agullo-vs

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

1/11

PAOLO NAZARENO USA LLB 1-B

ELVIRA AGULLO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

FACTS:

The charge of malversation against petitioner Alvira germinate from an

a!it con!cte on 1" #!l$ 1%&' ($ )gnacio *ere+, A!iting Eaminer ))), as a res!lt

of .hich a P/',"0"/' cash shortage .as iscovere on petitioner2s acco!nta(ilit$

On the same ate, *ere+ informe petitioner of sai 3ning of cash shortage an

re4!ire the latter, thro!gh a letter of eman, to 5pro!ce immeiatel$ the

missing f!ns5 6!rther, petitioner .as re4!ire to s!(mit .ithin 7/ ho!rs from

receipt a .ritten eplanation of the cash shortage)n the co!rse of the pre-trial,

petitioner Ag!llo concee the fact of a!it an amitte the 3nings in the Report

of 8ash Eamination an the facts set forth in the Letter of 9eman )n e:ect, she

amitte the fact of shortage in the amo!nt state in the )nformation

Ag!llo, at all stages of the criminal inictment, persistentl$ professe her

innocence of the charge an categoricall$ enie having malverse or convertethe p!(lic f!ns in 4!estion for her o.n personal !se or (ene3t ;ith petitioner2s

amission of the fact of cash shortage, the prosec!tion then reste its case The

Sanigan(a$an renere its assaile ecision, convicting petitioner Ag!llo of the

crime of malversation of p!(lic f!ns, ratiocinating principall$ that herein petitioner?@

ISSUE: ;hether or not the Sanigan(a$an overloo=e certain evience of

s!(stance .hich violates the petitioner2s constit!tional right to (e pres!me

innocent !ntil proven other.ise

RULING:

es The Sanigan(a$an !no!(tel$ isregare or overloo=e certain

evience of s!(stance .hich, to a large etent, (ear consiera(le .eight in the

a!ication of petitioner2s g!ilt or the aCrmation of her constit!tional right to (e

pres!me innocent !ntil proven other.ise, as r!le ($ the S!preme 8o!rt The$

hol that the petitioner has satisfactoril$ overcome an re(!tte ($ competent

proof, the prima facie evience of conversion so as to eonerate her from the

charge of malversation To this en, petitioner presente evience thatsatisfactoril$ prove that not a single centavo of the missing f!ns .as !se for her

o.n personal (ene3t or gain Nota(l$, the Sanigan(a$an, in convicting petitioner,

o(vio!sl$ relie more on the Da.s an e3ciencies in the evience presente ($

the efense, not on the strength an merit of the prosec!tion2s evience This

co!rse of action is impermissi(le for the evience of the prosec!tion clearl$ cannot

s!stain a conviction

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

2/11


(alance the scales in .hat .o!l other.ise (e an !neven contest (et.een the lone

inivi!al pitte against the People of the Philippines an all the reso!rces at their

comman

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

3/11


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SERGIO BATO, ET AL.

FACTS:

On or a(o!t the %th a$ of Ja$, 1%&& in the J!nicipalit$ of Pastrana,

Province of Le$te, Philippines, an .ithin the !risiction of this Konora(le 8o!rt, the

a(ove-name acc!se, conspiring, confeerating an m!t!all$ helping each other,

.ith intent to =ill, .ith treacher$ an evient premeitation an ta=ing avantage

of s!perior strength, i then an there .ilf!ll$, !nla.f!ll$ an felonio!sl$ attac=,

assa!lt, sta( an .o!n one Ernesto 6lores, Sr .ith eal$ .eapons locall$ =no.n

as 5s!nang5 .hich the acc!se ha provie themselves for the p!rpose, there($

hitting an inDicting !pon sai Ernesto 6lores, Sr several .o!ns on the i:erent

parts of his (o$ .hich .o!ns ca!se his eath

The prosec!tion contens that on Ja$ %, 1%&& at a(o!t three ocloc= in the

afternoon, Ernesto 6lores, #r together .ith his father Ernesto 6lores, Sr, .ere going

