Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Held:
a. Yes. Art. 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that conspiracy exists when
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. To be a conspirator, one need not participate
in every detail of execution; he need not even take part in every act or need
not know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the
conspiracy.
Art. 123 of the RPC provides for the requisites of Qualified Piracy
Qualified Piracy exists if any of the following circumstances is present:
1. Whenever the offenders have seized the vessel by boarding or firing
upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means
of saving themselves;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical
injuries, or rape.
b. Yes. Art. 122 of the RPC provides that any person who, on the high seas or
in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of
its complement or passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of
said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or
passenger shall be convicted of the crime of piracy.
People vs. Catantan ( 278 SCRA 761, September 5, 1997)
Facts:
On June 27, 1993, the Pilapil brothers were fishing in the sea 3km away from
the shores of Tabongan Cebu. Their pumpboat was boarded by the defendants and
was seized. As they passed the shoreline of Nipa, they saw another boat and the
defendants seized the same. The defendant ordered the operator Juanito to take
them to Mungaz. As Ursal, co-accused with defendants was transferring to the
new pumpboat, he was caught in an accident that threw Eugene into the sea. Juan
Pilapil untied his brothers legs and found themselves safely ashore.
An information for the crime of Piracy was filed against the defendant.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant is guilty of the crime of Piracy.
Held:
Yes. Sec 2, par. (d), of PD 532, defines Piracy as any attack upon the seizure
of the any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo,
equipment, or the personal belongings of the complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters shall be considered
as Piracy.
And a vessel is considered in Sec. 2, par (6) of the same decree as any
vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to
another through Philippine waters. It shall include all kinds and types of vessel or
boats used in fishing.
Cayao vs. Del Mundo (226 SCRA 492, September 15, 1993)
Facts:
On or about October 22, 1992, while traversing Indang Cavite, Cayao, a bus
driver overtook another bus. As a consequence, the bus driven by Cayao almost
collided with an oncoming owner-type jeepney owned by Del Mundo and was driven
by his son Rommel. That afternoon, he was picked up by Indang police and was
brought to the sala of the judge and was compelled to choose from 3 punishments
(a) to face a charge of multiple attempted homicide, (b) revocation of drivers
license or (c) be put in jail for 3 days. Cayao chose the third. He was forced to sign a
waver of detention and remained in the premises of the municipal jail for 3 days
and was then released on the 3rd day.
Issue:
Whether or not defendants is guilty of Arbitrary Detention.
Held:
Yes. Even if Cayao was not put behind bars as respondent intended, however,
Cayao was not allowed to leave the premises of the jail house. Confinement not only
means incarceration, but also restraining a man, either morally or physically of his
personal liberty. The judge, as a public officer, ordered the arrest and detention of
Cayao without legal grounds.
On April 21, 1973, Juan Tuvera Sr., a barrio captain, with the aid of some other
private persons maltreated Armando Valdez by hitting with butts of their guns and
fist blows. He was then locked inside the municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for
11 hours.
Issue:
Whether or not Tuvera Sr., a barrio captain is a public officer who can be
liable for Abitrary Detention.
Held:
Yes. Public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with
authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. Such public
officers are the policemen or other agents of the law, the judges or mayors.
However, even before PD 299 was signed into law, barrio lieutenants (barrio
captains/barangay captains) were recognized as persons in authority. Under RA
3590, the Revised Barrio Charter provides powers and duties of a barrio captain
including maintenance of public order and law enforcement. He is a peace officer in
the barrio considered under the law as a person in authority. He may make arrest
and detain persons within legal limits. Barrio captains powers and functions are
similar with mayors. Thus, he can be liable for Arbitrary Detention.
arresting officers to the court in the afternoon of the next day. Clearly it did not
exceed the duration that the law proved, i.e. 36 hrs. from the time of his arrest.
Facts:
On September 7, 1997, petitioner, together with Jugalbot was arrested and
detained at the Liloan Police Station for an alleged violation of RA 7160, Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The
following day a complaint was filed.
