Reodica Zaldivia Padilla Brocka

7/27/2019 Reodica Zaldivia Padilla Brocka

1/5

December 7, 1935

G.R. No. L-42557

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

LORENZO REODICA and SINFOROSO CORDERO, defendants. LORENZO REODICA, appellant.

Claudio R. Sandoval for appellant.

Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.

, J.:

The appellant was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Palawan, for the falsification of a public document, to

an indeterminate penalty of from two years ofprision correccional, as the minimum, to eight years and one day

ofprision mayor, as the maximum.

About the month of July, 1931, the appellant was municipal treasurer of Bacuit, Province of Palawan. The

information alleges that he falsified the municipal payroll corresponding to that month by making it appear therein

that one, Sinforoso Cordero, rendered services as municipal secretary from July 23 to July 31, which was not true,for said Sinforoso Cordero was absent from the municipality of Bacuit from July 23, 1931, and did not return until

1933.

The evidence discloses that this municipal payroll was submitted to the appellant by the municipal president, already

prepared, together with a latter (Exhibit 3) authorizing him to pay Sinforoso Corderos salary for the second said

Sinforoso Cordero was granted a leave of eight days from July 23 to July 31. When this payroll was received by the

appellant on July 23, it was already signed and payment thereof approved by the president, with the latters

certification that the services therein mentioned were rendered.

This being the case, the appellant is not guilty of the falsification of this pay roll, as alleged in the information,

because the president and not he is the one who certifies that the services of the officers mentioned therein were in

fact rendered.

However, in view of the leave granted to Sinforoso Cordero from July 23 to July 31, for the purpose of the payment

of his salary, this amounted to his having rendered services during this period.

While the information likewise states that the appellant certified in the payroll that paid Sinforoso Corderos salary

on July 31, 1931, it does not allege, however, that this was not true, and although it appears that the appellant made

this payment on July 23, he was not charged Cordero having been in fact paid, it was immaterial whether this was

done on July 23 of July 31.

Such alterations, even granting that the appellant was responsible therefor, do not effect either the veracity of the

document of the effects thereof, and do not constitute the crime of falsification. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of

Spain of February 25, 1885, and June 21, 1886.)

For the foregoing considerations, the appealed judgment is reversed, and the appellant acquitted, with costs de

oficio. So ordered.

Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, and Recto JJ., conc


2/5

Luz M. Zaldivia v. Hon. Andres B. Reyes, Jr.

Facts:

Petitioner Zaldivia is charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor's

permit in the municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal.

She moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed but it

was denied. She appealed to the RTC and denial was sustained by the respondent judge.

Petitioner filed for a petition for review on certiorari arguing that the case filed against

her is govern by the provisions on the Rules of Summary Procedure. She contends that criminal

cases like violations of municipal or city ordinances does not require preliminary investigation

and shall be filed directly to the court and not in the Prosecutors office. She also invoked Act

No. 3226 An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts

and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run. Concluding

that the case should have been dismissed since the case against her was being filed in court

way beyond the 2 month statutory period.

The prosecution contends that when the case was filed on the Prosecutors office it

suspends the prescriptive period.

Issue:

Whether or not the prescription of period ceased to run when the case was filed on the

prosecutors office?

Decision:

Petition granted. Case dismissed on the ground of prescription.

Ruling:

As a general rule, the filing of the case in the prosecutors office is sufficient to interrupt

the running of the prescriptive period except when the case is covered by the Rules on

Summary Procedure. If it is any crime, you file it in the fiscals office; the running of the

prescriptive period is interrupted. But in the case at bar having only a penalty of arresto menor

it therefore falls under the provisions of the Rules on Summary Procedure. If it is covered by the

Summary Rules, the period continues. It must be the filing of the case in court which will

interrupt the period from running.


3/5

Robin Padilla vs. Court of Appeals [Gr No. 121917 March 12, 1997]Summary of the Case:One night, Enrique Manarang noticed the accused appellants car running fast. After a while, ascreech of tires was heard and thus, made the officer run out and investigate. Not so long, the carcontinued to run, so a hot-pursuit took place. Manarang then radioed the incident to the Police.When the car was put to a stop, the driver rolled down the windows with his hands raised. The

officers then noticed that it was the famous actor, Robin Padilla. While apprehended, because of thehit-and-run incident, the police saw the revolver tucked in the left waist of Robin. So, the policeinsisted that the gun be shown in the office if it was legal. The crowd had formed and Robin wasshaking their hands and pointing to the police while saying iyan kinuha ang baril ko, as if it was inthe movies. The gesture then revealed a magazine clip of a rifle which made the police suspect thatthere is a rifle inside the vehicle. Then the rifle was seen. The other firearms were voluntarilysurrendered by Robin.Now, Robins defense was that his arrest was illegal and consequently, the firearms andammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule.Robin Padilla was arrested, tried, and convicted for illegal possession of firearms. He was inpossession of a .357 caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson with 6 live ammunitions, One M-16 babyArmalite Rifle with ammunitions, One .380 Pietro Barreta with 8 live ammunitions, and six live double

action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver.

Relation to Article3: Section 2.

Robin claimed that there was no search warrant or warrant of arrest thus, making his arrest illegal

and the evidences inadmissible. The Bill of rights purpose is to put limit to the governments power.

In the People vs. Marti case, the government was not involved. In this case, the government is

involved but it was not illegal.

Why? According to whats written in the case, a peace officer or a private person may arrest a

person: (a) when the person has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit and

offense, (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of

facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.The instances above clearly explain the legality of the arrest. Robin Padilla, my idol had first

sideswiped a balut vendor and the incident was heard by Manarang and he saw Robin fled away

from the scene, thus, committing a hit-and-run. And Enrique Manarang was a peace officer.

