People vs.

Aruta Facts: Responding to an informants tip that a person named, Aling Rosa, would be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana, police authorities apprehended the former when she alighted from a ictory !iner Bus "and after being identified by the informant#$ %he was thereafter searched by police authorities and as e&pected, marijuana was found from her bag$ Conse'uently, she was convicted of violating the (angerous (rug Act of )*+, -ssue: .hether or not the warrantless arrest and sei/ure is valid 0 Ruling: 12$ .hen accused Aling Rosa alighted from the bus she was not committing any crime$ 1either was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime$ Accused3appellant was not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the 1ARC24 agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime$ 4oreover, 5ad the 1ARC24 agents only applied for a search warrant, they could have secured one without too much difficulty, contrary to the assertions of the %olicitor 6eneral$ 7he person intended to be searched has been particulari/ed and the thing to be sei/ed specified$ 7he time was also sufficiently ascertained to be in the afternoon of (ecember )8, )*99$ Aling Rosa turned out to be accused3appellant and the thing to be sei/ed was marijuana$ 7he vehicle was identified to be a ictory !iner bus$ -n fact, the 1ARC24 agents purposely positioned themselves near the spot where ictory !iner buses normally unload their passengers$ Assuming that the 1ARC24 agents failed to particulari/e the vehicle, this would not in any way hinder them from securing a search warrant$ 7he above particulars would have already sufficed$ -n any case, this Court has held that the police should particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be sei/ed, wherever and whenever it is feasible$ .5:R:F2R:, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional 7rial Court, Branch +;, 2longapo City, is hereby R: :R%:( and %:7 A%-(:$ For lac< of evidence to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused3appellant R2%A AR=7A > 4:16=-1 is hereby AC?=-77:( and ordered R:!:A%:( from confinement unless she is being held for some other legal grounds$ 1o costs$ %2 2R(:R:($ People vs. Montilla Facts: -t appears from the evidence of the prosecution that appellant was apprehended at around 8:@@ A$4$ of Aune ,@, )**8 near a waiting shed located at Barangay %alitran, (asmarias, Cavite by %B2) Concordio 7alingting and %B2) Armando Clarin, both members of the Cavite Bhilippine 1ational Bolice Command based in (asmarias$ Appellant, according to the two officers, was caught transporting ,9 marijuana bric<s contained in a traveling bag and a carton bo&, which marijuana bric<s had a total weight of ,9 <ilos$ 7hese two officers later asserted in court that they were aided by an informer in the arrest of appellant$ 7hat informer, according to 7alingting and Clarin, had informed them the day before, or on Aune )*, )**8 at about ,:@@ B$4$, that a drug courier, whom said informer could recogni/e, would be arriving somewhere in Barangay %alitran, (asmarias from Baguio City with an undetermined amount of marijuana$ -t was the same informer who pinpointed to the arresting officers the appellant when the latter alighted from a passenger jeepney on the aforestated day, hour, and place$ Appellant contends that the marijuana bric<s were confiscated in the course of an unlawful warrantless search and sei/ure$ 5e calls the attention of the Court to the fact that as early as ,:@@ B$4$ of the preceding day, Aune )*, )**8, the police authorities had already been apprised by their so3called informer of appellantCs impending arrival from Baguio City, hence those law enforcers had the opportunity to procure the re'uisite warrant$ 7heir misfeasance should therefore invalidate the search for and sei/ure of the marijuana, as well as the arrest of appellant on the following dawn$ -ssue: .hether or not from the information of the informant and having reasonable time the police authorities could easily procure a warrant of arrest and a search warrant0 7hus, invo<ing the ruling in Beople vs$ Aruta supra? .hether or not the warrantless arrest and sei/ure is valid since the act of carrying a bag does not constitute a crime0 Ruling: )$# 12$ -n appellantCs case, it should be noted that the information relayed by the civilian informant to the law enforcers was that there would be delivery of marijuana at Barangay %alitran by a courier coming from Baguio City in the Dearly morningD of Aune ,@, )**8$ :ven assuming that the policemen were not pressed for time, this would be beside the point for, under these circumstances, the information relayed was too s<etchy and not detailed enough for the obtention of the corresponding arrest or search warrant$ .hile there is an indication that the informant <new the courier, the records do not reveal that he <new him by name$

