Danilo O. Garcia and Joven SD. Brizuela v.

Sandiganbayan and People of the

Philippines, G.R. No. 197204, March 26, 2014.

R.A. 3019; Section 3(e); proof of the extent of damage is not essential. The third
element of the offense – that the act of the accused caused undue injury to any
party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused – was
established here. Proof of the extent of damage is not essential, it being sufficient
that the injury suffered or the benefit received is perceived to be substantial
enough and not merely negligible. In the present case, the prosecution’s
evidence duly proved that petitioners, using their official positions, by dishonesty
and breach of sworn duty, facilitated the approval and release of government
funds amounting to P20,000,000 supposedly for the purchase of combat clothing
and individual equipment (CCIE) items of PNP personnel. However, the
recipients of the P20,000,000 turned out to be fictitious PNP personnel, and up to
now the P20,000,000 remains unaccounted for. Thus, petitioners should be
made liable for their deceit and misrepresentation and should compensate the
government for the actual damage the government has suffered. Danilo O. Garcia
and Joven SD. Brizuela v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
197204, March 26, 2014.
R.A. 9165; Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. 9165; inventory and marking of seized
items in warrantless seizures. From a cursory reading of Section 21(a) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, it can be gleaned that in cases
of warrantless seizures, as in this case, inventory and marking of the seized item
can be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
authorities, whichever is practicable, and not necessarily at the place of seizure.
As held in People v. Resurreccion, “marking upon immediate confiscation” does not
exclude the possibility that marking can be done at the police station or office of
the apprehending team. Thus, in the present case, the apprehending team
cannot be faulted if the inventory and marking were done at their office where
appellant was immediately brought for custody and further investigation. Indeed,
the fact that the inventory and marking of the subject item were not made onsite
is of no moment and will not lead to appellant’s exoneration. People of the
Philippines v. Manuel S. Aplat, G.R. No. 191727, March 31, 2014.

3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Alibi. For alibi to prosper, it must not only be shown that appellant was at
another place at the time of the commission of the crime but that it was also
impossible for him to be present at the crime scene. In this case, appellant
attempted to show that he was at barangay Ananong at the time of the rape
incident. However, as found by the trial court, the distance between barangay
Ananong and barangay Ogbong is only four kilometers and could be traversed in
one hour or even less. Hence, appellant’s assertion that the trial court and the
appellate court should have considered his alibi must fail. People of the Philippines
v. Jerry Obogne, G.R. No. 199740, March 24, 2014.
Appeal; issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.
Petitioners anchor their defense on the nature of their respective positions to
prove that they acted within the bounds of their functions. However, Garcia and
Brizuela only raised their functions as Assistant Regional Director for
Comptrollership and Disbursing Officer, respectively, for the first time before the
Sandiganbayan when they filed their separate Supplements to Motion for
Reconsideration and after a decision had already been rendered by the
Sandiganbayan.The settled rule is that issues not raised in
the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal – in this case, in a motion for reconsideration –
for being offensive to the basic rules of fair play,
justice and due process. Points of law, theories,
issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of
the trial court are barred by estoppel and cannot be
considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal. Danilo O. Garcia and Joven SD.
Brizuela v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197204, March 26,
2014.