On September 10, 1997, counsel for petitioner wrote Chief of Police of Liloan
demanding the release of petitioner for failure of delivery to the proper judicial
authority for 36 hours. On September 12, MTC of Liloan, Cebu issued the
commitment of petitioner to the jail warden of Cebu. Petitioner was released on post
bond.
On September 26, petitioner filed a complaint for Delay in the Delivery of
Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authority.
Issue:
Whether or not the filing of the complaint with the MTC constitutes delivery to
a proper judicial authority as contemplated by Art. 215 of the RPC.
Held:
Yes. As contemplated in Art. 125 of the RPC, Judicial Authority means the
courts of justices or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the
temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a
public offense, that is, the Supreme Court and other such inferior courts as may be
established by law.
Upon filing of complaint to MTC, the intent behind Art. 125 is satisfied. By
such act, the detained person is informed of the crime imputed against him and
upon his application with the court, he may be released on bail.
in relation to Art. 135 of the RPC in two criminal cases pending with the RTC Manila
during the issuance of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of Presidential Proclamation
No. 1017 declaring a State of National Emergency for allegedly conspiring and
confederating with each other...
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of the crime of rebellion.
Held:
No. The prosecution failed to prove probable cause to indict Beltran for
rebellion.
Rebellion under Art. 135 of RPC is committed
By rising publicly and taking arms against the government for the purposes of
removing from the allegiance to said government or its laws, the territory of the
Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other
armed forces or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislative, wholly or partially,
of any of their powers or prerogatives.
Art. 267 of the RPC defined and penalized the crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention. It is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty coupled
with proof beyond reasonable doubt of intent of the accused to effect the same:
Elements:
The accused were convicted of the crime of kidnapping for ransom with
serious illegal detention.
People vs. Olivia (349 SCRA 435, January 18, 2001)
Facts:
On May 26, 1986, Jacinto Magbojos Jr. was taken by the group of the accused.
Two witnesses were warned not to report to the police authorities or they will be
killed.
Sometime in 1989, Renato Magbojos, elder brother of Jacinto MAgbojos Jr.
met Levelito Tubieron while on board a ship and told him the location of the burial
site of his brother. On March 1, 1989, Jacintos remains were exhumed.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant is guity of rebellion and not murder.
Held:
No. One can be convicted only of rebellion when the murders, robberies and
kidnapping were committed as a means to or furtherance of rebellion. Offenses
which were not committed in furtherance of rebellion, but for personal reasons or
Held:
Yes. Art. 135 of the RPC defines rebellion as a crime of taking up arms against
the government.
In this case, Dasig not only confessed voluntarily his membership with the
sparrows unit but also his participation and that of his group in the killing of Pfc.
Manatad while manning the traffic. The sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the
NPA with the objective of overthrowing the duly constituted government. The killing
of Pfc. Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive
ends of the NPA.
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement of men
and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion
though crimes in themselves are absorbed in one crime of rebellion. The killing of a
police officer is included as an act done in furtherance of rebellion.
Held:
1. Yes. It is primary rule that if two or more persons combine to perform a
criminal act, each is responsible for al the acts of the others done in the
furtherance of the common design; and the result is the same if the act is
divided into parts and each person proceeds with this part unaided.
Conspiracy is generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and
circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be
proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one performing
one part and another part of the same, so as to complete it, with view of attainment
of the same object, one will be justified to the conclusion that they were engaged in
conspiracy to effect that object.
2. Yes. Sedition is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. It
punishes all persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by
force of outside of legal methods any of five objects, including that of
inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any
official or agent of the government (national/provincial/municipal).
It is not necessary that the offender is a private individual and that the
offended party is a public officer. What is important is that there is a public
uprising to incite or inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or
property of any official or agent of the government.
Held:
No. The accused are guilty of Sedition, Multiple Murder, Frustrated Murder,
Arson and Physical Injuries. The purpose of the raid and the act of raiders in rising
publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against the government and for doing
the purpose defined under Art. 134 of the RPC. Rather, the object was to attain by
means of force, intimidation, etc. One object was to inflict an act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of a public official, Mayor Marcial Punzalan of Tiaong,
acts that constitute Sedition punished under Art. 139 of the same code.
policemen. Inspector Leygo arrived and was able to chase the truck. Leygo and
Rivera had a confrontation that lead to the utterance of insulting words and
punching the Inspector. The accused was arrested and taken to police headquarters.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime Direct Assault.
