Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE Avelina Jaurigue, therafter, pulled out with her right hand the fan
C.A. No. 384 February 21, 1946
knife which she had in a pocket of her dress with the intention of punishing
Ponencia, De Joya
Amados offending hand. Amado seized her right hand but she quickly
grabbed the knife on her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of
Justifying circumstances are those wherein the acts of the actor are in the left side of the neck inflicting upon him a wound about 4 inches deep,
accordance with law and, hence, he incurs no criminal and civil liability. The which is mortal.
justifying circumstances by subject are as follows:
Nicolas saw Capina bleeding and staggering towards the altar, and
1) Self-defense upon seeing his daughter approached her and asked her the reason for her
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights. (Art. 11, Par. 1) The action to which Avelina replied, Father, I could not endure anymore.
scope included self-defense not only of life, but also of rights like those of Amado Capina died a few minutes after. Barrio lieutenant, Casimiro
chastity, property and honor. It has also been applied to the crime of libel. Lozada was there and Avelina surrendered herself. Lozada advised the
Its elements are: a) Unlawful aggression, b) Reasonable necessity of the Jaurigues to go home immediately for fear of retaliation of Capinas
means employed to prevent or repel it, c) Lack of sufficient provocation on relatives.
the part of the person defending himself.
EVENTS PRIOR:
2) Defense of Relative 3) Defense of Stranger 4) State of Necessity 5)
Fulfillment of duty 6) Obedience to superior order One month before that fatal night, Amado Capina snatched
Avelinas handkerchief bearing her nickname while it was washed by her
FACTS: cousin, Josefa Tapay.
Avelina Jaurigue and Nicolas Jaurigue, her father, were prosecuted 7 days prior to incident (September 13, 1942), Amado approached
for the crime of murder for which Nicolas was acquitted while Avelina was her and professed his love for her which was refused, and thereupon
found guilty of homicide. She appealed to the Court of Appeals for Southern suddenly embraced and kissed her and touched her breasts. She then
Luzon on June 10, 1944 to completely absolve her of all criminal slapped him, gave him fist blows and kicked him. She informed her matter
responsibility for having acted in defense of her honor, to find in her favour about it and since then, she armed herself with a long fan knife whenever
additional mitigating circumstances and omit aggravating circumstance. she went out.
At about 8:00 PM of September 20, 1942, Amado Capina, deceased 2 days after (September 15, 1942), Amado climbed up the house of
victim, went to the chapel of Seventh Day Adventists to attend religious Avelina and entered the room where she was sleeping. She felt her
services and sat at the front bench facing the altar. Avelina Jaurigue entered forehead and she immediately screamed for help which awakened her
the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father for the same purpose and parents and brought them to her side. Amado came out from where he had
sat on the bench next to the last one nearest the door. Upon seeing Avelina, hidden and kissed the hand of Avelinas father, Nicolas.
Amado went and sat by Avelinas right side from his seat on the other side
of the chapel, and without saying a word, placed his hand on the upper part Avelina received information in the morning and again at 5:00 PM
of her right thigh. on the day of the incident (September 20, 1942) that Amado had been
falsely boasting in the neighbourhood of having taken liberties with her Aggravating circumstance of having committed offense in a sacred
person. In the evening, Amado had been courting the latter in vain. place is not sustained as there is no evidence that the defendant had
intended to murder the deceased when she entered the chapel that night.
She killed under great provocation.
ISSUES: Penalty: For homicide, penalty is reclusion temporal. However, with
Whether or not the defendant should be completely absolved of all 3 mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, it is reduced
criminal responsibility because she is justified in having acted in the by two degrees, in this case, prision correccional. Indeterminate Sentence
legitimate defense of her honor. Law provides the penalty ranging from arresto mayor in its medium degree
to prision correccional in its medium degree.
Whether or not the Court should find the additional mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender, presence of provocation and absence Avelina is sentenced to 2mos and 1 day of arresto mayor as
of intent in her favour minimum to 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional as
maximum; to indemnify heirs of Capina in the sum of 2,000; with
Whether or not committing said offense in a sacred place is an corresponding subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed 1/3 of principal
aggravating circumstance in this case penalty and to pay costs. She is given the benefit of of her preventive
imprisonment
HELD:
SEPARATE OPINION: Hilado questions the validity or nullity of
Conviction of defendant is sustained and cannot be declared
judicial proceedings in the Japanese-sponsored courts.
completely exempt from criminal liability. To be entitled to a complete self-
defense of chastity, there must be an attempt to rape. To provide for a
justifying circumstance of self-defense, there must be a) Unlawful
aggression, b) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it, c) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. Attempt to rape is an unlawful aggression. However, under the
circumstances of the offense, there was no possibility of the defendant to
be raped as they were inside the chapel lighted with electric lights and
contained several people. Thrusting at the base of Capinos neck as her
means to repel aggression is not reasonable but is instead, excessive.

