Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Cambe vs ombudsman

812 scra 537

G.R. Nos. 212014-15, G.R. Nos. 212427-28 December 6, 2016

Petitioners are all charged as co-conspirators in the crime of plunder, for their respective participations
in the illegal pillaging of public funds sourced from the PDAF of Sen. Revilla in the amount of 517 million
pesos. PDAF scheme commences with Napoles meeting with a legislator with the former giving an offer
to "acquire" his PDAF allocation in exchange for a "commission" or "kickback" amounting to a certain
percentage of the PDAF. The legislator's "commission" or "kickback" ranging from 40-60% of either the
project cost or the amount stated in the SARO.
For defense, the accused contends that: his and Cambe's signatures in the PDAF documents were
forgeries; and there is "no credible proof" to show that he committed said illegal acts and that
conspiracy exists between him and all the other persons involved in the PDAF scam.

Ombudsman found probable cause to indict.

whether or not the findings of probable cause against all petitioners should be upheld.

Yes. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the
fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the
statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary
but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to
the existence of such a fact.

Undoubtedly, the testimonies of the whistleblowers are independently relevant to prove the
involvement of Sen. Revilla and his co--accused in the present controversy, considering their respective
participations in the entire PDAF scam. The statements made by whistleblowers Suñas, Sula, and Luy,
who were employees of JLN Corporation and privy to the financial transactions of Napoles concerning,
among others, Sen. Revilla’s PDAF, should be given consideration as they are directly, if not
circumstantially, relevant to the issue at hand.

G.R. No. 209921
780 scra 628

Petitioner Balagtas Credit Cooperative and Community Development, Inc. (BCCCDI) initially hired
respondent Emma H. Quiro-quiro as accountant/bookkeeper but her services in concurrent posts as
General Manager and Accountant were terminated on the grounds of "gross negligence/violation of
company rules" and "gross dishonesty. Aggrieved, Quiro-quiro filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
damages arguing that her termination was not valid nor justified as "there was no ground that existed
for her dismissal from employment" and that her dismissal did not satisfy the requirements of due
process, as she was not given "ample opportunity," nor the "natural sequence of notice of charges,
hearing and notice of judgment."

Labor Arbiter found that there was substantial evidence showing that petitioner was lawfully dismissed
and respondent observed due process in terminating her. NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor

Won there was substantial evidence to terminate her services

Yes. Respondent was able to prove by substantial evidence that petitioner’s dismissal is lawful.
Substantial evidence is defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Respondent presented documents and affidavits establishing
petitioner’s gross negligence and her breach of respondent’s trust and confidence in her. The
petitioner’s “inability to stop during her watch an over withdrawal by one member, amounting to
P250,000.00, and followed by a series of monthly withdrawals, “constitutes gross and habitual neglect
of duty that is a just cause for her dismissal.”

G.R. No. 206256, February 24, 2016
785 scra 89

Petitioner was hired by Crystal Shipping as Chief Cook. Thereafter, petitioner, while on board the vessel,
started suffering from chronic cough with excessive phlegm and experienced difficulty breathing. Upon
medical examination and it was found that he was suffering from "Bronchial Catarrh/Bronchitis; Pharnx
Irritation. Claiming that his illness that rendered him totally unfit for any sea duty is work-related,
petitioner sought for the payment of permanent disability benefits but respondents failed or refused to
acknowledge that they are liable under the CBA. This prompted petitioner to initiate an action for
recovery of permanent disability benefits. Respondents disavowed liability for the illness of petitioner
citing the medical report of the company designated physician that "Dilated Cardiomyopathy, Bicuspid
Aortic Stenosis" is a condition that is congenital in nature and is not caused or aggravated by his work as
a Chief Cook.

Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner.

Nlrc affirmed.
Ca reversed nlrc.

Won his illness was aggravated by his work and hence, compensable

YES. Although the employer is not the insurer of the health of his employees, he takes them as he finds
them and assumes the risk of liability. The quantum of evidence required in labor cases to determine the
liability of an employer for the illness suffered by the employee under the POEA-SEC is not proof beyond
reasonable doubt but mere substantial evidence. All told, petitioner having established through
substantial evidence that his illness was aggravated by his work condition, and hence, compensable, no
grave abuse of discretion can be imputed against the NLRC in upholding the Labor Arbiter’s grant of
disability benefits.


G.R. No. 208646, June 15, 2016
793 scra 568

Appellant was charged before the RTC with the crime of rape. The prosecution established that the (8)
year-old AAA was sleeping in the sola of appellant's house and she awoke to find herself undressed with
appellant, whom she calls Tatay Loreto (the husband of her mother's sister), on top of her. Appellant
removed her underpants and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA complained of pain to no avail. The
incident was repeated shortly thereafter. Appellant then shouted threats against her and her family's
life.5 AAA subsequently reported the incident on even date to appellant's neighbor, Amas, who then
brought her to Barangay Captain.
Rtc convicted and the same was affirmed by ca.

Won the accused was properly found guilty

Yes. The court ruled that while indeed AAA’s medical examination did not show traces of injuries or
lacerations, the rule is settled that hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape. In fact, it has also
been ruled that a medical examination is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable
element for conviction in rape. Of primary importance is the clear, unequivocal and credible testimony
of private complainant which we so find in the instant casel