureau of Corrections must eert e'er" possible effort to take

back into his custod" the said appellant, for !hich purpose he ma" seek the assistance of the

Philippine #ational Police or the #ational Bureau of In'esti&ation$ (People vs. Francisco Salle,

Jr. and Ricky Mengote, G.R. No. 103!", #ece$%er &, 1''



&alvacio# Mo#sa#to vs *ept (3ec &ec Fl0e#cio Factora#

FAC%><onsanto !as the Asst %reasurer of Calba"u& Cit"$ he !as char&ed for the crime of

)stafa throu&h Falsification of Public ocuments$ he !as found &uilt" and !as

sentenced to +ail$ he !as ho!e'er &ranted pardon b" <arcos$ he then !rote a letter

to the <inister of Finance for her to be reinstated to her former position since it !as still

'acant$ he !as also reuestin& for back pa"s$ %he <inister of Finance referred the

issue to the =ffice of the President and Factoran denied <onsanto8s reuest a'errin&

that <onsanto must first seek appointment and that the pardon does not reinstate her

former position$ Also, <onsanto a'ers that b" reason of the pardon, she should no

lon&er be compelled to ans!er for the ci'il liabilities brou&ht about b" her acts$

I&&'(: Whether or not <onsanto should be reinstated to her former post$

!()*: A pardon looks to the future$ It is not retrospecti'e$ It makes no amends for the

past$ It affords no relief for !hat has been suffered b" the offender$ It does not impose

upon the &o'ernment an" obli&ation to make reparation for !hat has been suffered$

Hince the offense has been established b" +udicial proceedin&s, that !hich has been

done or suffered !hile the" !ere in force is presumed to ha'e been ri&htfull" done and +ustl" suffered, and no satisfaction for it can be reuired$ %his !ould eplain !h"

petitioner, thou&h pardoned, cannot be entitled to recei'e backpa" for lost earnin&s and

benefits$ =n the other hand, ci'il liabilit" arisin& from crime is &o'erned b" the RPC$ It

subsists not!ithstandin& ser'ice of sentence, or for an" reason the sentence is not

ser'ed b" pardon, amnest" or commutation of sentence$ Petitioner8s ci'il liabilit" ma"

onl" be etin&uished b" the same causes reco&ni@ed in the Ci'il Code, namel">

pa"ment, loss of the thin& due, remission of the debt, mer&er of the ri&hts of creditor

and debtor, compensation and no'ation$



$(N%-MIN P-NG-N's$!+N. )+'R*(& F. G-$-)I(G.R. No. 11718%a#ar 21, 25

Facts:=n eptember .6, ./3, the petitioner !as con'icted of the offense char&ed and !assentenced to ser'e a penalt" of t!o months and one da" of arresto mayor.=n appeal, theRe&ional %rial Court, on =ctober 2, ./,affirmed in toto the decision of the <unicipal %rialCourt$ Petitioner ne'er &ot to ser'e his sentence and hid for about nine "ears$Pursuant to theorder of arrest, on 5anuar" , , the petitioner !as apprehended and detained at the<abalacat etention Cell$ =n 5anuar" 2, , petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of 4abeasCorpus at theRe&ional %rial Court of An&eles Cit"$ 4e impleaded as respondent the Actin&Chief of Police of <abalacat, Pampan&a$ Petitioner contended that his arrest !as ille&al and un+ustified on the &rounds that>(a the

strai&ht penalt" of t!o months and one da" of arresto ma"or prescribes in fi'e "ears under #o$1,Article /1 Jof theK Re'ised Penal Code, and(b ha'in& been able to continuousl" e'adeser'ice of sentence for almost nine "ears, his criminal liabilit" has lon& been totall" etin&uishedunder #o$ 6, Article / of the Re'ised Penal Code$%he petition for a !rit of habeas corpus !asdenied as there !as no e'asion of the ser'ice of the sentence in this case, because suche'asion presupposes escapin& durin& the ser'ice of the sentence consistin& in depri'ationof libert"$Isse:When does the prescription of penalties be&in to runLRli#0:Petitioner is ordered released effecti'e immediatel" for ha'in& full" ser'ed his sentence unlesshe is detained for another offense or char&e$%he period of prescription of penalties M the

succeedin& Article /1 pro'ides M Dshall commence to run from the date !hen the culprit shoulde'ade the ser'ice of his sentenceD$ In Article .73 of the Re'ised Penal Code discussed on ho!the e'asion of ser'ice of sentence !as perfected and thus it !as stated there as such that*%he penalt" of "rision correccional in its medium and maimum periods shall be imposed uponan" con'ict !ho shall e'ade ser'ice of his sentence b" escapin& durin& the term of hisimprisonment b" reason of final +ud&ment$ %o consider properl" the meanin& of e'asion ser'iceof sentence, its elements must be present the are> (. the offender is a con'ict b" final

+ud&ment* ( he Dis ser'in& his sentence !hich consists in depri'ation of libert"D* and (1 hee'ades ser'ice of sentence b" escapin& durin& the term of his sentence$ For, b" the epressterms of the statute, a con'ict e'ades Dser'ice of his sentenceD b" Descapin& durin& the term ofhis imprisonment b" reason of final +ud&ment$D %hat escape should take place !hile ser'in&sentence, is emphasi@ed b" the pro'isions of the second sentence of Article .73 !hich pro'ides

for a hi&her penalt" if suchD e'asion or escape shall ha'e taken place b" means of unla!fulentr", b" breakin& doors, !indo!s, &ates, !alls, roofs, or floors, or b" usin& picklocks, falseke"s, dis&uise, deceit, 'iolence or intimidation, or throu&h conni'ance !ith other con'icts oremplo"ees of the penal institution, $ $ $D Indeed, e'asion of sentence is but another epression ofthe term D+ail breakin&$DAs correctl" pointed out b" the olicitor General DescapeD in le&alparlance and for purposes of Articles /1 and.73 of the RPC means unla!ful departure ofprisoner from the limits of his custod"$ Clearl", one !ho has not been committed to prisoncannot be said to ha'e escaped therefrom$



