PCGG vs.

Desierto
G.R. No. 132120 February 10, 2003
Panganiban, J:

FACTS: This case is a Petition for Certiotari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to
reverse the May 31, 1997 Resolution and the
October 24, 1997 Order of then Ombudsman
Aniano A. Desierto who exonerated Herminio T.
Disini of the crimes of corruption of public
officials in relation to bribery and of violation of
the Anti-Graft Law. The assailed Resolution
dismissed the charges against Disini for lack of
prima facie evidence, while the assailed Order
denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
The PCGG charged Disini with bribing the late
President Ferdinand E. Marcos as a means to
induce him to assist and favor individuals and
corporate entities. The charge pertained to the
negotiation, award, signing, amendment and
implementation of the main and related
contracts for the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant
(PNPP) project of the National Power
Corporation (NPC), as a result the afore-
mentioned public official accumulated and
benefited from unlawful acquisition of income
or profits.

ISSUE: Whether or not the PCGG has submitted
sufficient evidence to be the cause of belief that
an offense has been committed by Disini, but in
grave abuse of discretion of the then
Ombudsman Desierto dismissed the charges?

RULING: Yes. In sum, the PCGG presented
sufficient evidence to engender a well-founded
belief that at least one crime had been
committed, and that Disini was probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial. Also, the
PCGG has sufficiently established probable
cause to show that Disini had capitalized,
exploited and taken advantage of his close
personal relations with the former President.
Should the appropriate information(s) be filed,
nothing should prevent the ombudsman from
presenting other pieces of evidence to buttress
the prosecutions case and to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the offense(s) charged. In the
present case, Herminio T. Disini is being charged
as the principal while the others are accessories
or an accomplice. Petition granted, the
resolution and order are set aside and the
ombudsman is directed to file in the proper
court the appropriate criminal charge(s) against
him.

People vs. Oco
G.R. No. 137370-71 September 29, 2003
Puno, J:

FACTS: Hermigildo Damuag was driving his
motorcycle while Alden Abiabi was seated
behind. A white tamaraw FX blocked their path
and thus they slowed down. Another
motorcycle appeared and started shooting.
Abiabi was killed as a result of the gunshots
while Damuag was wounded. There was also
another motorcycle that passed Damuag, with
the driver firing shots at Damuag. Damuag was
thrown off his bike and fell to the gutter. He
saw that the driver of this motorcycle is Oco. He
was able to identify him because he was only
wearing a towel around his head, unlike the
other riders who were wearing helmets.
Damuag ran towards safety while being chased
by Oco, who was on his bike. He was brought to
the hospital and he had his wounds treated. He
survived because of prompt medical assistance.
Oco was charged of the crime of murder(Abiabi)
and frustrated murder(Damuag). The
aggravating circumstance of treachery, superior
strength, motor vehicle, nighttime, by a band,
aid of armed men, evident premeditation and
unlicensed firearm. Oco raised the defense alibi
saying that he was not there at the crime scene.

ISSUE: Oco is surely guilty of murder and
frustrated murder. However, what are the
aggravating circumstances present in the case?
Which ones are absent?

RULING: Aggravating circumstances present:
1. Treachery-The gunshots fired against
Abiabi and Damuag were so sudden
that they were not given an opportunity
to defend.
2. Abuse of superior strength-Not only did
they outnumber the victims, they were
also armed.
3. Use of motor vehicle-The motorcycles
was used in going to the place of the
crime, in carrying away the effects
thereof, and in facilitating the escape of
the accused.
Aggravating circumstances absent:
1. Nighttime-In this case, a lamp post
illuminated the scene of the crime.
2. By a band-In this case, the evidence on
record shows that only two of accused
carried firearms.
3. Aid of armed men-In this case, the so-
called armed men were never
identified nor charged. There was also
no proof as to the participation of these
other men.
4. Evident premeditation-There was no
direct evidence showing a plan or
preparation to kill, or proof that the
accused meditated and reflected upon
his decision to kill the victim.
5. Unlicensed firearms-no evidence was
adduced to prove that the firearms
used in the shooting incident were
unlicensed.