Held:
Yes. Riveras case falls under the second mode of Art 148 of the RPC.
Well-settled rule that the testimony of a single witness, if
straightforward and categorical is sufficient to convict.
Aggravated when: (a) the assault is committed with a weapon; (b)
when the offender is a public officer or employee; (c) when the
offender lays hand upon persons in authority.
Facts:
On January 31, 1988, at around 12:00 pm, prosecution witnesses were at the
Macaneneng St. Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City when they heard successive gunshots
and hid themselves in a concrete fence. At a distance, they saw 3 armed men firing
upon 2 Capcom Soldiers. They also noticed 2 other men at the scene, one was
accused Bernardo Itucal who was left to take care of the scene. The witness then
went to Capcom headquarters for their testimony.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the accused (Dural) is guilty of the complex crime Murder
with Direct Assault
2. Whether or not the accused (Itucal) is liable for conspiracy
Held:
1. Yes. Witnesses clearly identified him as one of the gunmen. Dural and the 2
gunmen knew that the victims, T/Sgt. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato
Manglingot, were members of the Phil. Constabulary detailed with the
Capcom as they were in uniform and riding an official Capcom car. The
victims were agents of persons in authority and were in the performance of
official duty as peace officers and law enforcers. Dural committed Direct
Assault under Art. 148 of the RPC. For killing the victims, he is found guilty of
two counts of complex crimes of murder with Direct Assault.
2. No. Itucal did not possess any weapon and that he arrived at the scene of the
crime when the assailants left.
TITLE FOUR: Crimes Against Public Interest
Tecson vs. CA (370 SCRA 181, November 22, 2001)
Facts:
A civilian informer notified the Cash Department of the Central Bank of the
Philippines that a certain Mang Andy was involved in a syndicate engaged in the
business of counterfeit US Dollar Notes.
On April 26, 1990, a test-buy operation was ordered which resulted in the
purchase of one counterfeit US dollar note for the price of P200.
Atty. Pio Chan Jr., Chief of Investigation Staff of CBP formed ateam to conduct
a buy-bust operation. On April 28, the operation was held at Jollibee Sta. Cruz,
Manila, where Mang Andy whom later identified as Alejandro Tecson was
apprehended in possession of 70 pcs. of US dollar notes, with intent to sell the same
to the undercover agent.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime illegal possession and use of
false treasury or banknotes and other instruments of credit.
Held:
Yes. He is liable under Art. 168 of the RPC of the crime illegal possession and
use of false treasury or banknotes and other instruments of credit.
Elements:
1. That any treasury or banknote or certificate or other obligation and
security payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person.
2. That the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged or
falsified.
3. That he either used or possessed with intent to use any of any of such
forged or falsified documents.
The evidence is admissible because the petitioner was caught in flagrante
delicto by the prosecution witness during the buy-bust operation
It is a case of a legally valid warrantless and seizure of the evidence of the
crime.
Clemente vs. People (652 SCRA 382, June 15, 2011)
Facts:
Petitioner is a detainee at Manila City Jail. On August 7, 2007, informantinmate Francis Dela Cruz informed the jail officers of a counterfeit P500 from
Clemente with order to buy a drink from the City Jail bakery. The jail guard then
entered the cell of Clemente and confiscated a wallet from his back pocket that
contained 23 pieces of suspected counterfeit P500. The 24 bills were turned over for
BSP analysis and found that they were counterfeit.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of illegal possession and use of false
treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit.
Held:
No. Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone, without anything more,
is not a criminal offense. For it to constitute a criminal offense under Art. 168 of the
RPC, the possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or banknotes. In
this case, prosecution failed to show that Clemente used or intended to use such
counterfeit money. The informant, Francis Dela Cruz was not presented to the court.