Mitigating circumstances are considered in her favour.


Circumstances include her voluntary and unconditional surrender to the
barrio lieutenant, provocation from the deceased which produced
temporary loss of reason and self-control of the defendant and lack of
intent to kill the deceased evidenced by infliction of only one single wound.
People vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389 (1983) No. The courts concurred that the fencing and chiselling of the walls of the
house of the defendant was indeed a form of aggression on the part of the
FACTS: victim. However, this aggression was not done on the person of the victim
Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of but rather on his rights to property. On the first issue, the courts did not err.
David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968, Narvaez shot However, in consideration of the violation of property rights, the courts
Fleischer and Rubia during the time the two were constructing a fence that referred to Art. 30 of the civil code recognizing the right of owners to close
would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill. The and fence their land.
defendant was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction and Although is not in dispute, the victim was not in the position to subscribe to
found fence being made. He addressed the group and asked them to stop the article because his ownership of the land being awarded by the
destroying his house and asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer government was still pending, therefore putting ownership into question. It
responded with "No, gadamit, proceed, go ahead." Defendant lost his is accepted that the victim was the original aggressor.
"equilibrium," and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. He also shot Rubia who
was running towards the jeep where the deceased's gun was placed. Prior 2. WON the court erred in convicting defendant-appellant although he
to the shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of Fleischer's family) was acted in defence of his rights.
involved in a legal battle with the defendant and other land settlers of
Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the time of the shooting, the
civil case was still pending for annulment (settlers wanted granting of Yes. However, the argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is
property to Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). At time of the shooting, applicable only if the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC enumerates
defendant had leased his property from Fleisher (though case pending and these requisites:
ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25, defendant received
letter terminating contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent. He was Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there was unlawful aggression
given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 towards appellant's property rights. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 months
months after letter. Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and and he should have left him in peace before time was up, instead of
property. CFI ruled that Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating circumstances of chiseling Narvaez's house and putting up fence. Art. 536 of the Civil Code
evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary also provides that possession may not be acquired through force or
surrender. For both murders, CFI sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to intimidation; while Art. 539 provides that every possessor has the right to
indemnify the heirs, and to pay for moral damages. be respected in his possession

ISSUES: Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack. In the


case, killing was disproportionate to the attack.
1. Whether or not CFI erred in convicting defendant-appellant despite the
fact that he acted in defense of his person. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself. Here,
there was no provocation at all since he was asleep
Since not all requisites present, defendant is credited with the special Gutierrez, dissenting. Defense of property can only be invoked when
mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to Art. 13(6) RPC. coupled with form of attack on person defending property. In the case at
These mitigating circumstances are: voluntary surrender and passion and bar, this was not so. Appellant should then be sentenced to prision mayor.
obfuscation (read p. 405 explanation) Crime is homicide (2 counts) not However, since he has served more than that, he should be released.
murder because treachery is not applicable on account of provocation by
the deceased. Also, assault was not deliberately chosen with view to kill
since slayer acted instantaneously. There was also no direct evidence of
planning or preparation to kill. Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is
reclusion temporal. However, due to mitigating circumstances and
incomplete defense, it can be lowered three degrees (Art. 64) to
arrestomayor.