In the instant case, petitioner !as ne'er brou&ht to prison$ In fact, e'en before the eecution ofthe +ud&ment for his con'iction, he !as alread" in hidin&$ #o! petitioner be&s for thecompassion of the Court because he has ceased to li'e a life of peace and tranuilit" after hefailed to appear in court for the eecution of his sentence$ But it !as petitioner !ho chose tobecome a fu&iti'e$ %he Court accords compassion onl" to those !ho are deser'in&$ Petitioners&uilt !as pro'en be"ond reasonable doubt but he refused to ans!er for the !ron& he

committed$ 4e is therefore not to be re!arded therefor



P(+P)( & %')I( +)-C+

F-C&:

In an Information dated Au&ust 2, 2, =laco !as char&ed !ith ?ualified %heft$ Whenarrai&ned, =laco pleaded not &uilt"$ After trial on the merits, the R%C rendered a ecision on<arch 7, 3, findin& =laco &uilt" and sentencin& her$ =n <arch 6, 3, =laco !ascommitted to the Correctional Institution for Women in <andalu"on& Cit"$ =laco filed an appealbefore the Court of Appeals$ %he appeal !as )#I)$ 4o!e'er, in a letter dated 5anuar" 3,.., Rachel $ Ruelo, uperintendent I0 of the Correctional Institution for Women, informedthe Court of Appeals that =laco had died on Februar" .3, .$

I&&'(: W=# =laco8s death etin&uished her criminal liabilit" and ci'il liabilit"LRulin&>

R')ING:

=laco8s death on Februar" .3, ., durin& the pendenc" of her appeal, etin&uished not onl"her criminal liabilit" for ualified theft committed a&ainst pri'ate complainant Ruben 0inluan, butalso her ci'il liabilit", particularl" the a!ard for actual dama&es, solel" arisin& from or based onsaid crime$ Accordin& to Article /(. of the Re'ised Penal Code, criminal liabilit" is totall"etin&uished> HB" the death of the con'ict, as to the personal penalties* and as to pecuniar"penalties, liabilit" therefor is etin&uished onl" !hen the death of the offender occurs beforefinal +ud&ment$ ince, =laco8s appeal !as still pendin& and no final +ud&ment had beenrendered a&ainst her at the time of her death, it is alread" unnecessar" to rule on her appeal$

Whether or not =laco !as &uilt" of the crime char&ed had become irrele'ant because e'enassumin& that =laco did incur criminal liabilit" and ci'il liabilit" e delicto, these !ere totall"etin&uished b" her death, follo!in& Article /(. of the Re'ised Penal Code and the &uidelineslaid do!n in %eo"le v. (ayotas$ %eo"le of t#e %#ili""ines v. Juliet )laco y %oler, *.+. o.

-/012, )ctober -/, 20--.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/197042.htm







M-N'() $-)- & %'*G( -N+NI+ M-RIN(

N-'R(Petition for certiorari and prohibition !ith preliminar" in+unction to re'ie! the order of theCour t of Fi rs t Instance of <anilaF-C&- %he petitioner had been indicted for remo'in& and subst it ut in& the picture of ia@en!hich had been attached to her ;nited tates of America passport, !ith thatof #otarte, in ef fect fa ls if "in& a &enu ine public or official document$ %he trial courtad+ud&ed petitioner Bala in Criminal Case #o$ 2221, &uilt" of the cr ime of fa ls if icat ion of a

public document$ %he pet it ioner seasonabl" appealed, but t he Court of Appeals, on April /, ./, affirmedin totothe lo!er courts decision$ After the case had been remanded to the court of ori&in foreecution of +ud&ment, the Petitioner applied for and !as &ranted probation b" therespondent +ud&e in his order dated Au&ust.. ,. / $ % h e p e t i t i o n e r ! a s t h e n p l a c e d u n d e r probation for a period ofone (. "ear, sub+ect to the terms and conditions enumerated therein$- %he probationer(petitioner asked hissuper'isin&pr ob at io n of f i ce r fo r pe r mi ss io n to t r an sf er hi sresidence from BF4omes to Phil-Am :ifeubdi'isionin :a s Pi Na s sp ec i f ic al l" 11 5 i n& co t re e t $ %h eprobation officer

'erball" &ranted the probationers reuest as he found nothin& ob+ectionable to it$- B" the termsof the petitioners probation, it should ha'e epired on Au&ust ., ./1, one "ear after the order&rantin& the same !as issued$ But, the order of f i n a l d i s c h a r & e c o u l d n o t b e i s s u e db e c a u s e t h e respondent probation officer had not "ets u b m i t t e d h i s f i n a l r e p o r t o n t h e c o n d u c t o f h i s c h a r & e $ u b s e u e n tl " , t h e r e s p o n d e n t P e o p l e o f t h e Philippines, throu&h AssistantC it " F is ca l 5 os e $C a + uc o m o f < an i l a , f i l e d a m o t i on t o r e' ok e t hepro bat ion of the pet iti one r befo re Branc h EE o f t he Re&ional %rial Court (R%C of<anila, presided o'er b" the respondent +ud&e$ %he motio n alle&ed that the peti tione rhad 'iolated the terms and con ditions of hisprobation$- = n 5 a n u a r " 2 , . / 2 , t h e p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d h i s opposition tothe motion on the &round that he !as

no lo n& er un de r pr ob at io n, hi s pr ob at io n pe r i od ha'in& terminated on Au&ust., ./1, as pre'iousl" ad 'e r t ed to $ As su ch , no 'a l i d re as on e is te d tore'oke the same, he contended$ As if to confirm the <an ila Assistan t Ci t" Fiscal s motionto re'oket hepe ti ti oner s probat ion, the res ponden t p roba ti ono f f i c e r f i l e d o n 5 a n u a r "6 , . / 2 , a m o t i o n t o terminate <anuel Balas probation, at the same time attac hin&his pro&ress report on super' is ion da ted 5anuar" 7, ./2$ %he same motion, ho!e'er,became the sub +ec t of a D<anif est ati on, D dat ed 5anuar " ., ./2, !hich stated that theprobation officer !as not pursuin& the motion to terminate dated 5anuar" 6,./2*



instead, he !assubmittin& a supplementalr e p o r t ! h i c h r e c o m m e n d e d t h e r e ' o c a t i o no f probation Din the li&ht of ne! facts, information, and e'idences$D- %hereafter, the petitionerfiled a motion to dismiss andOo r str ike out the mot ion to re' oke pro bat ion , uestionin&the +urisdiction of the court o'er hiscasei n a s mu c h a s h i s p r ob a t i o n p e r i o d ha d a l r ea d " e p i r e d $ < o r e o ' e r ,

h i s c h a n & e o f r e s i d e n c e automaticall" transferred the 'enue of the case from theR%C of <anila to the )ecuti'e$ 5ud&e, of theR%Co f < a k a t i ! h i c h l a t t e r c o u r t i n c l u d e u n d e r i t s + u r i s d i c t i o n t he < u n i c i p a l i t " o f : a s P i N a s t h e probationers place of residence, in'okin&ection .1,P$$ #o$ /6, !hich pro'ides ec$ .1$Control and uper'ision of Probationer$ $$$Whene'er a probationer is permitted to reside inap l ac e un d e r t h e + u r is d ic t io n o f a n ot h er c ou r t , c o n t r o l o ' e r h i m s h a l lb e t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e )ecu ti 'e 5ud&e o f t he , C ou rt of F ir st Inst ance of t h a tp l a c e , a n d i n s u c h a c a s e a c o p " o f t h e probation order the in'esti&ationreport and other pe r t i n e n t r e c o r d s s h a l l b e f u r n i s h e d t o s a i d )ecuti'e$5ud&e$ % h e r e a f t e r $ t h e ) e c u t i ' e 5 u d & e t o ! h o m +urisdiction o'er

the probationer is transferred shall h a ' e t h e p o !e r !i t h r e s p e c t t o h im t h a t !a spre 'iousl " pos ses sed b" the cou rt !hich &rante d the probation$- %he respondent +ud&edenied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit$ 4ence, this petition$I&&'(W = # h i s t r a n s f e r o f r e s i d e n c e a u t o m a t i c a l l " transferred +urisdictiono'er his probation from the <anila Re&ional %rial Court to the same court in hisne! address$!()*#=- I n c r i m i n a l c a s e s , ' e n u e i s a n e l e m e n t o f +urisdict ion$uch bein& the case, the <anila R%C !ould not be depri'ed of i ts +urisdict iono' er the probation case$ %o uphold the petitioners contention!o ul d me an a de pr ec ia t i o n of th e <a ni la co ur t s po!er to &rant probation in

the first place$ It is to be re me mb er ed th at !h e n th e pe t i t i on er -a cc us ed appliedfor probation in the then CFI of <anila , he !as a re s i de nt o f :a s Pi Na s ashe is up to n o! , al thou&h in a di f ferent subdi' ision$ As pointed out ear l ier , hemerel" mo'ed from BF 4omes to Philam :ife ubdi'ision 11 5in&co treet, alsoin :as PiNas$ = n t h e o t h e r h a n d , p u r s u i n & t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ar&umenton this score to the limits of it lo&ic !ould mean that his probat ion !as nu ll and 'o id inthe p l a c e , b e c a u s e t h e n t h e < a n i l a C F I ! a s! i t h o u t + u r i s d i c t i o n t o & r a n t h i m p r o b a t i o n a s h e ! a s ar e s i d e n t o f : a s P i N a s $ I t i s t h e r e f o r e i n c o r r e c t t oas s u m e t ha t t he pe t i t i one r s c ha n&e o f abo de c om pe ls c han&e o f ' enue ,and necessar il ", cont ro l o'er the petitioner, to the )ecuti'e 5ud&e of the R%C of his ne!residence$ %hus, in the apportionment of the re&ional trial courts under Batas Pambansa

Bl&$./, other!ise kno!n as the 5udiciar"Reor&ani@ationA c t o f . / , : a s P i N a s i s o n e a m o n & t h e municipalities included in the #ational Capital 5udicial Re & i o n( < e t r o < a n i l a ! i t h a s e a t a t < a k a t i $#eedless to sa" , t he Re& ional %ri al Court in <ak ati , like the <anila Re&ional %rialCourt, forms part of the Re&ional %rial Court of the #ational Capital Re&ion$