home from Baranga$ Tingi(, Pastrana, Le$te to San Ag!stin, #aro, Le$te ;hilepassing ($ Baranga$ Ki(!ca.an, the$ .ere calle ($ the t.o appellants, A(raham

an Sergio, (oth s!rname Bato, to oin them in a rin=ing spree in the ho!se of

Paran Lesca(o, .hich Ernesto, Sr accepte Ernesto, #r sat a(o!t t.o >/? meters

a.a$ from his father .hile the latter oine appellants for t.o ho!rs rin=ing t!(a

;hen his father .as alrea$ r!n=, appellants tie him >father? .ith his hans

place at the (ac= Later, he sa. appellants (ring his father to some.here elseOn

the other han, the acc!se raise the efense of enial The$ maintaine that

their ienti3cation as the allege perpetrators of Ernestos m!rer .as merel$ an

aftertho!ght, necessitate ($ a earth of strong evience on the part of the

prosec!tion The$ presente as .itness Pfc Benamin Jontaneos, .ho aCrme

that the entr$ he mae in the police (lotter i not mention the acc!se ass!spects in the crime Ke f!rther testi3e that it .as the (aranga$ captain .ho

reporte the incient to the police, contraicting Ernesto #r .ho claime that he i

so

ISSUES: ;hether or not there is a 4!ant!m of proof re4!ire to overcome the

constit!tional pres!mption of innocence

RULING:

No After a caref!l per!sal of the evience a!ce ($ the prosec!tion, .e

(elieve that appellants a!thorship of the crime .as not esta(lishe (e$on

reasona(le o!(t The S!preme 8o!rt hel that p!rs!ant to the octrine that

appeals involving recl!sion perpet!a are s!(ect to a revie. e novo, this 8o!rt

pore over the entire recors of (oth lo.er co!rts an concl!e, after caref!l

eli(eration, that the appellant is entitle to an ac4!ittal The circ!mstantial

evience a!ce ($ the prosec!tion fails to evo=e moral certaint$ that appellants

are g!ilt$ The totalit$ of the prosec!tion evience oes not constit!te an !n(ro=en

chain leaing (e$on reasona(le o!(t to the g!ilt of the acc!se The 8onstit!tion

manates that an acc!se shall (e pres!me innocent !ntil the contrar$ is proven

(e$on reasona(le o!(t ;here the State fails to meet the 4!ant!m of proof

re4!ire to overcome the constit!tional pres!mption, the acc!se is entitle to an

ac4!ittal regarless of the .ea=ness or even the a(sence of his efense B$

constit!tional 3at, the (!ren of proof is accoringl$ veste on the prosec!tion )n

ac4!itting the herein appellant, this 8o!rt is not ecreeing that he i not

participate in the =illing )t is merel$ r!ling that the state faile to present s!Ccient

evience to overt!rn the constit!tional pres!mption of innocence

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

4/11


the .itness esta(lishe onl$ the follo.ing circ!mstances s!rro!ning the crimeM >1?

that the Bato (rothers invite the victim an his son for a rin=H >/? that after t.o

ho!rs of rin=ing, sai (rothers s!enl$ tie the hans of the oler 6lores an too=

him a.a$H an >? that the follo.ing a$, the (o$ of the victim, .hich s!staine

several hac= an sta( .o!ns, .as recovere at the Binaha-an River, a(o!t 3ve

=ilometers a.a$ from .here he .as last seen ($ the .itnessPEOPEL OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL

FACTS:

On #!ne 10, /00, a con3ential informant reporte 9e *!+man2s r!g

p!shing activities to Alcala, Pangasinan2s 8hief of Police, Sotero Soriano, #r Soriano

immeiatel$ forme a team to con!ct a (!$-(!st operation" After a short (rie3ng,

the team proceee to 9e *!+man2s ho!se At the trial, appellant enie the

charges against him Ke claime that, on the morning of #!ne 10, /00, he .as on

the secon Door of his ho!se .atching television .hen he .as informe ($ his .ifethat police oCcers .ere loo=ing for him Ke claime that SPO1 Llanillo informe him