.hile it is not re'uired that the authorities should <now the e&act name of the subject of the warrant applied for, there is the additional problem that the informant did not <now to whom the drugs would be delivered and at which particular part of the barangay there would be such delivery$ 1either did this asset <now the precise time of the suspectCs arrival, or his means of transportation, the container or contrivance wherein the drugs were concealed and whether the same were arriving together with, or were being brought by someone separately from, the courier$ 2n such bare information, the police authorities could not have properly applied for a warrant, assuming that they could readily have access to a judge or a court that was still open by the time they could ma<e preparations for applying therefor, and on which there is no evidence presented by the defense$ ,$# >:% it is valid nder the in flagrante delicto doctrine$ Appellant insists that the mere fact of seeing a person carrying a traveling bag and a carton bo& should not elicit the slightest suspicion of the commission of any crime since that is normal$ But, precisely, it is in the ordinary nature of things that drugs being illegally transported are necessarily hidden in containers and concealed from view$ 7hus, the officers could reasonably assume, and not merely on a hollow suspicion since the informant was by their side and had so informed them, that the drugs were in appellantCs luggage$ -t would obviously have been irresponsible, if not downright absurd under the circumstances, to re'uire the constable to adopt a Dwait and seeD attitude at the ris< of eventually losing the 'uarry$ 5ere, there were sufficient facts antecedent to the search and sei/ure that, at the point prior to the search, were already constitutive of probable cause, and which by themselves could properly create in the minds of the officers a well3grounded and reasonable belief that appellant was in the act of violating the law$ 7he search yielded affirmance both of that probable cause and the actuality that appellant was then actually committing a crime by illegally transporting prohibited drugs$ .ith these attendant facts, it is ineluctable that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, hence his arrest and the search of his belongings without the re'uisite warrant were both justified$ .5:R:F2R:, the judgment of the Regional 7rial Court, Branch *@, of (asmarias, Cavite in Criminal Case 1o$ ;8@)3*8 is hereby 42(-F-:( in the sense that accused3appellant Ruben 4ontilla y 6atdula shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua$ -n all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is hereby AFF-R4:(, with costs against accused3appellant$ Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan Facts: Accused Barriga was charged with the crime of 4alverasation which was committed by her as a public municipal accountant$ .hen three ";# amended informations were filed against her, she filed a motion to 'uash information and averred that the Amended -nformations failed to allege and show the intimate relation between the crimes charged and her official duties as municipal accountant, which are conditions sine qua non for the graft court to ac'uire jurisdiction over the said offense$ %he averred that the prosecution and the Commission on Audit admitted, and no less than this Court held in Tan v. Sandiganbayan,EFG that a municipal accountant is not an accountable officer$ %he alleged that the felonies of malversation and illegal use of public funds, for which she is charged, are not included in Chapter )), %ection ,, 7itle --, Boo< --, of the Revised Benal CodeH hence, the %andiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the said crimes$ 4oreover, her position as municipal accountant is classified as %alary 6rade "%6# ,8$ 7he petitioner also posited that although the %andiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office, the mere allegation in the Amended -nformations that she committed the offenses charged in relation to her office is not sufficient as the phrase is merely a conclusion of lawH controlling are the specific factual allegations in the -nformations that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of her official duties and the commission of the offenses charged$ -ssue: .hether or not %andiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense committed by Barriga0 .hether or not the informations sufficiently establish that the crime was committed by her in relation of her public office0 Ruling: )$# 7he %andiganbayan has jurisdiction$ ,$# Rep$ Act 1o$ 9,8*,E);G which amended %ection 8 of Bresidential (ecree 1o$ )I@I, provides, inter alia, that the %andiganbayan has original jurisdiction over crimes and felonies committed by public officers and employees, at least one of whom belongs to any of the five categories thereunder enumerated at the time of the commission of such crimes$ E)8G 7here are two classes of public office3related crimes under subparagraph "b# of %ection 8 of Rep$ Act 1o$ 9,8*: first, those crimes or felonies in which the public office is a constituent element as

defined by statute and the relation between the crime and the offense is such that, in a legal sense, the offense committed cannot e&ist without the officeH E)FG second, such offenses or felonies which are intimately connected with the public office and are perpetrated by the public officer or employee while in the performance of his official functions, through improper or irregular conduct$ E)IG 7he %andiganbayan has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes and felonies under the first classification$ Considering that the public office of the accused is by statute a constituent element of the crime charged, there is no need for the Brosecutor to state in the -nformation specific factual allegations of the intimacy between the office and the crime charged, or that the accused committed the crime in the performance of his duties$ 5owever, the %andiganbayan li<ewise has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes or felonies committed by the public officers and employees enumerated in %ection "a# ")# to "F# under the second classification if the -nformation contains specific factual allegations showing the intimate connection between the offense charged and the public office of the accused, and the discharge of his official duties or functions 3 whether improper or irregular$ E)+G 7he re'uirement is not complied with if the -nformation merely alleges that the accused committed the crime charged in relation to his office because such allegation is merely a conclusion of law$ E)9G 7wo of the felonies that belong to the first classification are malversation defined and penali/ed by Article ,)+ of the Revised Benal Code, and the illegal use of public funds or property defined and penali/ed by Article ,,@ of the same Code$ 7he public office of the accused is a constituent element in both felonies$ For the accused to be guilty of malversation, the prosecution must prove the following essential elements: "a# "b# "c# 7he offender is a public officerH 5e has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his officeH 7he funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountableH and

"d# 5e has appropriated, ta<en or misappropriated, or has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted the ta<ing by another person of, such funds or property$ E)*G For the accused to be guilty of illegal use of public funds or property, the prosecution is burdened to prove the following elements: ")# 7he offenders are accountable officers in both crimes$

",# 7he offender in illegal use of public funds or property does not derive any personal gain or profitH in malversation, the offender in certain cases profits from the proceeds of the crime$ ";# -n illegal use, the public fund or property is applied to another public use; in malversation, the public fund or property is applied to the personal use and benefit of the offender or of another person$ E,@G .e agree with the ruling of the %andiganbayan that the public office of the accused 4unicipal 4ayor irginio :$ illamor is a constituent element of malversation and illegal use of public funds or property$ Accused mayors position is classified as %6 ,+$ %ince the Amended -nformations alleged that the petitioner conspired with her co3accused, the municipal mayor, in committing the said felonies, the fact that her position as municipal accountant is classified as %6 ,8 and as such is not an accountable officer is of no momentH the %andiganbayan still has e&clusive original jurisdiction over the cases lodged against her$ -t must be stressed that a public officer who is not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of her official position, or even a private individual, may be liable for malversation or illegal use of public funds or property if such public officer or private individual conspires with an accountable public officer to commit malversation or illegal use of public funds or property$ -n United States v. Ponte,E,)G the Court, citing Viada, had the occasion to state: Shall the person who participates or intervenes as co perpetrator, acco!plice or abettor in the cri!e of !alversation of public funds, co!!itted by a public officer, have the penalties of this article also i!posed upon hi!? -n opposition to the opinion maintained by some jurists and commentators "among others the learned Bacheco# we can only answer the 'uestion affirmatively, for the same reasons " !utatis !utandis# we have already advanced in ?uestion - of the commentary on article ;)8$ French jurisprudence has also settled the 'uestion in the same way on the ground that the person guilty of the crime necessarily aids the other culprit in the acts which constitute the cri!e $J " ol$ ,, 8th edition, p$ IF;# 7he reasoning by which 6roi/ard and iada support their views as to the correct interpretation of the provisions of the Benal Code touching malversation of public funds by a public official, is e'ually applicable in our opinion, to the provisions of Act 1o$ )+8@ defining and penali/ing that crime, and we have heretofore, in the case of the =nited %tates vs$ (owdell ")) Bhil$ Rep$, 8#, imposed the penalty prescribed by this section of the code upon a public official who too< part with another in the malversation of public funds, although it was not alleged, and in fact clearly appeared, that those funds were not in his hands by virtue of his office, though it did appear that they were

in the hands of his co3principal by virtue of the public office held by him$ E,,G 7he Court has also ruled that one who conspires with the provincial treasurer in committing si& counts of malversation is also a co3principal in committing those offenses, and that a private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation$ E,;G .e reiterate that the classification of the petitioners position as %6 ,8 is of no moment$ 7he determinative fact is that the position of her co3accused, the municipal mayor, is classified as %6 ,+, and under the last paragraph of %ection , of Rep$ Act 1o$ +*+F, if the position of one of the principal accused is classified as %6 ,+, the %andiganbayan has original and e&clusive jurisdiction over the offense$ .e agree with the petitioners contention that under %ection 8+8 of the !ocal 6overnment Code, she is not obliged to receive public money or property, nor is she obligated to account for the sameH hence, she is not an accountable officer within the conte&t of Article ,)+ of the Revised Benal Code$ -ndeed, under the said article, an accountable public officer is one who has actual control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office$ :ven then, it cannot thereby be necessarily concluded that a municipal accountant can never be convicted for malversation under the Revised Benal Code$ 7he name or relative importance of the office or employment is not the controlling factor$ E,8G 7he nature of the duties of the public officer or employee, the fact that as part of his duties he received public money for which he is bound to account and failed to account for it, is the factor which determines whether or not malversation is committed by the accused public officer or employee$ 5ence, a mere cler< in the provincial or municipal government may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same$ -1 !-657 2F A!! 75: F2R:62-16, the petition is (:1-:( for lac< of merit$ Costs against the petitioner$ %2 2R(:R:($ Puno, "#hair!an$, %ustria &artine', Tinga, and #hico (a'ario, ))., concur.