3. WON he should be liable for subsidiary imprisonment since he is unable


to pay the civil indemnity due to the offended party.

No. He is not liable to be subsidiarily imprisoned for nonpayment of civil


indemnity. RA 5465 made the provisions of Art. 39 applicable to fines only
and not to reparation of damage caused, indemnification of consequential
damages and costs of proceedings. Although it was enacted only after its
conviction, considering that RA 5465 is favorable to the accused who is not
a habitual delinquent, it may be given retroactive effect pursuant to Art. 22
of the RPC.

Judgment: Defendant guilty of homicide but w/ mitigating circumstances


and extenuating circumstance of incomplete self defense. Penalty is 4
months arresto mayor and to indemnify each group of heirs 4,000 w/o
subsidiary imprisonment and w/o award for moral damages. Appellant has
already been detained 14 years so his immediate release is ordered.
People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Rivera, G.R. No. 139180, July 31, On June 22, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision finding the accused
2001 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged.

Facts: Issue:

Rolando Rivera was charged of willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and Whether or not the court failed to consider the evidence of the Accused and
maliciously having carnal knowledge of his 13 year old daughter, Erlanie D. ruled with partiality in violation of the accuseds right to be heard.
Rivera, against the latters will and without her consent.
Ruling:
During arraignment on September 30, 1997, the accused, duly assisted by
Accused pointed out that trial judges questions propounded to him during
counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged and trial was held.
his cross-examination was an indication of the latters partiality for the
The prosecution presented as its witnesses complainant Erlanie Rivera, her prosecution.
aunt, Marietta Pagtalunan, and Dr. Demetria Barin, who conducted the
physical examination of complainant. Where the trial court is judge both of the law and of the facts, it is
oftentimes necessary in the due and faithful administration of justice for the
Thedefense also presented its evidence and accused, his sister, Concepcion presiding judge to re-examine a witness so that his judgment, when
Sayo, and NatividadPinlac, Records Officer of the Escolastica Romero District rendered, may rest upon a full and clear understanding of the facts. The trial
Hospital were presented as witnesses.Accused denied that he raped Erlanie judge merely wanted to clarify certain points relating to the defense of
Rivera. He alleged that the rape charge was filed against him because his accused-appellant and not to establish his guilt. It is a judges prerogative to
wifehad a paramour and resented him because he hurt her.The defense ask questions to ferret out the truth. It cannot be taken against him if the
presented a letter to accused written by his wife, asking him to sign a questions he propounds reveals certain truths which, in turn, tend to
document so that she could attend to it before he got out of prison. The destroy the theory of one party. Trial judges in this jurisdiction are judges
defense also offered as evidence a document, designated as Waiver of of both the law and the facts, and they would be negligent in the
Rights, signed by accused, in which he acknowledged that he was a tenant performance of their duties if they permitted a miscarriage of justice as a
of a parcel of land and that he waived and voluntarily surrendered his right result of a failure to propound a proper question to a witness which might
over the said landholding to a certain Ponciano Miguel, a cousin of his develop some material bearing upon the outcome. In the exercise of sound
wife.He said that he signed the document because his wifes relatives discretion, he may put such question to the witness as will enable him to
promised him that he would get out of prison after signing the formulate a sound opinion as to the ability or the willingness of the witness
document.Another witness for the defense was Concepcion Sayo, accuseds to tell the truth. A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may
sister, who testified that accused stayed in their house during the entire propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and to
month of March, except in March 19, 1997. The last defense witness was extract the truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony
NatividadPinlac, Records Officer of the Escolastica Romero District Hospital, though that testimony may tend to support or rebut the position taken by
who identified a certification, dated April 29, 1999, in which it was stated one or the other party.
that Zaira Rivera was confined at that hospital from March 1 to March 2,
1997. The decision of the Regional Trial Courtfinding accused-appellant guilty of
the crime of rape is affirmed.
Cabanlig v Sandiganbayan Inside the main body of the jeep, were two long benches, each of which was
located at the left and right side of the jeep.
G.R. No. 148431 July 28, 2005
Cabanlig, Mercado and Esteban were seated with Valino inside the main
Carpio, J. body of the jeep. Esteban was right behind Abesamis at the left bench.
Facts: Valino, who was not handcuffed, was between Cabanlig and Mercado at the
right bench. Valino was seated at Cabanlig's left and at Mercado's right.
This petition for review seeks to reverse the Decision of the Sandiganbayan Mercado was seated nearest to the opening of the rear of the jeep.
dated 11 May 1999 and Resolution dated May 2001 affirming the conviction
of SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig ("Cabanlig") for homicide. The Sandiganbayan Just after the jeep crossed the Philippine National Railway bridge, Valino
sentenced Cabanlig to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four months of suddenly grabbed Mercado's M 16 Armalite (he was able to do so when
arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months of prision Mercado tried to reach his back to nurse an itch because of some flying
correctional as maximum and to pay P50,000 to the heirs of Jimmy Valino insects) and jumped out of the jeep. Mercado shouted hoy and Cabanlig
("Valino"). Cabanlig shot Valino after Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite of acted immediately. Without issuing any warning, Cabanlig fired one shot at
another policeman and tried to escape from the custody of the police. The Valino, and after two to three seconds, Cabanlig fired four more successive
Sandiganbayan acquitted Cabanlig's co-accused, SPO1 Carlos Padilla shots. Valino did not fire any shot. Valino died sustaining three mortal
("Padilla"), PO2 Meinhart Abesamis ("Abesamis"), SPO2 Lucio Mercado wounds one at the back of the head, one at the left side of the chest, and
("Mercado") and SPO1 Rady Esteban ("Esteban"). one at the left lower back.