a(o!t a report that he >9e *!+man? .as repac=ing sha(!, .hich he enie

Ke also arg!es that the prosec!tion faile to sho. that the police oCcers

complie .ith the manator$ proce!res !ner RA No %1' )n partic!lar, he

points to the fact that the sei+e items .ere not mar=e immeiatel$ after his

arrestH that the police oCcers faile to ma=e an inventor$ of the sei+e items in his

presence or in the presence of his co!nsel an of a representative from the meia

an from the 9epartment of #!stice >9O#?H an that no photographs .ere ta=en of

the sei+e items an of appellant Appellant claims that the !n(ro=en chain of

c!sto$ of the evience .as not esta(lishe The appellant also contens that the

fail!re of the police oCcers to enter the (!$-(!st operation in the police (lotter

(efore the sai operation, the lac= of coorination .ith the Philippine 9r!g

Enforcement Agenc$ >P9EA?, an the fail!re to o(serve the re4!irements of RA No

%1' have e:ectivel$ overt!rne the pres!mption of reg!larit$ in the performance

of the police oCcers2 !ties

ISSUE: ;hether or not the egree of proof has (een met to prosec!te the acc!se

RULING:

No Even tho!gh the prosec!tion s!ccessf!ll$ esta(lishe the 3rst an thir

elements of the crime an trial co!rt correctl$ fo!n that the (!$-(!st transaction

too= place, there is, ho.ever, a pro(lem in the prosec!tion2s e:ort to esta(lish the

integrit$ of the corp!s elicti )n a prosec!tion for violation of the 9angero!s 9r!gs

Act, the eistence of the angero!s r!g is a conition sine 4!a non for conviction

The angero!s r!g is the ver$ corp!s elicti of the crime The co!rt cannot

pres!me .hat these gro!ns are or that the$ even eist )n this case, it .as

amitte that it .as SPO aao, the assigne investigator, .ho mar=e the sei+e

items, an onl$ !pon seeing the items for the 3rst time at the police station

The fail!re to esta(lish, thro!gh convincing proof, that the integrit$ of thesei+e items has (een ae4!atel$ preserve thro!gh an !n(ro=en chain of c!sto$

is eno!gh to engener reasona(le o!(t on the g!ilt of an acc!se Reasona(le

o!(t is that o!(t engenere ($ an investigation of the .hole proof an an

ina(ilit$ after s!ch investigation to let the min rest !pon the certaint$ of g!ilt

A(sol!te certaint$ of g!ilt is not emane ($ the la. to convict a person charge

.ith a crime, (!t moral certaint$ is re4!ire as to ever$ proposition of proof

re4!isite to constit!te the o:ense A conviction cannot (e s!staine if there is a

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

5/11


persistent o!(t on the ientit$ of the r!g The pres!mption of reg!larit$ in the

performance of oCcial !t$ cannot ($ itself overcome the pres!mption of innocence

nor constit!te proof (e$on reasona(le o!(t Joreover, the fail!re to o(serve the

proper proce!re negates the operation of the pres!mption of reg!larit$ accore

to police oCcers As a general r!le, the testimonies of the police oCcers .ho

apprehene the acc!se are accore f!ll faith an creit (eca!se of thepres!mption that the$ have performe their !ties reg!larl$ B!t .hen the

performance of their !ties is tainte .ith fail!re to compl$ .ith the proce!re an

g!ielines prescri(e, the pres!mption is e:ectivel$ estro$e Th!s, the evience

for the prosec!tion m!st stan or fall on its o.n .eight an cannot (e allo.e to

ra. strength from the .ea=ness of the efense

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

6/11


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELOY MAGSI ET AL

FACTS:

On or a(o!t the 1"th a$ of #an!ar$, 1%'& in the J!nicipalit$ of San

6ernano, La Union, Philippines the a(ove-name acc!se, namel$ Elo$ Jagsi et al

conspiring an confeerating .ith their fello. acc!se m!t!all$ helping one

another .ith intent to =ill an .ith treacher$, .hile the sai acc!se .ere arme

.ith car(ine pistols an revolvers i then an there .ilf!ll$, !nla.f!ll$ an

feloni!sl$ enter the ho!se .here #es!s *allaro an his famil$ live an once insie

the sai ho!se, attac=, assa!lt an shoot him, inDicting m!ltiple g!nshot .o!ns on

the i:erent parts of his (o$ .hich ca!se his instantaneo!s eath Soon after

appellant .as apprehene on A!g!st /0, 1%70, his arraignment .as sche!le

(efore the 8riminal 8irc!it 8o!rt of San 6ernano, La Union

9espite appointment ($ the co!rt of Att$ Jario Rivera as e oCcio co!nsel

for the acc!se, hearing .as re-set to Septem(er &, 1%70 on motion of Att$ Rivera,.ho .as prompte to as= for it (eca!se of acc!se esire to (e represente ($ a e

parte co!nsel Prior to the net hearing, Att$ Rivera move to .ithra. as e oCcio

co!nsel an it .as favora(l$ acte on ($ the co!rt on Septem(er 7, 1%70 At the

secon hearing on Septem(er &, 1%70, for fail!re of the e oCcio an e parte

co!nsels to appear, espite a secon call of the case, the hearing .as re-set for the

net a$ an the co!rt appointe Att$ 9ominaor 8ariaso e oCcio co!nsel for the

acc!se On the thir hearing ate, neither the e parte nor the e oCcio co!nsel

.as in 8o!rt, so Att$ Rivera .as reappointe that a$ as e oCcio co!nsel for

arraignment p!rposes onl$ Appellant .as fo!n g!ilt$ of m!rer an mae to s!:er

the eath penalt$

ISSUE: ;hether or not there .as a violation of the rights of the acc!se

RULING:

es The con!ct of the co!rt a 4!o ta=en in the light of the foregoing

ecisions clearl$ esta(lishe the fact that it ha (een remiss in its !ties to the

herein acc!se, .ho .as convicte on an improvient plea of g!ilt$ At the o!tset, it

m!st (e state that the plea of g!ilt$ ($ the t.o acc!se .ere improvientl$ lai

9!ring the arraignment, the trial !ge i not ahere strictl$ to the octrine laio.n in People vs Ap!han .here the S!preme 8o!rt post!late the g!ieline in

cases .here there is a plea of g!ilt$ ($ the acc!se )n the instant cases !ner

revie., the co!rt o(serve that the trial !ge faile to eplain f!ll$ to the t.o

acc!se the meaning an the far-reaching e:ect of their plea )t .as not eplaine

to them the meaning of the term treacher$, an aggravating circ!mstance .hich

4!ali3e the crime to m!rer an fr!strate m!rer respectivel$ Neither i the

!ge eplain the terms evient premeitation an reciivism, (oth aggravating

circ!mstances allege in the information .hich ha legal signi3cance an

conse4!ences not orinaril$ !nerstana(le to a la$man

The S!preme 8o!rt r!le that the esire to spee !p the isposition of cases

sho!l not (e e:ecte at the sacri3ce of the (asic rights of the acc!se The trialco!rts sho!l eercise solicito!s care (efore sentencing the acc!se on a plea of

g!ilt$ especiall$ in capital o:enses ($ 3rst ins!ring that the acc!se f!ll$

!nerstans the gravit$ of the o:ense, the severit$ of the conse4!ences attache

thereto as .ell as the meaning an signi3cance of his plea of g!ilt$H an that the

pr!ent an proper thing to o in capital cases is to ta=e testimon$, to ass!re the

co!rt that the acc!se has not mis!nerstoo the nat!re an e:ect of his plea of

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

7/11


g!ilt$ Jere pro-forma appointment of e oCcio co!nsel, .ho fails to gen!inel$

protect the interests of the acc!se, resetting of hearing ($ the co!rt for allege

reception of evience .hen in fact none .as con!cte, perf!nctor$ 4!eries

aresse to the acc!se .hether he !nerstans the charges an the gravit$ of

the penalt$, are not s!Ccient compliance

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

8/11


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLANDO RIVERA

FACTS:

8omplainant Erlanie Rivera testi3e that sometime in Jarch 1%%7, her

$o!nger sister, Zaira, .as ta=en ($ their parents to the Escolastica Romero

Jemorial Kospital in L!(ao, Pampanga Acc!se-appellant enie that he rape

Erlanie Rivera Ke allege that the rape charge .as 3le against him (eca!se his

.ife, Evangeline, ha a paramo!r an resente him (eca!se he h!rt her Ke

eplaine that he sa. his .ife tal=ing .ith another man in their ho!se an (eat her

!p on April 1, 1%%7 (eca!se he hear that she ha a lover Ke also sai that his .ife

.as angr$ .ith him (eca!se he ha a mistress .ho sta$e in their ho!se for three

.ee=s Ke f!rther state that his .ife2s relatives .ere li=e.ise angr$ .ith him

(eca!se he ca!se the lot o.ne ($ his father-in-la. in Santiago, L!(ao, Pampanga

to (e registere in his name Ke sai that he .as compelle to sign a .aiver of his

rights over the lan o.ne ($ his parents-in-la. The efense presente a letter to

acc!se-appellant .ritten ($ his .ife, .ho .as as=ing him to sign a oc!ment sothat she co!l atten to it (efore he got o!t of prison

Acc!se-appellant invo=es his right to !e process of la. Ke claims that he

.as enie the same (eca!se the trial !ge isallo.e his la.$er from cross-

eamining Erlanie Rivera concerning the latter2s s.orn statements on the gro!n of

irrelevance an immaterialit$H the trial co!rt enie the motion mae ($ acc!se-

appellant2s co!nsel e o3cio to postpone the cross-eamination of 9r Barin, the

eamining ph$sician, (eca!se of .hich the sai co!nsel conse4!entl$ .aive the

cross-eamination of 9r BarinH the !ge propo!ne n!mero!s 4!estions to

acc!se-appellant !ring his cross-eamination ($ the prosec!torH an the trial

co!rt2s ecision .as prom!lgate !st one a$ after acc!se-appellant s!(mittehis memoran!m

ISSUE:;hether or not Rolano Rivera .as enie of his right to !e process of la.

RULING:

No, there .as !e process The S!preme 8o!rt hel that the$ 3n no merit

in acc!se-appellant2s arg!ment that he .as enie !e process consiering the

spee .ith .hich the trial co!rt renere !gment against him, .hich !gment.as prom!lgate one a$ after he 3le his memoran!m The ecision renere ($

the trial co!rt gives a clear acco!nt of the facts an the la. on .hich it is (ase )t

isc!sses in f!ll the co!rt2s 3nings on the crei(ilit$ of (oth the prosec!tion an

efense .itnesses an its eval!ation of the evience of (oth parties

A revie. of the trial co!rt2s ecision sho.s that its 3nings .ere (ase on the

recors of this case an the transcripts of stenographic notes !ring the trial The

spee .ith .hich the trial co!rt ispose of the case cannot th!s (e attri(!te to

the in!icio!s performance of its f!nction )nee, a !ge is not s!ppose to

st!$ a case onl$ after all the pertinent pleaings have (een 3le )t is a mar= of

iligence an evotion to !t$ that a !ge st!ies a case long (efore the ealine

set for the prom!lgation of his ecision has arrive The evience proves (e$onreasona(le o!(t the g!ilt of acc!se-appellant )n revie.ing rape cases, .e have

(een g!ie ($ the follo.ing principlesM >a? An acc!sation for rape is eas$ to ma=e,

iCc!lt to prove, an even more iCc!lt to isproveH >(? )n vie. of the intrinsic

nat!re of the crime, the testimon$ of the complainant m!st (e scr!tini+e .ith

etreme ca!tionH an >c? The evience for the prosec!tion m!st stan on its o.n

merits an cannot ra. strength from the .ea=ness of the evience for the

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

9/11


efense Ko.ever, the prosec!tion having faile to present evience as to

complainant2s age, acc!se-appellant can (e convicte onl$ of simple rape, for

.hich the penalt$ is recl!sion perpet!a

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

10/11


THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. OSCAR ALCANZADO

FACTS:

This is a petition for revie. on certiorari !ner R!le " of the R!les of 8o!rt

assailing the ecision iss!e ($ the Regional Trial 8o!rt of Ja=ati 8it$ 3ning

acc!se Oscar Alcan+ao $ Or4!e+a g!ilt$ (e$on reasona(le o!(t of J!rer

Ko.ever, a caref!l eamination of the recors reveals that the assaile ecision .ill

have to (e set asie an the recors remane (ac= to the RT8 for reception of

evience for the efense The RT8 committe a ver$ serio!s error in prom!lgating a

ecision after en$ing the em!rrer to evience 3le ($ appellant !pon prior leave

of co!rt, .itho!t 3rst giving appellant the opport!nit$ to present his evience The

evience for the prosec!tion sho. that on the earl$ morning of #!ne 17, 1%%&, the

Baranga$ Tanos of Bel-Air, .hile on !t$, .hich is aacent to T*)6 American Bar,

hear t.o shotsH .hen the$ investigate the$ fo!n a ea (o$ of the victim .ith

t.o g!nshot .o!ns insie the storeroom of T*)6 (eing g!are ($ the acc!se

The acc!se, .ho .as the sec!rit$ g!ar of the T*)6, s!rrenere his service3rearm to policeman Bagon .hich .as fo!n to have spent t.o spent shells The

(allistic report states that the t.o spent shells .ere 3re from the g!n s!rrenere

($ the acc!se to policeman Bagon

ISSUEM ;hether or not there is a violation of the constit!tional right of the acc!se

to (e hear on his efense

RULING:

es Kis constit!tional rights .ere violate Appellant ha 3le a motion for

leave to 3le a em!rrer to evience .hich .as grante ($ the RT8 an therefore

!pon enial of his em!rrer, if inee it .as enie, the trial co!rt sho!l have

given appellant the opport!nit$ to present his evience E4!all$ astonishing is the

fact that appellant2s co!nsel i not raise sai irreg!larit$ as an iss!e in the RT8 or

in this 8o!rt )n e:ect, appellant has not (een accore !e process 9!e to the

proce!ral !nfairness an complete miscarriage of !stice in the hanling of the

proceeings in the RT8, a reman of the case for reception of efense evience is

.arrante The S!preme 8o!rt r!le that contrar$ to the RT82s assertion in its

ecision that the em!rrer to evience .as enie, the recors of the case o not

reveal that there .as an$ prior orer en$ing appellant2s em!rrer to evience(efore the renition of the assaile !gment Evientl$, the trial co!rt violate the

afore4!ote provisions of Section 1, R!le 11%

The constit!tional right of the acc!se to (e hear on his efense has (een

violate So that appellant ma$ (e spare from f!rther ela$, the 8o!rt eems it

necessar$ to treat the herein assaile !gment as a mere resol!tion en$ing the

em!rrer to evience an ascertain .hether the RT8 has committe grave a(!se of

iscretion in not granting the same 8onse4!entl$, for p!rposes of etermining

.hether the em!rrer to evience sho!l have (een grante, the connection

(et.een the service g!n an appellant as the perpetrator of the shooting, .itho!t

an$ co!ntervailing evience, ha (een s!Ccientl$ esta(lishe Th!s, the RT8 i

not commit an$ grave a(!se of iscretion in en$ing the em!rrer to evience BUT

it committe grave a(!se of iscretion in o!trightl$ convicting appellant of the

crime of m!rer an sentencing him to s!:er recl!sion perpet!a .hen appellant

has not (een given the opport!nit$ to a!ce evience in his efense, p!rs!ant to

Section 1, R!le 11% of the R!les of 8o!rt

7/24/2019 AGULLO-VS

11/11


6!rther, the attenant !stif$ing, mitigating or aggravating circ!mstance s!ch

as self-efense, treacher$ an vol!ntar$ s!rrener co!l onl$ (e ascertaine f!ll$

after the efense evience, re(!ttal an s!r-re(!ttal, if an$, shall have (een

a!ce an eval!ate ($ the RT8 in the renition of its !gment on the case Ka

Presiing #!ge Rosario, #r not comp!lsoril$ retire from the #!iciar$, he co!l have

(een amonishe to (e more circ!mspect in the performance of his !ties

agullo-vs

Documents