Thus, their account is hearsay and not based on personal knowledge. Since he was
the only one who has knowledge of the act which manifested Clementes intent to
use for there must be an overt act to manifest such intent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Guillergan vs. People (641 SCRA 511, February 2, 2011)
Facts:
Yes. The elements of the crime of falsification under Art. 171(6) of the RPC
are:
1) That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a
document
2) That it was made on a genuine document
3) That the alteration or or intercalation has changed the meaning of the
document
4) That the changes made the document speak something false.
When this are committed by a private individual on a private document the
violation would fall under par.2, Art. 172 of the same code. In addition, to the
elements, independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to
the third person.
Given the admissions of Garcia to the alteration, and without convincing
evidence that the alteration was with the consent of Quijada, the Court holds
that the 4 elements were proven to convict the petitioner.
LEOPOLDO OANI vs People
G.R. No. 139984 March 31, 2005
FACTS:
During the SY 1988-1989, the Panabo High School, headed by Principal
Leopoldo Oani implemented the free secondary school program of the government.
The school received P648,532.00 from the Department of Education, culture and
Sports (DECS) for Maintenance and other operating Expenses (MOOE).
On March 1, 1990, DECS Secretary received a letter from the PTA of Panabo
HS regarding the investigation of Principal Oani and Bonifacio Roa, auditor for the
alleged overpricing of 12 fire extinguishers.
In the investigation of MOEE team, they found that Oani approved the
purchase of the overpriced extinguishers, stereo set and office supplies. Information
was filed to Oani and Roa for violations of Rep. Act. 3019
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petioner violated R.A. 3019
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner did not conduct a public bidding in the purchase of the
materials. He argues that he was justified in dispensing with a public bidding and to
purchase on a negotiated basis with the private company. He is wrong. COA Circular
No. 78-84 provides that negotiated contracts may be entered into where any of the
following conditions exists:
1. Whenever the supplies are urgently needed to meet a emergency which
may involved the loss of or danger to life and/or property;
2. whenever the supplies to be used in connection with a project or activity
which cannot be delayed without causing detriment to the public service;
3. whenever the materials are sold by an exclusive distributor or
manufacturer who does not have subdealers selling at lower prices and for
which no suitable substitute can be obtained elsewhere at more
advantageous terms to the government;
HELD:
No. Absence of the third element. Existence of corpus delicti
Elements of sale of illegal drugs
a)identities of the buyer and seller
b)transaction or sale of the illegal drug
c)existence of the corpus delicti
*In prosecution involving narcotics, the narcotics substance itself constitutes the
corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubts demands that
unwaiving exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. The chain of
custody rule performed this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of evidence are removed.
*Sec. 1(b) of the Dangerous Drug Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002 which
implements RA 9165 defines chain of custody as follows:
b.Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plants source of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment at each stage. From the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt
in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court and destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of the seized item shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the
dates and times when such transfers of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
*Movement of seized evidence be maintained:
As a movement of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the movement the item was
pick up to the time it is offered into evidence. In such way that the event person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from it was received, where it was
and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it
was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
chain. These witnesses would then described the precautions taken to ensure that
there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
*Prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody. Question if the evidence
examined and presented in court is the same.
*Failure to comply with Sec. 21 par.1 of Article II of RA9165 with respect to custody
and disposition of the evidence. There was no physical inventory and photograph.
PEOPLE VS QUE MING KHA
G.R. NO. 133265 MAY 29, 2002
FACTS:
On May 16, 1997, Chief Inspector Gilbert dela Fuente, Head of the
Intelligence and Investigation Division, station 6, Central Police District, received a
phone call from an informant that a van which being used to transport shabu at
Quezon City. Dela Fuerte dispatched 3 teams at 5pm, the team spotted the van and
it hit a 7-year old boy but sped away. They followed the van and intercepted it at
Commonwealth Avenue. They got out of their vehicle and approached the van. They
noticed Several sacks at the back of the van that contained several plastic bags
containing white crystalline substance. They arrested the driver Go and Que Ming
Kha.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of violating RA 9165
HELD:
Que Ming Kha (Alfonso Go) guilty
- All the elements are present being the driver of the van
- He cannot claim that he was not aware of the existence of the contraband.
The crime is malum prohibitum, lack of criminal intent and good faith do
not excuse the accused from criminal liability. Mere possession and/or
delivery of the regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under
RA 9165.
- Evidence is admissible even without warrant of arrest: (4) seizure of
evidence in the plain view.
- Kim Que Yu (Alfonso Que) acquitted
- Not present in the sane of the crime
NAZARIO MARIFOSQUE VS PEOPLE
GR NO. 156685 JULY 21, 2004
FACTS:
On October 13, 1990, spouses Sy went to the office of Capt. Alberto Salvo ,
chief of the Intelligence and operating Division stationed at the Criminal
Investigation Service (CIS) to report the robbery of shellane tanks and the alleged
extortion attempt by petitioner Police Sgt. Marifosque in exchange for the recovery
of the lost items. Capt. Solvo set up a plan to entrap the petitioner. Petitioner
Marifosque was arrested at the Golden Grace Department Store with the marked
money given by Hian Hian Yu Sy.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of direct bribery.
HELD:
Yes. The crime of direct bribery as defined in Art. 210 of the RPC consists of
the following elements:
1)that the accused is a public officer;
That he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or
promise.
3)that such gift present or promise has been given in consideration of his
commission of some crime, or any act constituting a crime, or to refrain from
doing something which it is his official duty to do
4)that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public
officer.
*Definition of public authority is provided in Art. 210 RPC
NASZARO MARIFOSQUE VS. PEOPLE
G.R.No.156685
JULY 27,2014
FACTS:
On October 13,1990, spouses sy went to the office of capt.Alberto Salvo,chief
of the
Intelligence and operating Division stationed at the criminal Investigation service
(CIS) to
Report the robbery of shellane tanks and the alleged extorsion attempt by petitioner
Police Sgt.Marifosque in exchange for the recovery of the lost items.capt.Salvo set
up a
Plan to entrap the petitioner.Petitioner Marifosque was arrested at the golden grace
Department
Store with the marked mony given by Hian Hian yu sy.
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner is guilty of the crime of direct bribery.
HEILD:
Yez.The crime of direct bribery as difine in Art.210 of of the RPC consist of the
Following elements:
1) That the accused is a public officer;
2) That he receive directly or through another some gift or present ,offer
or promise
3) That such gift ,present or promise has been given in consideration of
his commission
of some crime,or any act constituting a crime ,or to refrain frome
doing
something which it is his official duty to do
4) That the crime or act relates to the exercise of his fuctions as a public
officer.
Definition of public authority is provide in art .210 RPC.At the time of the
incident,
Petitioner was a police surgeant when he directly receive bribe money fome
Yu so Pong
And his daughter Hian Hian Yu Sy in exchange for the recovery of the stolen
cylinder tanks,
The case falls under the second paragraph of Art.210 of the PRC
*If the gift was accept by the officer in consideration of the execution of an
Act which deos not constitute a crime,and the officer executed said act,he
shall
suffer the same penalty provide in the preceding paragraph.
The investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract. Neither was
it a transaction because this term must be construed as analogous to the
team which precedes it. A transaction, like a contract, is one which involves
come consideration as in credit transactions and this element (consideration)
is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner.
No. Art.212 of the RPC provides for the elements of the crime of corruption of
public officials and are as follows:
1) That the offender makes offers or promises or gifts or present to a public
officer.
2) That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public
officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct
bribery or indirect bribery.
*The giving of monery was done in good faith since the petitioner is a foreigner and
unfamiliar with probation rules and regulations. He was confused or befuddled and
his acts constitutes only an advance for the expenses for the documentation.
RINA CHUA VS EDGARDO NUESTRO
AM No. P-88-256 October 11, 1990
FACTS:
On September 12, 1988, the court issued a writ of execution on a civil case.
Petitioner, her husband and ounsel asked the respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo
Nuestro to immediately enforce the writ and they agreed to give P1,000 to the
respondent aside from expenses on the next day, the respondent asked for an
additional amount of P500.00. He went to the property and broke the padlock. The
counsel for defendent arrived with the receipt of payment of the superseades bond
to suspend the execution of the writ.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the crime of direct bribery.
HELD:
Yes. All the elements provided in Art. 210 of the RFC are present. The fee is
received was distinct from the sheriffs fee and expenses for execution and is not
intended for that purpose.
ROBERTO CHANG VS. PEOPLE
496 SCRA 321 GR No. 165111 July 21, 2006
FACTS:
Makati Treasurers office examiners Vivian Yu and Lenila Azevedo conducted
an examination of the books of accounts and other records of GDI to verify the
amount of tax due from the business operations, and found a total amount of
P494.60 tax deficiency for 1986 to 1990.
The office of the Treasurer issued a notice to GDI for payment. The notices
were received by Mario Magat, Chief Operating Officer of CDI.
On May 15, 1991 Magat and San Mateo, assessor met at a sports Club,
petitioner Roberto Chang later joined them. They agreed that if GDI could pay
P125,000, the assessment will be resolved. On May 29, San Mateo went to GDI
office for the check but refused to accept it when it was payable to the municipal
treasurers. On June 6, Magat met San Mateo and Chang and was given two options
pay P494,60 to the municipality or P125,000 to them. GDI president then referred
the matter to the NBI.
On June 19, 1991, the payment was scheduled to be made and Magat
informed the NBI for the entrapment. Magat, San Mateo, Chang and his driver had
lunch at the sports club. Magat then handed the brown enveloped with the money
in exchange of the certificate of examination that GDI had no more realibility. It was
received by Chang and passed it to San Mateo. They were then arrested they were
found positive for fluorescent poweder.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners Chang and San Mateo violated Sec. 3(6) of the RA
3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
HELD:
Yes. Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 provides:
Sec. 3 Corrupt practices of public officers in addition to acts or omissions of public
pfficers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift present share percentage or
benefit for himself or for any other person in connection with any contract ot
transaction between the Government and any other party. Wherein the public officer
in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
Elements|:
1) The offender is a public officer
2) Who requested or received a gift, a present, a share, a percentage, or a
benefit
3) On behalf of the offender or any other person
4) In connection with a contract or transaction with the government
5) In which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right
to intervene
*All the elements are present
*It was an entrapment not an instigation. It was established that the criminal
intent originated from the petitioners.
ANUNCIO BUSTILLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
486 SCRA 545 GR No. 146217 April 7, 2006
FACTS:
In 1995, the office of the Special Prosecutor charged petitioner, then
incumbent mayor of Bunawan, Agusan Del Sur, and his daughter, in the
Sandiganbayan with falsification of Public Documents under Art. 171 of the RFC. The
accfused falsified 3 vouchers, making it appear that P30,000 of lumber was bought
from Estigoy Lumber and not from Rowena Woodcraft, a single proprietorship owned
by the daughter Rowena Bustillo.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners suspension from office pendent lite finds basis in
sec. 13 of RA 3019.
HELD:
Yes. Sec. 13 of RA 3019 provides:
Suspension and loss of benefits any incumbent public officer against whom any
criminal prosecution under a valid information under this act or under Title I, Book II
of the RFC or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or
property, whether as a simple or as a complex offense and it whatever stage of
execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from
office. Should he be convicted by final judgement, he shall lose all retirement or
gratituity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to
reinstatement and to salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during
suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed
against him.
*The case falls undr Title 4 Book II, but it involved fraud upon government or public
funds or property. Fraud refers to an instance or an act of trickery or deceit
especially when involving misinterprentation.
FLORANTE SORIQUEZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN
414 SCRA 222 GR No. 153526 October 25, 2005
FACTS:
On February 29 to June 15, 1996 petitioner Progran Director of Mt. Pinatubo
Rehabilitation Project Management Office (MPR-PMO) along with 9 other public
officials of DPWH consented or permitted the contractor, atlantic erectons Inc. To
deviate from the plans and specifications of a contract in constructing the
Transverse section of the Pasig-Potrero River Diking System (Megadike) in violation
of the material provision of said contract and allowed to called P38,289,708.61 and
which breach of contract causing prejudice and damage to the government.
ISSUE:
Whether or not is guilty of violation of sec. 3(e) of RA 3016
HELD:
Yes. All the elements provided in Sec. 3(e) of RA 3016 are present
Sec. 3 Corrupt practices of public officers in addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and hereby declared to be unlawful:
(e) causing any undue injury to any party. Including the Government or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of
his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses
or permits or other concessions.
Elements:
All the elements were present: (1) Respondent was then the President; (2) he
acted in connivance with the Governor Chavit Singson and other persons in
amassing, accumulating and acquiring ill-gotten wealth as follows:
a)receiving bi-mothly collections from jueteng; and (b) ordering the GSIS and
SSS to purchase shares of stock of the Belle Corporation
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public
funds
HELD:
Yes. She is found guilty on the third mode of malversation : Shall consent or,
Through abandonment or negligence, shall pirmit any person to take such public
funds or property.
*She was remiss in her supervision of the acting collectionofficer, bas and Failed to
rebut the presumption. *She omit to report the shortages of bas to the proper
authority upon her Discovery thereof and also assisted in the cover up. *She
granted that the funds be barrowed by bas. However, the grant of loans through
the vale system is clear case of an accountable officer consenting to the
improper or unauthorize use of public funds by other persons, which is punishable
by law.
ELVIRA AGULLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No.132926
JULY 20. 2001
FACTS:
Petitioner,disbursing office of ministry public workls and highways (MPUH)
receive P26,404.26 of public funds. They found that such fund was missing when
her acount was audited. She was sent a demand letter but contented that when
she opt to answer, she had a stroke. Information of the crime of malversation of
public funds was filed against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public
funds
HELD:
NO. The presumption under Art.217 of the RPC was rebutted. The court state
that when absence of funds not due to the personal use thereof by the accussed,
the presumption is completely destroyed.
*Records reveral that on October 22,1985. Petitioner had a stroke on the
Streets of tacloban when the amount was lost.
LUIS TABUENA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 103501.03 FEBUARY 17, 1997
FACTS:
Then Presedent Marcos instructed Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to
the Presidents office and in cash what the Manilla International Airport (MIA) owes
the Philppine National Construction Corporation (PNCC). About a week leter, he
receive a memo to comply with the verbal instruction.
Tabuena compiled that coused the release of PSSM of MIAA funds.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation of public funds
HELD:
NO. petitioner acted in good faith in complying with chief Executives order.
Thus, criminal intent is absent in the commision of the crime and that
abandonent or negligence was not proved. Conversation as necessary element of
offence of embezzlement, being froudulent
appropriation to ones own
use of anothers proper.
minimum period or a fine ranging frome one-half to the total of the sum
misapplied, if by reason such misapplication, any damages or embarassment shall
have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the
penalty of special disqualification. If no damage or embarassment to the public
service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine form 5 to 50 percent of the sum
misapplied.
Elements:
1.The offender is an accountable public officer
2.He applies a public funds or property under his administration to some public use
3.The public use for which the public funds or property were applied is different
Frome the purpose for which they were originally approriated by law or
ordinance.
*The third element is not present in this case.
NORMA ABDULLA VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No.150129 APRIL 6,2005
FACTS:
Farmer presedent of sulo state college petitioner Norma Abdulla requested
for the Convensation of 34 secondaary school teachers to Instructor I items and was
approved By the department of budget and managemenent (DBM). Prior to the
approval , the Fund was allotted to the partial funding of paying the differencials of
the Said 34 teachers in the amount of P40.000.00. however , out of the 34, only 6
teachers were entitled and paid the salary differentials as they were already the
same salary rate as Instructor I.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the prtitioner is guilty of the crime of illegal use of public
funds
HELD:
No.Criminal intent is absent.
Basic principle in criminal law, actus non facit recum, nisi mens it rea
A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act
complained of be innocent. To constitute a crime, the act must be accompied
by criminal intent.
Article 220 of the RPC provides for the elements:
1.The offender is a public officer.
2.That there is a public fund under his administration.
3.That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law nor
ordinance
4.That he applies the same to a public use other than that for which such