Accordin&l", the 'arious branches of the re&ional trial courts of <akati or <anila under the#ational Capital Re &i on , ar e co or d i na te an d co -e u al co ur ts , th e tota li t "of !hich is on l" one Re&ional %r ia l Cour t$ 5urisdiction is 'ested in the court, not in the



+ud&es$ I n o t h e r ! o r d s , t h e c a s e d o e s n o t a t t a c h t o t h e branch or +ud&e$%herefore, in this case, R%C BranchEE of <an ila, !hich &rant ed the proba tion, has notlost control and super'ision o'er the probation of the petitioner$

*ispositive;Petition dismissed

M+R(N+ vs. C+M()(C Case *i0est'R$-N+ M. M+R(N+ vs. C+M()(C, ( -).G.R. No. 16855. -0st 1, 26

F-C&: #orma :$ <e+es (<e+es filed a petition to disualif" <oreno from runnin& for Punon&Baran&a" on the &round that the latter !as con'icted b" final +ud&ment of the crime of Arbitrar"etention$ %he Comelec en banc &ranted her petition and disualified <oreno$ <oreno filed anans!er a'errin& that the petition states no cause of action because he !as alread" &rantedprobation$ Alle&edl", follo!in& the case of Bacla"on '$ <utia, the imposition of the sentence ofimprisonment, as !ell as the accessor" penalties, !as thereb" suspended$ <oreno also ar&uedthat under ec$ .6 of the Probation :a! of ./36 (Probation :a!, the final dischar&e of theprobation shall operate to restore to him all ci'il ri&hts lost or suspended as a result of his

con'iction and to full" dischar&e his liabilit" for an" fine imposed$

4o!e'er, the Comelec en banc assails ec$ 2(a of the :ocal Go'ernment Code !hichpro'ides that those sentenced b" final +ud&ment for an offense in'ol'in& moral turpitude or foran offense punishable b" one (. "ear or more of imprisonment, !ithin t!o ( "ears afterser'in& sentence, are disualified from runnin& for an" electi'e local position$ ince <oreno!as released from probation on ecember , , disualification shall commence on thisdate and end t!o ( "ears thence$ %he &rant of probation to <oreno merel" suspended theeecution of his sentence but did not affect his disualification from runnin& for an electi'e localoffice$

=n his petition, <oreno ar&ues that the disualification under the :ocal Go'ernment Code

applies onl" to those !ho ha'e ser'ed their sentence and not to probationers because the latterdo not ser'e the ad+ud&ed sentence$ %he Probation :a! should alle&edl" be read as aneception to the :ocal Go'ernment Code because it is a special la! !hich applies onl" toprobationers$ Further, e'en assumin& that he is disualified, his subseuent election as Punon&Baran&a" alle&edl" constitutes an implied pardon of his pre'ious misconduct$

I&&'(: oes <oreno8s probation &rant him the ri&ht to run in public officeL

!()*: es$ ec$ .6 of the Probation :a! pro'ides that DJtKhe final dischar&e of the probationershall operate to restore to him all ci'il ri&hts lost or suspended as a result of his con'iction andto full" dischar&e his liabilit" for an" fine imposed as to the offense for !hich probation !as&ranted$D %hus, !hen <oreno !as finall" dischar&ed upon the courts findin& that he has fulfilled

the terms and conditions of his probation, his case !as deemed terminated and all ci'il ri&htslost or suspended as a result of his con'iction !ere restored to him, includin& the ri&ht to run forpublic office$

It is important to note that the disualification under ec$ 2(a of the :ocal Go'ernment Codeco'ers offenses punishable b" one (. "ear or more of imprisonment, a penalt" !hich alsoco'ers probationable offenses$ In spite of this, the pro'ision does not specificall" disualif"probationers from runnin& for a local electi'e office$



Probation :a! should be construed as an eception to the :ocal Go'ernment Code$ While the:ocal Go'ernment Code is a later la! !hich sets forth the ualifications and disualifications oflocal electi'e officials, the Probation :a! is a special le&islation !hich applies onl" toprobationers$ It is a canon of statutor" construction that a later statute, &eneral in its terms andnot epressl" repealin& a prior special statute, !ill ordinaril" not affect the special pro'isions ofsuch earlier statute$

(li0i4ilit "or Pro4atio# (ve# -"ter -ppeali#0 Fro a# (rro#eos %d0e#t :

he Coli#ares vs. People <G.R. No. 18278, *ece4er 1=, 211> *octri#e

F-C&

Accused-appellant Arnel Colinares (Arnel !as char&ed !ith frustrated homicide forhittin& the head of the pri'ate complainant !ith a piece of stone$ 4e alle&ed self-defense but thetrial court found him &uilt" of the crime char&ed and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment from "ears and 2 months of "rision correccional , as minimum, to 6 "ears and . da"of "rision mayor , as maimum$ ince the maimum probationable imprisonment under the la!!as onl" up to 6 "ears, Arnel did not ualif" for probation$

Arnel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA, in'okin& self-defense and, alternati'el",seekin& con'iction for the lesser crime of attempted homicide !ith the conseuent reduction ofthe penalt" imposed on him$ 4is con'iction !as affirmed b" the CA$ 4ence, this appeal to theupreme Court$

I&&'(

Gi'en a findin& that Arnel is entitled to con'iction for a lo!er JlesserK offense Jofattempted homicideK and a reduced probationable penalt", ma" he ma" still appl" for probationon remand of the case to the trial courtL

R')ING

3T#e Su"reme Court voted to %A+T4A556 *+AT t#e a""eal, M)74F47 t#e CAdecision and found Arnel *845T6 of ATTM%T7 9not frustrated &)M4C47 andSTC7 #im to and indeterminate but %+)(AT4)A(5 "enalty of 1 mont#s of arrestomayor as minimum and 2 years and 1 mont#s of "rision correccional as ma!imum. T#e Courtalsovoted )" to allo* +rnel to +PP- FR PR/+N $it#in -; days from notice t#at t#erecord of t#e case #as been remanded for e!ecution to trial court.<

-2S, +rnel $ay still apply or pro%ation on re$and o t4e case to t4e trial co5rt.

=rdinaril", Arnel !ould no lon&er be entitled to appl" for probation, he ha'in& appealedfrom the +ud&ment of the R%C con'ictin& him for frustrated homicide$ But, the Court finds Arnel&uilt" onl" of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that the maimum of the penalt"imposed on him should be lo!ered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor , asminimum, to t!o "ears and four months of "rision correccional , as maimum$ With this ne!



penalt", it !ould be but fair to allo! him the ri&ht to appl" for probation upon remand of the caseto the R%C$

JWKhile it is true that probation is a mere pri'ile&e, the point is not that Arnel has the ri&htto such pri'ile&e* he certainl" does not ha'e$ What he has is the ri&ht to appl" for thatpri'ile&e$ %he Court finds that his maimum +ail term should onl" be "ears and 2 months$ If

the Court allo!s him to appl" for probation because of the lo!ered penalt", it is still up to thetrial +ud&e to decide !hether or not to &rant him the pri'ile&e of probation, takin& into accountthe full circumstances of his case$

If the Court chooses to &o b" the dissentin& opinion8s hard position, it !ill appl" theprobation la! on Arnel based on the trial court8s annulled +ud&ment a&ainst him$ 4e !ill not beentitled to probation because of the se'ere penalt" that such +ud&ment imposed on him$ <ore,the upreme Court8s +ud&ment of con'iction for a lesser offense and a li&hter penalt" !ill alsoha'e to bend o'er to the trial court8s +ud&mentQe'en if this has been found in error$ And,!orse, Arnel !ill no! also be made to pa" for the trial court8s erroneous +ud&ment !ith theforfeiture of his ri&ht to appl" for probation$ Ang =abayo ang nag=asala, ang #agu"it ay sa=alaba$ (the horse errs, the carabao &ets the !hip$ Where is +ustice thereL

4ere, Arnel did not appeal from a +ud&ment that !ould ha'e allo!ed him to appl" for

probation$ 4e did not ha'e a choice bet!een appeal and probation$ 4e !as not in a position tosa", HB" takin& this appeal, I choose not to appl" for probation$ %he stiff penalt" that the trialcourt imposed on him denied him that choice$ %hus, a rulin& that !ould allo! Arnel to no! seekprobation under this Court8s &reatl" diminished penalt" !ill not dilute the sound rulin&in Francisco$ It remains that those !ho !ill appeal from +ud&ments of con'iction, !hen the"ha'e the option to tr" for probation, forfeit their ri&ht to appl" for that pri'ile&e$

In a real sense, the Court8s findin& that Arnel !as &uilt", not of frustrated homicide, butonl" of attempted homicide, is an ori&inal con'iction that for the first time imposes on him aprobationable penalt"$ 4ad the R%C done him ri&ht from the start, it !ould ha'e found him

&uilt" of the correct offense and imposed on him the ri&ht penalt" of t!o "ears and four monthsmaimum$ %his !ould ha'e afforded Arnel the ri&ht to appl" for probation$



MIC!-() P-*'- & P(+P)(

F-C&: Petitioner, !ho !as then .3 "ears old, !as in'ol'ed in sellin& ille&aldru&s$ Initiall" in his arrai&nment he pleaded not &uilt" but re-entered hisplea of &uilt" to a'ail the benefits of first time offenders$ ubseuentl", heapplied for probation but !as denied$ In his petition for certiorari, the court saidthat probation and suspension of sentence are different and pro'isions inP 61 or RA /122 cannot be in'oked to a'ail probation$ It isspecificall" stated that in dru& traffickin&, application for probation shouldbe denied$ As aside issue, the court discussed the a'ailment of suspensionof sentence under RA /122$ I&&'( Whether suspension of sentence under RA/122 can still be in'oked &i'en

the fact that the accused is no! . "ears old$

R')ING:

#=$ %he suspension of sentence under ection 1 of Rep$ Act #o$ /122 could nolon&er be retroacti'el" applied for the petitioner s benefit$ e$ 1 of RA /122 pro'idesthat once a child under . "ears of a&e is found &uilt" of the offense char&ed, insteadof pronouncin& the +ud&ment of con'iction, the court shall place the child inconflict !ith the la! under suspended sentence$ ection 2 of Rep$ Act #o$/122, ho!e'er, pro'ides that once the child reaches . "ears of a&e,

the court shall determine !hether to dischar&e the child, order eecution ofsentence, or etend the suspended sentence for a certain specified periodor until the child reaches the maimum a&e of . "ears old $ Petitioner has alread" reached ."ears of a&e or o'er and thus, couldno lon&er beconsidered a child for purposes of appl"in& Rep$Act /122$



%hus, the application of ections 1 and2 appears moot and academic as far as his case isconcerned$

Wilfredo %orres 's 4on$ #eptaliGon@ales

FAC%>

In ./3, %orres !as con'icted of estafa$ In ./3/, he !as pardoned b" the president !O the

condition that he shall not 'iolate an" penal la!s a&ain$ In ./, %orres !as char&ed !ith

multiple crimes of estafa$ In ./6, Gon@ales petitioned for the cancellation of %orres8

pardon$ 4ence, the president cancelled the pardon$ %orres appealed the issue before the

C a'errin& that the )ec ep8t erred in con'ictin& him for 'iolatin& the conditions of his

pardon because the estafa char&es a&ainst him !ere not "et final and eecutor" as the"

!ere still on appeal$

I&&'(: Whether or not con'iction of a crime b" final +ud&ment of a court is necessar"

before %orres can be 'alidl" rearrested and recommitted for 'iolation of the terms of his

conditional pardon and accordin&l" to ser'e the balance of his ori&inal sentence$

!()*: %he C affirmed the follo!in&>

.$ %he &rant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional

pardon are purel" eecuti'e acts !hich are not sub+ect to +udicial scrutin"$

$ %he determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon, and theproper conseuences of such breach, ma" be either a purel" eecuti'e act, not sub+ect to

+udicial scrutin" under ection 62 (i of the Re'ised Administrati'e Code* or it ma" be a

+udicial act consistin& of trial for and con'iction of 'iolation of a conditional pardon under

Article .7/ of the Re'ised Penal Code$ Where the President opts to proceed under ection

62 (i of the Re'ised Administrati'e Code, no +udicial pronouncement of &uilt of a



subseuent crime is necessar", much less con'iction therefor b" final +ud&ment of a court,

in order that a con'ict ma" be recommended for the 'iolation of his conditional pardon$

1$ Because due process is not semper et ubiue +udicial process, and because the

conditionall" pardoned con'ict had alread" been accorded +udicial due process in his trialand con'iction for the offense for !hich he !as conditionall" pardoned, ection 62 (i of the

Re'ised Administrati'e Code is not afflicted !ith a constitutional 'ice$

In proceedin& a&ainst a con'ict !ho has been conditionall" pardoned and !ho is alle&ed to

ha'e breached the conditions of his pardon, the )ecuti'e epartment has t!o options> (i

to proceed a&ainst him under ection 62 (i of the Re'ised Administrati'e Code* or (ii to

proceed a&ainst him under Article .7/ of the RPC !hich imposes the penalt" of prision

correccional, minimum period, upon a con'ict !ho Hha'in& been &ranted conditional pardonb" the Chief )ecuti'e, shall 'iolate an" of the conditions of such pardon$ 4ere, the

President has chosen to proceed a&ainst the petitioner under ection 62 (i of the Re'ised

Administrati'e Code$ %hat choice is an eercise of the President8s eecuti'e prero&ati'e

and is not sub+ect to +udicial scrutin"$



People vs &e#dadie0o, et. al.

G.R. No. );==25 a#d ==25=

%a#ar 2, 1978

Facts:

In these three cases of mal'ersation throu&h falsification, the prosecutions theor" is that in ./6/

:icerio P$ enda"die&o, the pro'incial treasurer of Pan&asinan, in conspirac" !ith 5uan amson "

Gal'an, an emplo"ee of a lumber and hard!are store in a&upan Cit", and !ith Anastacio ?uirimit,the pro'incial auditor, as an accomplice, used si (6 for&ed pro'incial 'ouchers in order to embe@@le

from the road and brid&e fund the total sum of P73,2$1$

%he pro'incial 'oucher in these cases has se'eral parts$ In the upper part !ith the le&end DAR%IC:)

=R )R0IC)D the nature of the obli&ation incurred is indicated$ %hat part is supposed to be si&nedb" t!o officials of the pro'incial en&ineers office and b" the &o'ernors representati'e$

%he middle part of the 'oucher contains fi'e numbered printed para&raphs$

Para&raph . is a certificate to be si&ned b" the creditor$ It is stated therein that the creditor 'ouches

that the epenses D!ere actuall" and necessaril" incurredD$ In the instant cases para&raph . !as notsi&ned presumabl" because it is not rele'ant to the purchase of materials for public !orks pro+ects$

Para&raph is a certification that the epenses are correct and ha'e been la!full" incurred$ It is

si&ned b" the pro'incial en&ineer$ Para&raph 1 contains these !ords> DAppro'ed for pre-audit andpa"ment, appropriations and funds bein& a'ailable therefore$D %his is si&ned b" the pro'incial

treasurer$ Para&raph 2 is a certification !hich, as filed up in )hibit S, 0oucher #o$ .32 datedFebruar" , ./6/, certif"in& that the 'oucher has been pre-audited and si&ned b" the auditor$

Para&raph 7 is a certification si&ned b" the pro'incial treasurer that the account mentioned in the

pro'incial en&ineers certification D!as paid in the amount and on the date sho!n belo! and ischar&eable as sho!n in the summar" hereof$ D It ma" be noted that the pro'incial treasurer si&ns

t!o part of the 'oucher$

Isse:

Whether or not appellants are liable for the crimes of falsicification of public documents and sicrimes of mal'ersationL

!eld:



amson is con'icted of si crimes of falsification of a public document and si crimes of

mal'ersation$ In lieu of the penalties imposed b" the trial court, he is sentenced to the follo!in&penalties> For each of the si falsification of the 'ouchers ()h$ S, =, P, ?, R and , amson is

sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of t!o ( "ears of prison correccional minimum, as minimum,

to four (2 "ears of prision correccional medium, as maimum, and to pa" a fine of three thousand

pesos$ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P.6,33$7 co'ered b" 'oucher #o$ .32 ()h$ S,amson is sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of t!el'e (. "ears of prision ma"or maimum, asminimum, to se'enteen (.3 "ears of reclusion temporal medium, as maimum* to pa" a fine in the

amount of P.6,33$7, and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the same amount (Criminal

Case #=$ 112/, :-117$ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P.2,73.$. co'ered b" 'oucher #o$..//7 ()h$ =, amson is sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of t!el'e (. "ears of prision

ma"or maimum, as minimum, to se'enteen (.3 "ears of reclusion temporal medium, as maimum*

to pa" a fine in the sum of P.2,73.$., and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the sameamount (Criminal Case #o$ 117., :-1172$ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P6,/$6 co'ered

b" 'oucher #o$ ..3 ()h$ ?, amson is sentenced to an indertiminate penalt" of nine (/ "ears of

prision ma"or medium, as minimum, to thirteen (.1 "ears of reclusion temporal minimum, as

maimum* to pa" a fine of P6,/$6, and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the sameamount (Criminal Case #o$ 117, :-1171$ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P/,36/$62 co'ered

b" 'oucher #o$ ..3. ()h$ R, amson is sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of nine (/ "earsof prision ma"or medium, as minimum, to thirteen (.1 "ears of reclusion temporal minimum, as

maimum* to pa" a fine of P/,36/$62, and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the sameamount (Criminal Case #o$ 117, :-1171$ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P7,.3$, co'ered

b" 'oucher #o$ ..6/ ()h$ P, amson is sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of fi'e (7 "ears of

prision correccional maimum, as minimum, to ei&ht ( of prision ma"or minimum, as maimum* topa" a fine of P7,.3$, and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the same amount (Criminal

Case #o$ 117, :-1171$

For the mal'ersation of the sum of P2,7.$1 co'ered b" 'oucher no$ ..3 ()h$ , amson issentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of fi'e (7 "ears of prision correccional maimum, as

minimum, to ei&ht ( "ears of prision ma"or minimum, as maimum* to pa" a fine of P2,7.$1, andto indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the same amount (Criminal Case #o$ 117, :-1171$

In the ser'ice of the t!el'e penalties meted to amson, the threefold limit pro'ided for in article 3 of

the Re'ised Penal Code should be obser'ed (People 's$ )scares, . Phil$ 633, meanin& that themaimum penalt" that he should ser'e is three times the indeterminate sentence of t!el'e (.

"ears to se'enteen (.3 "ears, the se'erest penalt" imposed on him, or thirt"-si (16 "ears to fift"-one (7. "ears (see People 's$ PeNas, 6 Phil$ 711$ %he maimum duration of his sentences should

not eceed fort" (2 "ears (Penultimate par$ of art$ 3* People 's$ Alisub, 6/ Phil$ 16* People 's$

Concepcion, 7/ Phil$ 7., 6 Phil$ 71 and 6/ Phil$ 7$

%he estate of the late :icerio P$ enda"die&o is ordered to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in

the sum of P73,2$1$ amson and the said estate are solitaril" liable for the said indemnit" (Art$.., Re'ised Penal Code$ amson should pa" one-half of the costs$ = =R)R)$



P(+P)( & -))(N M-N-)-$-

FAC%>%he %ask Force Re&ional Anti-Crime )mer&enc" Response (RAC)R in Butuan Cit"recei'ed a report from an informer that a certain Allen <antalaba, !ho !as se'enteen(.3 "ears old at the time, !as sellin& s#abu at Purok 2, Baran&a" 1, A&ao istrict,Butuan Cit"$ Around 3 oclock in the e'enin& of =ctober ., 1, the team, armed !iththe marked mone", proceeded to Purok 2, Baran&a" 1, A&ao istrict, Butuan Cit" forthe bu"-bust operation$ %he t!o poseur-bu"ers approached Allen !ho !as sittin& at acorner and said to be in the act of sellin& shabu$ P=. Pa+o sa! the poseur-bu"ers andappellant talkin& to each other$ After!ards, the appellant handed a sachet of shabu to

one of the poseur-bu"ers and the latter &a'e the marked mone" to the appellant$ %heposeur-bu"ers !ent back to the police officers and told them that the transaction hasbeen completed$ Police officers Pa+o and imon rushed to the place and handcuffedthe appellant as he !as lea'in& the place$ t!o separate Informations !ere filed beforethe R%C of Butuan Cit" a&ainst appellant for 'iolation of ections 7 and .. of RA /.67$%he Court finds accused Allen <antalaba " ;dto+an G;I:% be"ond reasonable doubtfor ille&all" possessin& shabu, a dan&erous dru&$ %he CA affirmed in toto the decision ofthe R%C

I;)> W=# appellant, a .3 "ear old, ma" a'ail the suspension of sentence pursuant to sec$

1 and 2 of RA /122L

R;:I#G>%he appellant !as .3 "ears old !hen the bu"-bust operation took place or !hen thesaid offense !as committed, but !as no lon&er a minor at the time of the promul&ationof the R%C8s ecision$ It must be noted that RA /122 took effect on <a" , 6, !hilethe R%C promul&ated its decision on this case on eptember .2, 7, !hen saidappellant !as no lon&er a minor$ In People '$ arcia (G$R$ #o$ .6/62., eptember .,/, 7// CRA , it !as held that !hile ection 1 of RA /122 pro'ides thatsuspension of sentence can still be applied e'en if the child in conflict !ith the la! isalread" ei&hteen (. "ears of a&e or more at the time of the pronouncement of hisOher

&uilt, ection 2 of the same la! limits the said suspension of sentence until the childreaches the maimum a&e of .$ 4ence, the appellant, !ho is no! be"ond the a&e of. "ears can no lon&er a'ail of the pro'isions of ections 1 and 2 of RA /122 as tohis suspension of sentence, because this has alread" become moot andacademic$ %eo"le of t#e %#ili""ines vs. Allen 8dtojan Mantalaba, *.+. o. ->?22/,July 20, 20--.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm






RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR. vs SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 175482, July 6, 2011

FACTS: An information was filed before the Ombudsman against herein petitioners

Ambil and Apelado, then governor of Eastern Samar and Provincial Jail Warden of

Eastern Samar ,respectively, for allegedly ordering and causing the release from the

Provincial Jail of detention prisoner Mayor Francisco Adalim in violation of Section 3(e)

of R.A. No. 3019. At the pre-trial, petitioner admitted the allegations in the Information

reasoning however that Adalim’s transfer was justified considering the imminent threats

upon his person and the dangers posed by his detention at the provincial jail. After trial,the Sandiganbayan found them guilty of the offense charged.

ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioners?

HELD: The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over petitioner Ambil, Jr. is beyond

question. The same is true as regards petitioner Apelado, Sr. As to him, a Certification

from the Provincial Government Department Head of the HRMO shows that his position

as Provincial Warden is classified as Salary Grade 22. Nonetheless, it is only when

none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade ‘27’ or

higher shall exclusive jurisdiction be vested in the lower courts. Here, petitioner

Apelado, Sr. was charged as a co-principal with Governor Ambil, Jr., over whose

position the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Accordingly, he was correctly tried jointly

with said public officer in the proper court which had exclusive original jurisdiction over

them – the Sandiganbayan.



P(+P)( & -$'N*I+ M-NGI)-

F-C&:eath is the most se'ere penalt" for crime$ It is imposed in incestuous rape, re&ardless

of an" miti&atin& or a&&ra'atin& circumstance$ In the case at bar, siteen (.6 "ear old

<ARI:# $ <A#GI:A accused her father, AB;#I= <A#GI:A " PAR)T=, of t!o (

counts of RAP), alle&edl" committed $ At about .> p$m$ of 5une 3, .//7, accused took

<adril"n to 0illa %onan& to help him clean one of the houses he !as o'erseein&$ While in the

kitchen of the house, accused be&an to take off <adril"ns shorts$ he be&&ed her father to

stop$ Instead, he poked a knife at her neck and ra'ished her$ urin& the hour-lon& seual

assault, <adril"n felt ecruciatin& pain$ 4elpless, she could onl" sit on the floor and cr" as theaccused threatened to kill her should she re'eal her defloration$J2K Fear of reprisal sealed her

lips$ In the mornin& of 5une .6, .//7, on her !a" to school, accused told <adril"n that he !ould

fetch her after class$ War" of !hat accused !ould a&ain do to her, <adril"n spent the ni&ht !ith

a friend$ 4er elder sister, :ourdes, and her aunt searched for her$ When the" found her, she

confided to them that accused has 'iolated her$ Furious, :ourdes informed their mother of the

rape$J6K

#enita <an&ila recounted that in 5une .//7, a certain Badon& deli'ered to her a letter from<adril"n informin& her that accused had defiled her$ Before #enita could finish readin& theletter, the accused came and snatched it from her$ %he" had a heated ar&ument, !ith the

accused den"in& <adril"ns accusations$ :ater that e'enin&, <adril"n !as found hidin& in afriends house$ <adril"n confirmed to #enita the 'eracit" of !hat she had !ritten in her letter$#enita confronted the accused !ho admitted his trans&ression$ %he accused knelt before#enita in supplication and be&&ed for her for&i'eness$ #enita !as unmo'ed$J3K heaccompanied <adril"n to the police station$ <adril"n eecuted an affida'itJK on 5une 2, .//7narratin& the rape incidents$ he also under!ent a medical eamination in Camp Crame$ %hemedical report sho!ed that <adril"n !as in a non-'ir&inal state$

I;)> W=# death penalt" shall be issued despite a miti&atin& or a&&ra'atin& circumstanceL

4):>

ection 1, Rule ..6 of the ./7 Rules on Criminal Procedure pro'ides>Hection 1$ %leas of guilty to ca"ital offense@ rece"tion of evidence When the accused pleads

&uilt" to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searchin& inuir" into the 'oluntariness and

full comprehension of the conseuences of his plea and reuire the prosecution to pro'e his

&uilt and the precise de&ree of culpabilit"$ %he accused ma" also present e'idence in his behalf

%o breathe life into this rule, !e made it mandator" for trial courts to do the follo!in&>

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/130203_04.html#_ftn4










(. conduct a searchin& inuir" into the 'oluntariness and full comprehension of the

conseuences of the accused8s plea*

( reuire the prosecution to pro'e the &uilt of the accused and the precise de&ree of his

culpabilit"* and

(1 inuire !hether or not the accused !ishes to present e'idence on his behalf and allo! him

to do so if he so desires$%he records sho! that the trial court failed to compl" to the letter !ith these &uidelines$ It did not

conduct a searchin& inuir" on !hether accused understood the le&al conseuences of his

admission of &uilt$ It is not sho!n that accused !as informed of the effect of the concurrence of

the special ualif"in& circumstance of minorit" of the 'ictim and his parental relationship to her$

After the accused testified on ho! he raped his dau&hter, he !as not apprised that his crime is

punishable b" death$ %he trial court also failed to eplain to him that as the penalt" of death is

indi'isible, it shall be imposed despite an" miti&atin& or a&&ra'atin& circumstance attendin& its

commission$ Apparentl", the trial court entertained the erroneous notion that the alle&ed

intoication of accused !ould lessen his liabilit"$

Documents

Criminal Law Digest 2