On Sep 24 1992 a robbery occurred in the Municipality of Penaranda, Nueva The following morning, Sep 29, 1992, a certain SPO4 Lacanilao investigated
Ecija. The authorities apprehended 3 suspects: Jordan Magat ("Magat"), the case. He met with Mercado to whom the latter related that he and his
Randy Reyes ("Reyes") and Valino. The police recovered most of the stolen fellow policemen salvaged a person the night before. Mercado then asked
items but a flower vase and small radio were still missing. Reyes told Lacanilao why he was interested in the identity of the person who was
authorities that the items were at his house. Cabalig asked his colleagues to "salvaged." Lacanilao then answered that "Jimmy Valino" was his cousin.
accompany him to retrieve said items. When Cabalig brought out Magat and Mercado immediately turned around and left.
Reyes out of their cell intending to bring them during the retrieval Cabanlig admitted shooting Valino. However, Cabanlig justified the shooting
operation, Valino informed Cabanlig that he moved the locations of the as an act of self-defense and performance of duty. Mercado denied that he
items without knowledge of the other two. Cabanlig then decided to bring
told Lacanilao that he and his co-accused "salvaged" Valino. Cabanlig,
along Valino, leaving the two, for the ret. op. Mercado, Abesamis, Padilla, and Esteban denied that they conspired to kill
Around 6:30 pm, Cabanlig and his collegues, 5 of them, escorted Valino to Valino.
recover the missing flower vase and radio. The policemen and Valino were Issue:
aboard a police vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up jeep. The jeep was built like an
ordinary jeepney. The rear end of the jeep had no enclosure. A metal WON Cabanlig could invoke defense of fulfillment of duty to justify his
covering separated the driver's compartment and main body of the jeep. actions
There was no opening or door between the two compartments of the jeep.
Held:

YES. The requisites of fulfillment of duty are: The duty to issue a warning is not absolutely mandated at all times and at all
cost, to the detriment of the life of law enforcers. In this case, the
1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise embattled policemen did not have the luxury of time. Neither did they have
of a right or office; much choice. Cabanlig's shooting of Valino was an immediate and
2. The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary spontaneous reaction to imminent danger. At any rate, Mercados hoy
consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such already served as a warning to Valino.
right or office. Cabanlig is thus not guilty of homicide. At most, Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis,
A policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such force as is Mercado and Esteban are guilty only of gross negligence for transporting an
reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his arrested robber without handcuffs.
resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect Court reverses decision of Sandiganbayan and acquits Cabanlig of the crime
himself from bodily harm.
of homicide.
Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression is an element, in
performance of duty, unlawful aggression from the victim is not a requisite.

Undoubtedly, the policemen in the case at bar were in the legitimate


performance of their duty whenCabanlig shot Valino. Thus fulfillment of
duty is a justifying circumstance applicable to the case.

However, to determine if this defense is complete, it has to be determined if


Cabanlig used necessary force to prevent Valino from escaping and in
protecting himself and his co-accused policemen from imminent danger.

The court rules yes as well. Valino was committing an offense when he
grabbed the M16 Armalite. The policemen had the duty then to not only
apprehend Valino but also retrieve the firearm. Had Cabanlig failed to shoot
Valino immediately, the policemen would have been sitting ducks. They
were facing imminent danger as Valino had with him the armalite, so the
policemen had to act swiftly.