When he was halted, the firearms were revealed to the police officers without their act of searching.

The firearms were in plain view. And the firearms were found by the police in their pursuit of their

official duties. And the police have the right as to where they are because they were in pursuit of

Robin when they found the firearms.
http://mzlabra.blogspot.com/2009/09/robin-padilla-vs-court-of-appeals-gr-no.htmlhttp://mzlabra.blogspot.com/2009/09/robin-padilla-vs-court-of-appeals-gr-no.html


4/5

BROCKA v ENRILE 1990

NATURE: Petition for Habeas Corpus

FACTS:

63 jeepney strike called by the Alliance of Concerned Transport Organization (ACTO) demonstration held in

sympathy of this strike, forcibly and violently dispersed petitioners arrested by Northern Police District OfficersJan 28 85

64 petitioners charged with Illegal Assembly RPC146 par.3 in 3 crim cases filed before RTC QC

65 all petitioners released on bail P3,000 each EXCEPT for Lino Brocka, Ben Cervantes, Cosme Garcia and

Rodolfo Santos (Brocka, et al.), who were charged as leaders of the offense of Illegal Assembly for whom no bail was

recommended

66 urgent petition for bail filed before the RTC daily hearings held between Feb.1-7 85 On Feb. 7 or 9 85, RTC

QC Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago ordered Brocka, et als provisional release; recommended bail at P6,0000 each

Brocka, et al filed respective bail bonds BUT

67 Despite service of release order, Brocka, et al remained in detention respondents-police officers invoked

Preventive Detention Action (PDA) allegedly issued against Brocka, et al on Jan. 28 85

o Neither original nor certified true copy of this PDA was shown to Brocka, et al.

68 Feb 11 85 Brocka, et al charged with Inciting to Sedition in 3 crim cases; hasty and spurious filing of thissecond offense as follows:

o 10:30 AM counsel informed by phone that Brocka, et al will be brought before the QC Fiscal at 2:30PM for

undisclosed reasons another phone call subsequently received informing counsel that appearance of Brocka, et al

was to be at 2:00PM

o 2:00PM Brocka, et al arrived at office of Asst. City Fiscal complainants affidavits had not yet been received

o 3:00PM representative of the military arrived with alleged statements of complainants against Brocka, et al for

alleged inciting to sedition

o 3:15PM counsel inquired from Records Custodian when the charges against Brocka, et al had been officially

received informed that said charges were never coursed through the Records Office

o ALSO, utterances allegedly constitutingInciting to Sedition under RPC142 are, almost verbatim, the same

utterances which are the subject of the crim cases for Illegal Assembly for which Brocka, et al are entitled to be

relased on bail as a matter of Constitutional right appears that respondents have conspired to deprive Brocka, et alof the right to bail

o AND, panel of assistant fiscals demanded that Brocka, et al sign a waiver of their rights under RPC125 as a

condition for the grant of the counsels request that they be given 7 days within which counsel mayconferwith their

clients no such requirement required under the rules

69 Brocka, et al released provisionally on Feb.14 85 on orders of then Pres.Marcos release narrated in Courts

resolution in petition for habeas corpus filed by Sedfrey Ordonez in behalf of Brocka, et al:

o In Return of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, respondents said all accused had already been released four on Feb15

85 and one on Feb.8 85

o Petitioners, nevertheless, still argue that the petition has not become moot and academic because the accused

continue to be in the custody of the law under an invalid charge of inciting to sedition.

70 Hence, this petition.

o Brocka, et al contend:1. bad faith and/or harassment sufficient bases for enjoining their criminal prosecution

2. second offense of Inciting to Sedition manifestly illegal premised on one and the same act of participating in

the ACTO jeepney strike

matter of defense in sedition charge so, only issue here is

ISSUE: WON criminal prosecution of a case may be enjoined YES

RATIO:

GEN. RULE: Criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final

EXCEPTIONS:


5/5

1. To afford adequate protection to the consti rights of the accused

2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions

3. When there is no prejudicial question which is subjudice

4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority

5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation

6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent

7. When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense

8. h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution

9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance

10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground had been

denied

11. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the SC to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners

HERE, criminal proceedings had become a case of persecution, have been undertaken by state officials in bad

faith:

1. Respondents invoked a spurious PDA in refusing Brocka, et als release from detention BUT

This PDA was issued on Jan.28 85 and invoked only on Feb.9 85 upon receipt of TCs order of release violates

guideline that PDA shall be invoked within 24 hrs in MM or 48 hours outside MM (Ilagan v Enrile)

Despite subpoenas for PDAs production, prosecution merely presented a purported xeerox copy of it violates Court

pronouncement that individuals against whom PDAs have been issued should be furnished with the original, and the

duplicate original, and a certified true copy issued by the official having official custody of the PDA, at the time of the

apprehension (Ilagan v Enrile)

2. SolGens manifestation: Brocka, et al should have filed a motion to quash the information [instead of a petition for

HC]

Court Held: such a course of action would have been a futile move, considering the circumstances then prevailing:

1. spurious and inoperational PDA

2. sham and hasty PI

clear signals that the prosecutors intended to keep Brocka, et al in detention until the second offense could be

facilitated and justified without need of issuing a warrant of arrest anew

IF-THEN RULE:

If there is manifest bad faith that accompanies the filing of criminal charges (as in this case where petitioners were

barred from enjoying provisional release until such time that charges were filed) and where a sham preliminary

investigation was hastily conducted THEN charges that are filed as a result should lawfully be enjoined.

xx Petition granted. TC permanently enjoined from proceeding in any manner with the cases subject of the petition.

Documents

Reodica Zaldivia Padilla Brocka