The Court states that Sandiganbayan was wrong in holding that Cabanlig
had no right to shoot without giving Valino the opportunity to surrender
and that they should have issued a warning first.
Sycip vs Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA 447 drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to
Facts: On August 24, 1989, petitioner Francisco T. Sycip, Jr., agreed to buy, stop payment. In this case, although the first element of the offense exists,
on installment, from Francel Realty Corporation (FRC), a townhouse unit in the other elements have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
the latters project at Bacoor, Cavite. Upon execution of the contract to sell, The second element involves knowledge on the part of the issuer at the
as required, issued to FRC, forty-eight (48) postdated checks, each in the time of the checks issuance that he did not have enough funds or credit in
amount of P9,304.00,covering 48 monthly installments. After moving in his the bank for payment thereof upon its presentment. B.P. No. 22 creates a
unit, Sycip complained, to FRC regarding defects in the unit and incomplete presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie exists when
features of the townhouse project. FRC ignored the complaint. Dissatisfied, the first and third elements of the offense are present. But such evidence
Sycip served on FRC two (2) notorial notices to the effect that he was may be rebutted. If not rebutted or contradicted, it will suffice to sustain a
suspending his installment payments on the unit pending compliance with judgment in favor of the issue, which it supports. Such knowledge of the
the project plans and specifications, as approved by the Housing and Land insufficiency of petitioners funds is legally presumed from the dishonor of
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Sycip and twelve (12) out of fourteen (14) his checks for insufficiency of funds. But such presumption cannot hold if
unit buyers then filed a complaint with the HLURB. The complaint was there is evidence to the contrary. In this case, the other party has presented
dismissed as to the defect, but FRC was ordered by the HLURB to finish all evidence to contradict said presumption. Hence, the prosecution is duty
incomplete features of its townhouse project. Sycip appealed the dismissal bound to prove every element of the offense charged, and not merely rely
of the complaint as to the alleged defects. on a rebuttable presumption.
Notwithstanding the notorial notices, FRC continued to present for What are involved in this case are postdated checks. Postdating simply
encashment Sycips postdated checks in its possession. Sycip sent stop means that on the date indicated on its face, the check would be properly
payment orders to the bank. When FRC continued to present the other funded, not that the checks should be deemed as issued only then. The
postdated checks to the bank as the due date fell, the bank advised Sycip to checks were issued at the time of the signing of the Contract to Sell in
close his checking account to avoid paying bank charges every time he made
August 1989. However, there was no showing that at the time said checks
a stop payment order on the forthcoming check. Due to the closure of were issued, petitioner had knowledge that his deposit or credit in the bank
petitioners checking account, the drawee bank dishonored six postdated would be insufficient to cover them when presented for encashment. The
checks. FRC file a complaint against petitioner for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 closure of petitioners Account No. 845515 with Citibank was not for
involving said dishonored checks. insufficiency of funds. It was made upon the advice of the drawee bank, to
Issue: Whether or not the accused is criminally liable of the B.P. Blg. 22? avoid payment of hefty bank charges each time petitioner issued a stop
payment order to prevent encashment of postdated checks in private
Held: No. The Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. No. 22), is violated when the respondents possession. Said evidence contradicts the prima facie
following elements are present: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds. But it establishes
check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, petitioners state of mind at the time said checks were issued. Petitioner
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds definitely had no knowledge that his funds or credit would be insufficient
in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon when the checks would be presented for encashment.
its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the
Luis A. Tabuena, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan (268 SCRA 332, February 17, in strict compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum. The orderemanated
1997) from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President
himself, the highest official of the land. It carries with it the presumption
FACTS: that it was regularly issued. And on its face, the memorandum is patently
Then Pres. Ferdinand Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena, General Manager of lawful for no law makesthe payment of an obligation illegal. This fact,
the ManilaInternational Airport Authority (MIAA), over the phone to pay coupled with the urgent tenor for itsexecution constrains one to act swiftly
directly to the presidentsoffice and in cash what the MIAA owes the Phil. without question.However, a more compelling reason for the ACQUITTAL is
National Construction Corp. The verbalinstruction was reiterated in a the violation of the accused'sbasic constitutional right to due process.
Presidential memorandum.In obedience to Pres. Marcos instruction, Records show that the Sandiganbayan activelytook part in the questioning
Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo Dabao andAdolfo Peralta, the Asst. Gen. of a defense witness and of the accused themselves. Thequestions of the
Mgr. and the Acting Finance Services Mgr. of MIAA,respectively, caused the court were in the nature of cross examinations characteristic of
release of P55M of MIAA funds of three (3) withdrawals anddelivered the confrontation, probing and insinuation. Tabuena and Peralta may not have
money to Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, private secretary of Marcos. Gimenez raised the issueas an error, there is nevertheless no impediment for the
issueda receipt for all the amounts she received from Tabuena. Later, it court to consider such matter asadditional basis for a reversal since the
turned out that PNCCnever received the money.The case involves two (2) settled doctrine is that an appeal throws the wholecase open to review, and
separate petitions for review by Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta.They it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errorsas may be
appeal the Sandiganbayan decision convicting them of malversation of found in the judgment appealed from whether they are made the subject of
MIAA funds inthe amount of P55M.Further, petitioners claimed that they assignments of error or not.The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge "
were charged with intentional malversation, asalleged in the amended requirement of due process was certainly deniedTabuena and Peralta when
information, but it would appear that they were convicted formalversation the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and
with negligence. Hence, their conviction of a crime different from that advocate. Time and again the Court has declared that due process
chargedviolated their constitutional right to be informed of the accusation. requiresno less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. That the judge
must not only beimpartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give
ISSUE: added assurance to the parties thathis decision will be just. The parties are
entitled to no less than this, as a minimumguaranty of due process.HENCE,
(1)Whether or not the Sandiganbayan convicted them of a crime not
Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are acquitted of the crime of malversation
charged in theamended information; and

(2)Whether or not Tabuena and Peralta acted in good faith.

HELD:

(1)No. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The


dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the
perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode
proved, the same offense of malversation isinvolved.(2)Yes. Tabuena acted

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen