spl 1st batch of cases

Upload: jayson-ababa

Post on 23-Feb-2018

221 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    1/78

    G.R. No. 199067 November 11, 2013

    NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS,Petitioner,

    vs.

    PURIFIAION F. FELIPE,Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    !EN"O#A, J.:

    This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 4 or the Rules or

    Court see!s to review, reverse and set aside the "une #$, %$&&

    Decision&or the Court of 'ppeals (C') in C'*+.R. SP No.

    &%$&$$,%and its Octoer %&, %$&& Resolution,#for ein- issued in

    a anner not in accord with law and /urisprudence.

    This case steed fro a criinal coplaint for violation or

    0atas Paansa 0l-. %% (0P %%) filed 1 petitioner Nissan

    +aller1*Orti-as Nissan), an entit1 en-a-ed in the usiness or car

    dealership, a-ainst respondent Purificacion 2. 2elipe

    (Purificacion) with the Office of the Cit1 Prosecutor of 3ueonCit1. The said office found proale cause to indict Purificacion

    and filed an Inforation efore the 5etropolitan Trial Court,

    (raffled to 0ranch 4&), 3ueon Cit1 (5eTC), for her issuance of a

    postdated chec! in the aount of P&,$%$,$$$.$$, which was

    suse6uentl1 dishonored upon presentent due to 7STOP

    P'85ENT.7

    Purificacion issued the said chec! ecause her son, 2rederic!

    2elipe (2rederic!), attracted 1 a hu-e discount ofP%%$,$$$.$$,

    purchased a Nissan Terrano 494 sports and utilit1 vehicle (S:;)

    fro Nissan. The ter of the transaction was Cash*on*Deliver1

    and no downpa1ent was re6uired. The S:; was delivered on

    5a1 &4, &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    2/78

    or autoaticall1 ade her a part1 to the contract.Thus, the

    decretal portion of the /ud-ent readsA

    BERE2ORE, findin- erit therefro, the instant petition is

    +I;EN D:E CO:RSE and is here1 +R'NTED. The Decision

    and Order dated Deceer %%, %$$@ and 5a1 %$, %$$

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    3/78

    Purificacion was char-ed with violation of 0P %% for alle-edl1

    issuin- a worthless chec!. The essential eleents of the offense

    of violation of 0P %% are the followin-A

    (&) The a!in-, drawin-, and issuance of an1 chec! to appl1 for

    account or for value (%) The !nowled-e of the a!er, drawer, or

    issuer that at the tie of issue there were no sufficient funds in or

    credit with the drawee an! for the pa1ent of such chec! in full

    upon its presentent and (#) The dishonor of the chec! 1 the

    drawee an! for insufficienc1 of funds or credit or the dishonor for

    the sae reason had not the drawer, without an1 valid cause,

    ordered the drawee an! to stop pa1ent.%$

    ere, the first and third eleents were dul1 proven in the trial.

    Purificacion, however, was ac6uitted fro criinal liailit1

    ecause of the failure of the prosecution to prove the fact of

    notice of dishonor. Of the three (#) eleents, the second eleent

    is the hardest to prove as it involves a state of ind. %&Thus,

    Section % of 0P %% creates a presuption of !nowled-e of

    insufficienc1 of funds which, however, arises onl1 after it is proved

    that the issuer had received a written notice of dishonor and that

    within five () da1s fro receipt thereof, he failed to pa1 the

    aount of the chec! or to a!e arran-eents for its pa1ent.%%

    Purificacion was ac6uitted ecause the eleent of notice of

    dishonor was not sufficientl1 estalished.1wphi1Nevertheless,

    the act or oission fro which her civil liailit1 arose, which was

    the a!in- or the issuin- of the su/ect worthless chec!, clearl1

    e9isted. er ac6uittal fro the criinal char-e of 0P %% was

    ased on reasonale dout and it did not relieve her of the

    correspondin- civil liailit1. The Court cannot a-ree ore when

    the 5eTC ruled thatA

    ' person ac6uitted of a criinal char-e, however, is not

    necessaril1 civill1 free ecause the 6uantu of proof re6uired in

    criinal prosecution (proof e1ond reasonale dout) is -reater

    than that re6uired for civil liailit1 (ere preponderance of

    evidence). In order to e copletel1 free fro civil liailit1, a

    person>s ac6uittal ust e ased on the fact he did not coit

    the offense. If the ac6uittal is ased erel1 on reasonale dout,

    the accused a1 still e held civill1 liale since this does not

    ean he did not coit the act coplained of. It a1 onl1 e that

    the facts proved did not constitute the offense char-ed.%#

    The Court is also one with the C' when it stated that the liailit1

    of Purificacion was liited to her act of issuin- a worthless chec!.

    The Court, however, does not a-ree with the C' when it went to

    state further that 1 her ac6uittal in the criinal char-e, there was

    no ore asis for her to e held civill1 liale to Nissan. The

    ac6uittal was /ust ased on reasonale dout and it did not

    chan-e the fact that she issued the su/ect chec! which was

    suse6uentl1 dishonored upon its presentent.

    Purificacion herself aditted havin- issued the su/ect chec! in

    the aount of P&,$%$,$$$.$$ after 2rederic! as!ed her to do it as

    pa1ent for his oli-ation with Nissan. er clai that she issued

    the chec! as a ere 7show chec!7 to oost 2rederic!>s credit

    standin- was not convincin- ecause there was no credit

    standin- to oost as her son had alread1 defaulted in his

    oli-ation to Nissan. ad it een issued prior to the sale of the

    vehicle, the 7show chec!7 clai could e -iven credence. It was

    not, however, the case here. It was clear that she assued herson>s oli-ation with Nissan and issued the chec! to pa1 it. The

    ar-uent that it was a ere 7show chec!7 after her son was

    alread1 in default its sipl1 ludicrous.

    The Court shall not e elaored with the issue of whether or not

    Purificacion was an accoodation part1 ecause she was not.

    +rantin- that she was, it is with ore reason that she cannot

    escape an1 civil liailit1 ecause Section %

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    4/78

    'sent unlawful a--ression, there can e no self*defense,

    coplete or incoplete.

    0ut all is not lost. The severe eatin-s repeatedl1 inflicted on

    appellant constituted a for of cuulative provocation that ro!e

    down her ps1cholo-ical resistance and self*control. This

    ps1cholo-ical paral1sis she suffered diinished her will power,

    there1 entitlin- her to the iti-atin- factor under para-raphs o4 )5er 2 (o4r*=

    A' I )m /o *4re :(e/ (e +)me b)+ 5or 5oo:-4. ?1@

    Ta!en in its entiret1, there is a dearth of edical evidence on

    record to support the prosecutions clai that Rufino would have

    died without tiel1 edical intervention. Thus, the Court finds

    'rnel liale onl1 for attepted hoicide and entitled to the

    iti-atin- circustance of voluntar1 surrender.

    T(ree.Ordinaril1, 'rnel would no lon-er e entitled to appl1 for

    proation, he havin- appealed fro the /ud-ent of the RTC

    convictin- hi for frustrated hoicide.

    0ut, the Court finds 'rnel -uilt1 onl1 of the lesser crie of

    attepted hoicide and holds that the a9iu of the penalt1

    iposed on hi should e lowered to iprisonent of four

    onths of arrestomayor, as iniu, to two 1ears and four

    onths ofprision correccional, as a9iu. Bith this new

    penalt1, it would e ut fair to allow hi the ri-ht to appl1 for

    proation upon reand of the case to the RTC.

    Soe in the Court disa-rees. The1 contend that proation is a

    ere privile-e -ranted 1 the state onl1 to 6ualified convicted

    offenders. Section 4 of the proation law (PD

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    29/78

    Secondl1, it is true that under the proation law the accused who

    appeals fro the /ud-ent of conviction is dis6ualified fro

    availin- hiself of the enefits of proation. 0ut, as it happens,

    two /ud-ents of conviction have een eted out to 'rnelA one, a

    conviction for frustrated hoicide 1 the re-ional trial court, now

    set aside and, two, a conviction for attepted hoicide 1 the

    Supree Court.

    If the Court chooses to -o 1 the dissentin- opinions hard

    position, it will appl1 the proation law on 'rnel ased on the trial

    courts annulled /ud-ent a-ainst hi. e will not e entitled to

    proation ecause of the severe penalt1 that such /ud-ent

    iposed on hi. 5ore, the Supree Courts /ud-ent of

    conviction for a lesser offense and a li-hter penalt1 will also have

    to end over to the trial courts /ud-enteven if this has een

    found in error. 'nd, worse, 'rnel will now also e ade to pa1 for

    the trial courts erroneous /ud-ent with the forfeiture of his ri-ht

    to appl1 for proation.Ang #abayo ang nag#asala, ang hagupit

    ay sa #alabaw (the horse errs, the caraao -ets the whip).Bhere

    is /ustice there

    The dissentin- opinion also e9presses apprehension that allowin-

    'rnel to appl1 for proation would dilute the rulin- of this Court

    in Francisco v .ourt of AppealsJ&?Kthat the proation law re6uires

    that an accused ust not have appealed his conviction efore he

    can avail hiself of proation. 0ut there is a hu-e difference

    etween Franciscoand this case.

    In Francisco, the 5etropolitan Trial Court (5eTC) of 5a!ati found

    the accused -uilt1 of -rave oral defaation and sentenced hi to

    a prison ter of one 1ear and one da1 to one 1ear and ei-ht

    onths ofprision correccional, a clearl1 proationale

    penalt1.Proation was his to as! Still, he chose to appeal,

    see!in- an ac6uittal, hence clearl1 waivin- his ri-ht to appl1 for

    proation. Bhen the ac6uittal did not coe, he wanted

    proation. The Court would not of course let hi. It served hi

    ri-ht that he wanted to save his ca!e and eat it too. e certainl1

    could not have oth appeal and proation.

    The Proation aw, said the Court in Francisco, re6uires that an

    accused ust not have appealed his conviction efore he can

    avail hiself of proation. This re6uireent outlaws the eleent

    of speculation on the part of the accusedto wa-er on the result of

    his appealthat when his conviction is finall1 affired on appeal,

    the oent of truth well*ni-h at hand, and the service of his

    sentence inevitale, he now applies for proation as an escape

    hatch thus renderin- nu-ator1 the appellate courts affirance of

    his conviction.J&=K

    ere, however, 'rnel did not appeal fro a /ud-ent that would

    have allowed hi to appl1 for proation. e did not have a choice

    etween appeal and proation. e was not in a position to sa1, 01

    ta!in- this appeal, I choose not to appl1 for proation. The stiff

    penalt1 that the trial court iposed on hi denied hi that

    choice. Thus, a rulin- that would allow 'rnel to now see!

    proation under this Courts -reatl1 diinished penalt1 will not

    dilute the sound rulin- in Francisco. It reains that those who will

    appeal fro /ud-ents of conviction, when the1 have the option

    to tr1 for proation, forfeit their ri-ht to appl1 for that privile-e.

    0esides, in appealin- his case, 'rnel raised the issue of

    correctness of the penalt1 iposed on hi. e claied that the

    evidence at est warranted his conviction onl1 for attepted, not

    frustrated, hoicide, which crie called for a proationale

    penalt1. In a wa1, therefore, 'rnel sou-ht fro the e-innin- to

    rin- down the penalt1 to the level where the law would allow hi

    to appl1 for proation.

    In a real sense, the Courts findin- that 'rnel was -uilt1, not of

    frustrated hoicide, ut onl1 of attepted hoicide, is an ori-inal

    conviction that for the first tie iposes on hi a proationale

    penalt1. ad the RTC done hi ri-ht fro the start, it would have

    found hi -uilt1 of the correct offense and iposed on hi the

    ri-ht penalt1 of two 1ears and four onths a9iu. This would

    have afforded 'rnel the ri-ht to appl1 for proation.

    The Proation aw never intended to den1 an accused his ri-ht to

    proation throu-h no fault of his. The underl1in- philosoph1 of

    proation is one of lieralit1 towards the accused. Such

    philosoph1 is not served 1 a harsh and strin-ent interpretation of

    the statutor1 provisions.J&@K's "ustice ;icente ;. 5endoa said in

    his dissent in Francisco, the Proation aw ust not e re-arded

    as a ere privile-e to e -iven to the accused onl1 where it

    clearl1 appears he coes within its letter to do so would e to

    disre-ard the teachin- in an1 cases that the Proation aw

    should e applied in favor of the accused not ecause it is a

    criinal law ut to achieve its eneficent purpose. J&

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    30/78

    under-o reforation as a penitent offender, defeatin- the ver1

    purpose of the proation law.

    't an1 rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC done what was

    ri-ht and iposed on 'rnel the correct penalt1 of two 1ears and

    four onths a9iu, he would have had the ri-ht to appl1 for

    proation. No one could sa1 with certaint1 that he would have

    availed hiself of the ri-ht had the RTC done ri-ht 1 hi. The

    idea a1 not even have crossed his ind precisel1 since the

    penalt1 he -ot was not proationale.

    The 6uestion in this case is ultiatel1 one of fairness. Is it fair to

    den1 'rnel the ri-ht to appl1 for proation when the new penalt1

    that the Court iposes on hi is, unli!e the one erroneousl1

    iposed 1 the trial court, su/ect to proation

    $EREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTSthe

    petition, !O"IFIESthe Decision dated "ul1 #&, %$$= of the Court

    of 'ppeals in C'*+.R. CR %

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    31/78

    to ad/a "ara alli who will rin- her to 5ala1sia. Ronnie sent a

    te9t essa-e to alli ut the latter replied that she was not in her

    house. She was at the cit1 proper.

    On "une , %$$, at aout ?A$$ ocloc! in the evenin-,

    Ronnie 'rin-o1 and Rachel 'rin-o1 Caete arrived on oard a

    tric1cle driven 1 Ronnie at the house where olita was sta1in-

    at Southco ;illa-e. Ronnie as!ed if olita alread1 had a

    passport. olita said that she will orrow her sisters passport.

    Ronnie, Rachel and olita went to 0uenavista where olitas other

    sister, +ina Plando was sta1in-. er sister 5arife Plando was

    there at that tie. olita as!ed 5arife to let her

    use 5arifes passport. 5arife refused ut olita -ot the

    passport. 5arife cried. Ronnie, Rachel and olita proceeded

    toTua-a. Ronnie, Rachel and olita went to the house

    of ad/a "ara alli /ust two hundred eters awa1 fro the

    house of Ronnie in Tua-a. Ronnie introduced olita

    to ad/a "ara, sa1in- "i, she is also interested in -oin- to

    5ala1sia. olita handed a passport to ad/a "ara tellin- her that

    it elon-s to her sister 5arife Plando. ad/a "ara told her it isnot a prole ecause the1 have a connection with the D2'

    (Departent of 2orei-n 'ffairs) and 5arifes picture in the

    passport will e sustituted with olitas picture.

    Nestor Relapa-os arrived drivin- an owner*t1pe

    /eep. ad/a"ara introduced Nestor to olita as their financier

    who will accopan1 the to 5ala1sia. 9 9 9 olita noticed three

    other woen in ad/a "arashouse. The1 were one1, aout %$

    1ears old 5ichele, &< 1ears old, and another woan who is

    aout %@ 1ears old. The woen said that the1 are

    froIpil, Siu-a1 Province. Ronnie told olita that she will have

    an1 copanions -oin- to 5ala1sia to wor!. The1 will leave the

    ne9t da1, "une ?, and will eet at the wharf at %A#$ in the

    afternoon.

    On "une ?, %$$, olita went to aoan-a Cit1 wharf at %A$$

    ocloc! in the afternoon rin-in- a a- containin- her a!e*up

    and powder. She et at the wharf ad/a "ara alli,

    Ronnie 'rin-o1, one1 and 5ichele. Ronnie -ave to olita her

    oat tic!et for the vessel 5M; 5ar1 "o1 ound for Sanda!an,

    5ala1sia a passport in the nae of 5arife Plando ut with olitas

    picture on it, and P&,$$$.$$ in cash. ad/a "ara, olita, one1,

    5ichele and two other woen oarded the oat 5M; 5ar1 "o1

    ound for Sanda!an. Ronnie 'rin-o1 did not -o with the. e did

    not oard the oat. 9 9 9 'fter the oatsailed, ad/a "ara alli and Nestor Relapa-os approached

    olita and her copanions. Nestor told the that the1 will have a

    -ood /o in 5ala1sia as restaurant entertainers. The1 will serve

    food to custoers. The1 will not e hared.

    5M; 5ar1 "o1 arrived at the port of Sanda!an, 5ala1sia at &$A$$

    ocloc! in the ornin- of "une =, %$$. 'fter passin- throu-h the

    ii-ration office,ad/a "ara alli, Nestor Relapa-os, olita,

    one1, 5ichele and two other woen oarded a van for

    Gota Ginaalu. 9 9 9 't the hotel, NestorRelapa-os introduced

    to olita and her copanions a Chinese 5ala1 called 0oss as

    their eplo1er. 'fter loo!in- at the woen, 0oss rou-ht olita,

    one1, Diane and orraine to a restaurant near the hotel. Diane

    and orraine were also on aord 5M; 5ar1 "o1 when it left the

    port of aoan-a for Sanda!an on "une ?, %$$. Bhen the1

    were alread1 at the restaurant, a 2ilipina woan wor!in- theresaid that the place is a prostitution den and the woen there are

    used as prostitutes. olita and her copanions went ac! to the

    hotel. The1 told ad/a "ara and Nestor that the1 do not li!e to

    wor! as prostitutes. 9 9 9 'fter aout five inutes, another person

    called oss arrived. 9 9 9 JTKhe1 were fetched 1 a van at aout

    =A$$ ocloc! in the evenin- and rou-ht to Pipen Clu owned 1

    0oss 'wa, a 5ala1sian. 't the clu, the1 were told that the1 owe

    the clu %,$$$ rin--its each as pa1ent for the aount -iven 1

    the clu to ad/a "ara alli and Nestor Relapa-os. The1 will

    pa1 for the said aount 1 entertainin- custoers. The

    custoers will pa1 #$$ rin--its for short tie services of which $

    rin--its will -o to the entertainer, and $$ rin--its for over

    ni-ht service of which &$$ rin--its will e -iven to theentertainer. Pipen Clu is a i- clu in a two*store1 uildin-.

    There were aout &$$ woen wor!in- in the clu, an1 of the

    were 2ilipina woen.

    olita Plando was forced to wor! as entertainer at Pipen Clu.

    She started wor!in- at @A#$ in the evenin- of "une &4, %$$. She

    was -iven the nuer ?$ which was pinned on her. That ni-ht,

    she had her first custoer who selected her aon- the other

    woen at the clu. e was a ver1 i- an, aout #% 1ears old, a

    Chinese*5ala1 who loo!ed li!e a wrestler. The an paid for short

    tie service at the counter. olita was -iven 1 the cashier a

    sall pin! paper. She was instructed to !eep it. ' sall 1ellow

    paper is -iven to the entertainer for overni-ht services. Thecustoer rou-ht olita to a hotel. She did not li!e to -o with hi

    ut a oss at the clu told her that she could not do an1thin-. 't

    the hotel, the an po!ed a -un at olita and instructed her to

    undress. She refused. The an o9ed her on the side of her

    od1. She could not ear the pain. The an undressed her and

    had se9ual intercourse with her. e had se9ual intercourse with

    her ever1 fifteen inutes or four ties in one hour. Bhen the

    custoer went inside the cofort roo, olita put on her clothes

    and left. The custoer followed her and wanted to rin- her ac!

    to the hotel ut olita refused. 't aout &A$$ ocloc! in the ornin-

    of "une &, %$$, olita was chosen 1 another custoer, a tall

    dar! an, aout 4$ 1ears old. The custoer paid for an overni-ht

    service at the counter and rou-ht olita to 5ariner otel which isfar fro Pipen Clu. 't the hotel, the an told olita to undress.

    Bhen she refused, the an rou-ht her to the cofort roo and

    uped her head on the wall. olita felt di1. The an opened

    the shower and said that oth of the will ta!e a ath. olitas

    clothes -ot wet. She was cr1in-. The an undressed her and had

    se9ual intercourse with her. The1 sta1ed at the hotel until &&A$$

    ocloc! in the ornin- of "une &, %$$. The custoer used olita

    an1 ties. e had se9ual intercourse with her ever1 hour.

    31

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    32/78

    olita wor!ed at Pipen Clu fro "une &4 to "ul1 @, %$$. Ever1

    ni-ht, a custoer used her. She had at least one custoer or

    ore a ni-ht, and at ost, she had around five custoers a ni-ht.

    The1 all had se9ual intercourse with her. On "ul1

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    33/78

    BERE2ORE, the Court finds accused 'D"' "'R5' 'I 1

    P:RI and RONNIE 'RIN+O8 1 5'SION +:IT8 e1ond

    reasonale dout in Criinal Case No. %&

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    34/78

    olita,Relapa-os and their other copanions to continue their

    /ourne1 towards the cit1 proper of Gota Ginaalu.%#'fter spendin-

    several da1s in 5ala1sia with her dau-hter and son*in*

    law, alli went to 0runei to visit a cousin on &% "une %$$, and

    headed ac! to 5ala1sia on &4 "une %$$.%4

    alli assails the crediilit1 of olita due to inconsistencies in her

    testion1 with re-ard toA (&) olita not ein- in Southco ;illa-e

    on "une %$$ at ?A$$ p.., as she claied, ut

    in 0uenavista ;illa-e and (%) olitas clai

    that alli and Relapa-os on &% "une %$$ rou-ht the -irls to

    auan, when in fact, alli was alread1 in 0runei on &% "une

    %$$, as evidenced 1 the stap in her passport.%

    reb> o5 Te*mo/e*

    0oth 'rin-o1 and alli, in their respective 'ppeal 0riefs, assail the

    testion1 of olita due to its alle-ed inconsistenc1 on iaterial

    facts, such as the status of olitas -randfather, the nae of the

    villa-e she was in, the date she was rou-ht to auan, 5ala1sia,

    and the li!e. In a lon- line of cases, the Court has ruled that

    inconsistencies pointed out 1 the accused in the testion1 of

    prosecution witnesses relatin- to inor details do not destro1 the

    crediilit1 of witnesses.%?On the contrar1, the1 indicate that the

    witnesses were tellin- the truth and not previousl1 rehearsed.%=

    The clear aterial inconsistenc1 in this case, however, lies in the

    testionies of accused 'rin-o1 and alli. 'rin-o1 aditted that he

    referred olita to a certain ad/a "ara alli, his nei-hor who

    fre6uents 5ala1sia and with who olita could as! pertinent

    inforation on /o opportunities.%@alli, on the other hand, denies

    havin- et olita prior to their eetin- on oard 5M; 5ar1 "o1 on

    ? "une %$$,%

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    35/78

    reason, the Court adopts the findin-s of fact of the trial court, as

    affired in toto 1 the Court of 'ppeals, there ein- no -rave

    ause of discretion on the part of the lower courts.

    rm/) )*e No. 21930 D Ie) Re+r4me/

    Section ? of Repulic 'ct No. @$4% (R' @$4%) defines ille-al

    recruitent, as followsA

    JIKlle-al recruitent shall ean an1 act of canvassin-, enlistin-,

    contractin-, transportin-, utiliin-, hirin-, or procurin- wor!ers and

    includesre5err/,contact services, proisin- or advertisin- for

    eplo1ent aroad,:(e(er 5or ro5 or /o, :(e/

    4/er)e/ b> ) /o/-+e/*ee or /o/-(oer o5

    )4(or> conteplated under 'rticle (f) of Presidential Decree

    No. 44%, as aended, otherwise !nown as the aor Code of the

    Philippines.

    9 9 9

    Ille-al recruitent when coitted 1 a s1ndicate or in lar-escale shall e considered an offense involvin- econoic

    saota-e.

    9 9 9

    Ille-al recruitent is deeed coitted 1 a s1ndicate if carried

    out 1 a -roup of three (#) or ore persons conspirin- or

    confederatin- with one another. (Ephasis supplied)

    'rticle (f) of Presidential Decree No. 44%, as aended,

    otherwise !nown as the aor Code of the Philippines, defines

    authorit1 as followsA

    'uthorit1 eans a docuent issued 1 the Departent

    of aor authoriin- a person or association to en-a-e in

    recruitent and placeent activities as a private recruitent

    entit1.

    Section = of R' @$4% provides for the penalt1 of ille-al

    recruitent coitted 1 a s1ndicate (which constitutes

    econoic saota-e), as followsA

    () The penalt1 of life iprisonent and a fine of not less than

    2ive hundred thousand pesos (P$$,$$$.$$) nor ore than One

    illion pesos (P&,$$$,$$$.$$) shall e iposed if ille-al

    recruitent constitutes econoic saota-e as defined therein.

    It is clear that a person or entit1 en-a-ed in recruitent and

    placeent activities without the re6uisite authorit1 fro the

    Departent of aorand Eplo1ent (DOE), whether for profit

    or not, is en-a-ed in ille-al recruitent.#

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    36/78

    recruitent was coitted 1 three persons

    ('rin-o1, alli and Relapa-os), conspirin- and confederatin-

    with one another.

    'rin-o1 clais and adits that he onl1 referred olita to alli for

    /o opportunities to 5ala1sia. Such act of referrin-, whether for

    profit or not, in connivance with soeone without a POE' license,

    is alread1 considered ille-al recruitent, -iven the road

    definition of recruitent and placeent in the aor Code.

    alli, on the other hand, copletel1 denies an1 involveent in the

    recruitent and placeent of olita to 5ala1sia, and clais she

    onl1 et olita for the first tie 1 coincidence on oard the ship

    5M; 5ar1 "o1. allis denial does not deserve credence ecause it

    copletel1 conflicts with the testion1 of 'rin-o1 who clais he

    referred olita to alli who had !nowled-e of the /o opportunities

    in 5ala1sia.

    The conflictin- testionies of alli and 'rin-o1 on aterial facts

    -ive dout to the truth and veracit1 of their stories, and

    stren-thens the crediilit1 of the testion1 of olita, despite

    alle-ations of irrelevant inconsistencies.

    No iproper otive could e iputed to olita to show that she

    would falsel1 testif1 a-ainst the accused. The asence of

    evidence as to an iproper otive entitles olitas testion1 to full

    faith and credit.4

    'rin-o1 clais that no conspirac1 e9isted in ille-al recruitent, as

    he denies even !nowin- Relapa-os, who is currentl1 at*

    lar-e. allidenies an1 involveent in the ille-al recruitent, and

    clais that she onl1 et Relapa-os throu-h olita on oard the

    ship 5M; 5ar1 "o1 on ? "une %$$, and learned

    that Relapa-os was rin-in- olita and their other -irl

    copanions to 5ala1sia to wor! as sales ladies.

    :nder 'rticle @ of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspirac1

    when two or ore persons coe to an a-reeent concernin- the

    coission of a felon1 and decide to coit it.

    In People v /ago,4?the Court discussed conspirac1 in this wiseA

    The eleents of conspirac1 are the followin-A (&) two or ore

    persons cae to an a-reeent, (%) the a-reeent concerned the

    coission of a felon1, and (#) the e9ecution of the felon1 was

    decided upon. Proof of the conspirac1 need not e ased on

    direct evidence, ecause it a1 e inferred fro the partiesconduct indicatin- a coon understandin- aon- theselves

    with respect to the coission of the crie. Neither is it

    necessar1 to show that two or ore persons et to-ether and

    entered into an e9plicit a-reeent settin- out the details of an

    unlawful schee or o/ective to e carried out. The conspirac1

    a1 e deduced fro the ode or anner in which the crie

    was perpetrated it a1 also e inferred fro the acts of the

    accused evincin- a /oint or coon purpose and desi-n,

    concerted action and counit1 of interest.4=

    In this case, olita would not have een ale to -o to 5ala1sia if

    not for the concerted efforts of 'rin-o1, alli and Relapa-os.

    2irst, it was'rin-o1 who !new olita, since 'rin-o1 was

    a nei-hor of olitas -randfather. It was 'rin-o1 who referred

    olita to alli, a fact clearl1 aditted 1 'rin-o1. Second, olita

    would not have een ale to -o to 5ala1sia if alli had not

    purchased olitas oat tic!et to 5ala1sia. This fact can e

    deduced fro the testion1 of Nora 5ae 'dlin- (Nora), tic!etin-

    cler! of 'leson Shippin- ines, owner of the vessel 5M; 5ar1 "o1

    % pl1in- aoan-a Cit1 to Sanda!an, 5ala1sia route and of

    5M; Gristel "ane #. Nora testified in open court

    that ad/a "araalli ou-ht passen-er tic!ets for her travel to

    Sanda!an, not onl1 for herself ut also for other woen

    passen-ers. allis clai that she onl1 -oes to 5ala1sia to visit her

    dau-hter and son*in*law does not e9plain the fact wh1 she ou-ht

    the oat tic!ets of the other woen passen-ers -oin- to

    5ala1sia. In fact, it appears stran-e that alli visited 5ala1sianine (

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    37/78

    e1ond reasonale dout of the crie of ille-al recruitent

    coitted 1 a s1ndicate in Criinal Case No. %&

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    38/78

    oral daa-es and $,$$$ to &$$,$$$ as e9eplar1

    daa-es.

    The Civil Code descries oral daa-es in 'rticle %%&=A

    'rt. %%&=. 5oral daa-es include ph1sical sufferin-, ental

    an-uish, fri-ht, serious an9iet1, esirched reputation, wounded

    feelin-s, oral shoc!, social huiliation, and siilar in/ur1.

    Thou-h incapale of pecuniar1 coputation, oral daa-es a1

    e recovered if the1 are the pro9iate result of the defendants

    wron-ful act for oission.

    E9eplar1 daa-es, on the other hand, are awarded in addition

    to the pa1ent of oral daa-es, 1 wa1 of e9aple or

    correction for the pulic -ood, as stated in the Civil CodeA

    'rt. %%%

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    39/78

    LEONEN, J.:

    7Chic!s o don-7&

    Bith this sadl1 failiar 6uestion ein- used on the streets of

    an1 of our cities, the fate of an1 desperate woen is sealed

    and their futures van6uished. This case resulted in the rescue of

    two inors fro this pernicious practice. opefull1, there will e

    ore rescues. Traffic!in- in persons is a deplorale crie. It is

    coitted even thou-h the inor !new aout or consented to the

    act of traffic!in-.

    This case involves Repulic 'ct No.

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    40/78

    Gaa-a1an.%%''' further testified that on 5a1 %, %$$@, accused

    solicited her services for a custoer. That was the first tie that

    she was piped 1 accused.%#'ccused rou-ht her, 000, and a

    certain "ocel1n to 3ueensland 5otel.%4

    ''' testified that "ocel1n sta1ed inthe ta9i, while she and 000

    went to Roo %4. It was in Roo %4 where the custoer paid

    Shirle1. The police rushed in and told''' and 000 to -o to the

    other roo. ''' was then et 1 the Departent of Social

    Belfare and Developent personnel who infored her that she

    was rescued and not arrested.%

    ''' descried that her /o as a prostitute re6uired her to displa1

    herself, alon- with other -irls, etween = p.. to @ p.. She

    received P4$$.$$ for ever1 custoer who selected her.%?

    The prosecution also presented the police operatives durin- trial.

    PSI 8lanan, SPO& 5endaros, and SPO& 'ltuar testified that

    after PO& ;eloso had ade the issed call to PSI 8lanan, the1

    7rushed to Roo %4 and arrested the accused.7%=SPO& 'ltuar

    retrieved the ar!ed one1 worth P&,$$$.$$ fro accused>s ri-ht

    hand 7and upon instruction fro PCINSP 8lanan recorded the

    sae at the police lotter prior operation>. . . . 7%@

    The trial court noted that ''' re6uested assistance fro the I"5

    7in conductin- the operation a-ainst the accused.7%s vulnerailit1 as a child and as one who need

    one1, as proven 1 the testionies of the witnesses. ?@

    III.

    Gnowled-e or consent of the inor is not a defense under

    Repulic 'ct No.

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    44/78

    ere, ''' testified as to how accused solicited her services for

    the custoers waitin- at 3ueensland 5otel. ''' also testified

    that she was onl1 &= 1ears old when accused peddled her. er

    certificate of live irth was presented as evidence to show that

    she was orn on "anuar1 %=, &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    45/78

    wanted -irls. There was no illicit induceent on the part of the

    police for the accused to coit the crie.

    Bhen accused was arrested, she was infored of her

    constitutional ri-hts.@#The ar!ed one1 retrieved fro her was

    recorded in the police lotter prior to the entrapent operation

    and was presented in court as evidence.@4

    On accused>s alii thatshe was erel1 out to u1 her supper that

    ni-ht, the Court of 'ppeals noted that accused never presented

    +in--in- in court. Thus, her alii was unsustantiated and cannot

    e -iven credence.@

    Bith re-ard to the lac! of prior surveillance, prior surveillance is

    not a condition for an entrapent operation>s validit1.@?In People

    v. Padua@=this court underscored the value of fle9iilit1 in police

    operationsA

    ' prior surveillance is not a prere6uisite for the validit1 of an

    entrapent or u1*ust operation, the conduct of which has no

    ri-id or te9too! ethod. 2le9iilit1 is a trait of -ood police wor!.

    owever the police carr1 out its entrapent operations, for as

    lon- as the ri-hts of the accused have not een violated in the

    process, the courts will not pass on the wisdo thereof. The

    police officers a1 decide that tie is of the essence and

    dispense with the need for prior surveillance.@@(Citations oitted)

    This fle9iilit1 is even ore iportant in cases involvin- traffic!in-

    of persons. The ur-enc1 of rescuin- the victis a1 at ties

    re6uire iediate ut delierate action on the part of the law

    enforcers.

    ;.

    Iposition of fine and award of daa-es

    The Court of 'ppeals properl1 iposed the aount of

    %,$$$,$$$.$$. Section &$ () of Repulic 'ct No.

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    46/78

    Re-ardless of the willin-ness of ''' and 000, therefore, to e

    traffic!ed, we affir the te9t and spirit of our laws. 5inors should

    spend their adolescence ouldin- their character in environents

    free of the vilest otives and the worse of other huan ein-s.

    The evidence and the law copel us to affir the conviction of

    accused in this case.

    0ut this is not all that we have done. 01 fulfillin- our duties, we

    also e9press the hope that our people and our -overnent unite

    a-ainst ever1thin- inhuan. Be contriute to a coitent to

    finall1 stap out slaver1 and huan traffic!in-.

    There are ore '''s and 000s out there. The1, too, deserve to

    e rescued. The1, too, need to e shown that in spite of what their

    lives have een, there is still uch -ood in our world.

    BERE2ORE, preises considered, we '22IR5 the decision of

    the Court of 'ppeals dated "une %=, %$, findin- accused

    Shirle1 '. Casio -uilt1 e1ond reasonale dout of violatin-

    Section 4(a), 6ualified 1 Section ?(a) of Repulic 'ct No.

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    47/78

    dissentin- opinion was filed 1 5r. "ustice 0ellosillo while 5r.

    "ustice Santia-o suitted a concurrin- opinion. Petitioner

    oved for reconsideration which 5otion was denied 1 the Court

    of 'ppeals on %# 'u-ust &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    48/78

    Proation a1 e -ranted whether the sentence iposes a ter

    of iprisonent or a fine onl1 'n application for proation shall e

    filed with the trial court. "he filing of the application shall be

    deemed a waiver of the r ight to appeal

    'n order -rantin- or den1in- proation shall not e appealale.

    (Ephasis supplied)

    In sharp contrast with Section 4 as aended 1 PD No. &%=, in

    its present for, Section 4 estalishes a uch narrower period

    durin- which an application for proation a1 e filed with the trial

    courtA 7after Jthe trial courtK shall have convicted and sentenced a

    defendant and H within the period for perfecting an appeal H .7

    's if to provide ephasis, a new proviso was appended to the

    first para-raph of Section 4 that e9pressl1prohibits the -rant of an

    application for proation 2if the defendant has perfected an

    appeal from the udgment of conviction.7 It is worth1 of note too

    that Section 4 in its present for has dropped the phrase which

    said that the filin- of an application for proation eans 7the

    autoatic withdrawal of apending appeal7. The deletion is 6uite

    lo-ical since an application for proation can no lon-er e filed

    once an appeal is perfected there can, therefore, e

    nopending appeal that would have to e withdrawn.

    In appl1in- Section 4 in the for it e9ists toda1 (and at the tie

    petitioner laado was convicted 1 the trial court), to the instant

    case, we ust then in6uire whether petitioner laado had

    suitted his application for proation 7within the period for

    perfectin- an appeal.7 Put a little differentl1, the 6uestion is

    whether 1 the tie petitioner laados application was f iled, he

    had alread1 7perfected an appeal7 fro the /ud-ent of conviction

    of the Re-ional Trial Court of 5anila.

    The period for perfectin- an appeal fro a /ud-ent rendered 1

    the Re-ional Trial Court, under Section #< of 0atas Paansa

    0l-. &%

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    49/78

    Turnin- to petitioners invocation of 7lieral interpretation7 of penal

    statutes, we note at the outset that the Proation aw is not a

    penal statute. Be, however, understand petitioners ar-uent to

    e reall1 that an1 statutor1 lan-ua-e that appears to favor the

    accused in a criinal case should e -iven a 7lieral

    interpretation.7 Courts, however, have no authorit1 to invo!e

    7lieral interpretation or 7the spirit of the law7 where the words ofthe statute theselves, and as illuinated 1 the histor1 of that

    statute, leave no roo for dout or interpretation. Be do not

    elieve that 7the spirit of law7 a1 le-itiatel1 e invo!ed to set at

    nau-ht words which have a clear and definite eanin- iparted

    to the 1 our procedural law. The 7true le-islative intent7 ust

    oviousl1 e -iven effect 1 /ud-es and all others who are

    char-ed with the application and ipleentation of a statute. It is

    asolutel1 essential to ear in ind, however, that the spirit of the

    law and the intent that is to e -iven effect are to e derived fro

    the words actuall1 used 1 the law*a!er, and not fro soe

    e9ternal, 1stical or eta/uridical source independent of and

    transcendin- the words of the le-islature.

    The Court is not here to e understood as -ivin- a 7strict

    interpretation rather than a 7lieral7 one to Section 4 of the

    Proation aw of &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    50/78

    appl1 for proation was lost when he perfected his appeal fro

    the /ud-ent of conviction.

    BERE2ORE, the Decision of the Court of 'ppeals in C'+R No.

    $4?=@ is here1 '22IR5ED. No pronounceent as to costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    !I$AEL PA"UA,

    Petitioner,

    * versus *

    PEOPLE OF T$E P$ILIPPINES,

    Respondent.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    - - - -

    "EISION

    ;UISU!&ING, J.'

    This petition for review assails the Decision?1@dated 'pril &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    51/78

    as The Proation aw of &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    52/78

    II.

    SECTION #% O2 '.5. NO. $%*&*&@*SC OTERBISE GNOBN 'S

    TE *-/+ 45 (-6+5)/+S )5 .45F/)." ')"% "%+ /A''S

    NO 'PPIC'TION TO TE INST'NT C'SE.?2@

    Sipl1, the issues areA (&) Did the Court of 'ppeals err in

    disissin- Paduas petition for certiorariassailin- the trial courts

    order den1in- his petition for proation (%) Bas Paduas ri-ht

    under Rep. 'ct No. er*o/ +o/v+e 5or r4

    r)55+/ or 4*(/ 4/er (* A+, re)re** o5 (e

    e/)> mo*e b> (e o4r, +)//o )v) o5 (e rvee

    r)/e b> (e Prob)o/ L): or Pre*e/) "e+ree No. 968,

    )* )me/e.(Ephasis supplied.)

    The law is clear and leaves no roo for interpretation. 'n1 person

    convicted for dru- traffic!in- or pushin-, re-ardless of the penalt1

    iposed, cannot avail of the privile-e -ranted 1 the Proation

    aw or P.D. No.

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    53/78

    court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended

    sentence. Section 4$?38@of Rep. 'ct No. e)r*. Petitioner has alread1 reached %& 1ears of a-e or overand thus, could no lon-er e considered a child?39@for purposes of

    appl1in- Rep. 'ct

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    54/78

    health resort reservation situated in the 5unicipalit1 of +eneral

    Santos, now +eneral Santos Cit1, Island of 5indanao, certain

    portions of the land eraced therein and declare the sae open

    to disposition under the provisions of the Pulic and 'ct, which

    parcels of land are ore particularl1 descried as followsA

    ot 8*&, 5R*&&?$*D

    (5a-sa1sa1 Par!)

    ' P'RCE O2 'ND (ot 8*&, 5R*&&?$*D, 5a-sa1sa1 Par!)

    situated in the 5unicipalit1 of +eneral Santos,

    now +eneralSantos Cit1, Island of 5indanao. 9 9 9 containin- an

    area of EI+TEEN TO:S'ND SI :NDRED NINET8*2I;E

    (&@,?

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    55/78

    %. Oliver +ua1ar

    *

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    56/78

    Nae of Owner

    OCT No.

    &. 5ad +ua1ar P*?#

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    57/78

    case, while Dia, 0orina-a, 5oon-an and Cruara were found

    to have re-ularl1 perfored their official functions. 'ccordin-l1,

    the char-es a-ainst the respondents were disissed. Thus, the

    case was disposed in this wiseA

    BERE2ORE, PRE5ISES CONSIDERED, this Office finds and

    so holds that the followin- cries were coitted and that

    respondents, whose naes appear elow, are proal1 -uilt1

    thereofA

    &. CES'R "ONIO si9teen (&?) counts of 2alsification of pulic

    docuent to the si9teen (&?) recoendation reports suitted

    %. REN'TO RI;ER' si9teen (&?) counts of 2alsification of pulic

    docuent relative to the si9teen (&?) reports suitted, all

    dated 'u-ust 4, &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    58/78

    %. 5a1or Nue and Nalan-an !new or ou-ht to have

    !nown, 1 reason of their respective offices and as adinistrators

    of the properties of the cit1, that ot of the 5a-sa1sa1 Par! is

    owned 1 the cit1 and reserved as health and recreation site. 8et,

    Nalan-ans Coent, filed efore "ud-e 'dre issued the assailed

    RTC Order, stated that per verification, there was no e9istin-

    donation fro the eirs of Caalo Gusop to the cit1. i!ewise, intheir &stIndorseent dated 'u-ust %, &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    59/78

    conspirac1 sipl1 ecause she e9ercised her inisterial functions

    as Re-ister of Deeds.JK

    #. 5oon-an alle-es, aon- others, that as Re-ional

    E9ecutive Director of the DENR, he is dul1 authoried to si-n

    patents and reconstituted patents. Since the standard procedure

    and processes were coplied with, 5oon-an sipl1 relied on

    his suordinates and on their -ood faith. e ar-ues that he acted

    in accordance with law, departent -uidelines, rules and

    re-ulations, and that to re6uire hi to scrutinie ever1 phase of a

    report of a suordinate is a ver1 tall order.J&4K

    4. "ud-e 'dre anifests that in the "oint

    ResolutionJ&Kof the Senate Coittees on 'ccountailit1 of

    Pulic Officers and Investi-ation (0lue Rion) and National

    Defense and Securit1, dated Deceer %#, &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    60/78

    the tie of the filin- of the otion for reconsideration the assailed

    Resolution was alread1 final.

    Even onl1 on the asis of this fatal procedural infirit1, the instant

    Petition ou-ht to e disissed. 'nd on the sustantive issue

    raised, the petition is li!ewise ereft of erit.

    :nder Sections &% and , 'rticle I of the &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    61/78

    J.K Pulic respondents "ulio C. Dia, '-apito 0orina-a, 'u-ustus

    . 5oon-an, 'steria E. Cruara 0ased on the evidences on

    record, these respondents were in the re-ular perforance of

    their official functions. Their participation in the titlin- of ot* was

    due to the fact that the docuents for titlin- were suitted to

    their respective offices as a atter of course, and there is nothin-

    that the1 can do ut to follow the estalished procedure uponfindin- that all the docuents for titlin- were suitted.J%=K

    Indeed, while the Oudsans discretion in deterinin- the

    e9istence of proale cause is not asolute, nonetheless,

    petitioner ust prove that such discretion was -ravel1 aused in

    order to warrant the reversal of the Oudsans findin-s 1 this

    Court. In this respect, petitioner fails.J%@K

    5oreover, the eleents of the offense, essential for the conviction

    of an accused under Section #(e), R. '. No. #$&

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    62/78

    0efore the Court is a Petition for .ertiorariunder Rule ? of the

    Rules of Court, assailin- the Octoer #, %$$% OrderJ&Kof the

    Oudsan (respondent) which disissed the Coplaint of

    ilario Soriano (petitioner) a-ainst 5anila Cit1 Prosecutor Raon

    +arcia (+arcia) and the "ul1 &4, %$$# Oudsan

    OrderJ%Kwhich denied petitioners otion for reconsideration.

    The antecedent facts are related to those involved in %ilario Soria

    no v

    4mbudsman Simeon 6 !arcelo (+.R. No. &?#$&=) which the

    Court decided on "une &@, %$$@.

    Petitioner filed with the Office of the Cit1 Prosecutor of 5anila an

    'ffidavit*Coplaint, J#Kdoc!eted as I.S. No. $&2*%%4=, a-ainst

    0an! E9ainer 5el1 Palad (Palad) of the Bang#o Sentral ng

    Pilipinasfor falsification of pulic docuent and use of falsified

    docuent. 'ssistant Cit1 Prosecutor Celedonio P. 0alasas

    (0alasas) issued a Resolution J4Kdated 'u-ust %=,

    %$$& recoendin- that Palad e char-ed in court for

    falsification of pulic docuent. 2irst 'ssistant Cit1 Prosecutor

    eoncia R. Dia-ia (Dia-ia) recoended the approval of

    the Resolution. 0ut, upon 5otion to Re*open filed 1 Palad,

    Dia-ia recoended the re*openin- of I.S. No. $&2*%%4=.JK+arcia approved the recoendation of Dia-ia to re*open

    the case.J?Kowever, in an IndorseentJ=Kdated 'u-ust , %$$%,

    +arcia forwarded the coplete records of I.S. No. $&2*%%4= to

    Chief State Prosecutor "ovencito R. uo of the Departent of

    "ustice (DO"), with the followin- recoendationA

    9 9 9 JTKhat the preliinar1 investi-ation of this case e

    transferred to the Departent of "ustice considering that herein

    complainant has recentl" filed ith the )ffice of the

    )m%udsman separate complaints against the undersigned

    Cit" Prosecutorand 'ssistant Cit1 Prosecutor Celedonio P.

    0alasas which are oth presentl1 pendin- thereat, here1

    re6uestin- that a State Prosecutor e desi-nated to conduct the

    preliinar1 investi-ation thereof in order to avoid an1 suspicion of

    partialit1 and ias a-ainst the Office of the Cit1 Prosecutor of

    5anila.J@K(Ephasis supplied)

    On Septeer , %$$%, petitioner filed with the respondent an

    'ffidavit*Coplaint a-ainst +arcia for violation of 'rticle %$@J

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    63/78

    circustances in order not to invite douts on the respondents

    ipartialit1 in the disposition of the su/ect case.

    On the other hand, the violation of Sec. #(e) of R.'. #$&

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    64/78

    anifest partialit1, evident ad faith or -ross ine9cusale

    ne-li-ence constitutes the ver1 act punished under this

    section. Thus, it is re/uired that the undue in0ur" %e

    specified, /uantified and proven to the point of moral

    certaint".

    In /urisprudence, undue in/ur1 is consistentl1 interpreted as actual

    daa-e. :ndue has een defined as ore than necessar1, not

    proper, JorK ille-al and in/ur1 as an1 wron- or daa-e done to

    another, either in his person, ri-hts, reputation or propert1Jthat is,

    theK invasion of an1 le-all1 protected interest of another. 'ctual

    daa-e, in the conte9t of these definitions, is a!in to that in civil

    law.

    In turn, actual or copensator1 daa-es is defined 1 'rticle

    %&

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    65/78

    * versus *

    "ANGEROUS "RUGS &OAR" )/

    P$ILIPPINE "RUG ENFORE!ENT

    AGENY,

    Respondents.

    9***********************************************9

    A;UILINO ;. PI!ENTEL, CR., G.R. No. 1616B8

    Petitioner,

    PresentA

    P:NO, .(,

    3:IS:50IN+,

    8N'RES*S'NTI'+O,

    C'RPIO,

    ':STRI'*5'RTINE,

    * versus * CORON',

    C'RPIO 5OR'ES,

    'C:N',

    TIN+',

    CICO*N''RIO,

    ;E'SCO, "R.,

    N'C:R',

    RE8ES,

    EON'RDO*DE C'STRO, and

    0RION,((

    O!!ISSION ON ELETIONS, Proul-atedA

    Respondent.

    Noveer #, %$$@

    9**************************************************************************************

    ***9

    " E I S I O N

    %ELASO, CR., J.'

    In these !indred petitions, the constitutionalit1 of Section #? of

    Repulic 'ct No. (R')

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    66/78

    G.R. No. 1616B8(Aquilino C Pimentel, (r v .ommission on

    +lections)

    On Deceer %#, %$$#, the Coission on Elections

    (CO5EEC) issued Resolution No. ?4@?, prescriin- the rules

    and re-ulations on the andator1 dru- testin- of candidates for

    pulic office in connection with the 5a1 &$, %$$4 s1nchronied

    national and local elections. The pertinent portions of the said

    resolution read as followsA

    BERE'S, Section #? (-) of Repulic 'ct No.

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    67/78

    persons constitutional ri-ht a-ainst unreasonale searches is also

    reached 1 said provisions.

    G.R. No. 1B8633(Atty !anuel ( /aserna, (r v angerous

    rugs Board and Philippine rug +nforcement Agency)

    Petitioner 'tt1. 5anuel ". aserna, "r., as citien and ta9pa1er,

    also see!s in his Petition for Certiorari and Prohiition under Rule

    ? that Sec. #?(c), (d), (f), and (-) of R'

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    68/78

    Thus, le-islative power reains liited in the sense that it is

    su/ect to sustantive and constitutional liitations which

    circuscrie oth the e9ercise of the power itself and the

    allowale su/ects of le-islation.J&&KThe sustantive constitutional

    liitations are chiefl1 found in the 0ill of Ri-htsJ&%Kand other

    provisions, such as Sec. #, 'rt. ;I of the Constitution prescriin-

    the 6ualifications of candidates for senators.

    In the sae vein, the CO5EEC cannot, in the -uise of enforcin-

    and adinisterin- election laws or proul-atin- rules and

    re-ulations to ipleent Sec. #?(-), validl1 ipose 6ualifications

    on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution

    prescries. If Con-ress cannot re6uire a candidate for senator to

    eet such additional 6ualification, the CO5EEC, to e sure, is

    also without such power. The ri-ht of a citien in the deocratic

    process of election should not e defeated 1 unwarranted

    ipositions of re6uireent not otherwise specified in the

    Constitution.JK

    Sec. #?(-) of R'

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    69/78

    9 9 9 9

    School children, the :S Supree Court noted, are ost

    vulnerale to the ph1sical, ps1cholo-ical, and addictive effects of

    dru-s. 5aturin- nervous s1stes of the 1oun- are ore criticall1

    ipaired 1 into9icants and are ore inclined to dru-

    dependenc1. Their recover1 is also at a depressin-l1 low rate. J&K

    The ri-ht to privac1 has een accorded reco-nition in this

    /urisdiction as a facet of the r i-ht protected 1 the -uarantee

    a-ainst unreasonale search and seiureJ&?Kunder Sec. %, 'rt.

    IIIJ&=Kof the Constitution. 0ut while the ri-ht to privac1 has lon-

    coe into its own, this case appears to e the first tie that the

    validit1 of a state*decreed search or intrusion throu-h the ediu

    of andator1 rando dru- testin- aon- students and

    eplo1ees is, in this /urisdiction, ade the focal point. Thus, the

    issue tendered in these proceedin-s is verital1 one of first

    ipression.

    :S /urisprudence is, however, a rich source of persuasive

    /urisprudence. Bith respect to rando dru- testin- aon- school

    children, we turn to the teachin-s of6ernonia School istrict D

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    70/78

    school are visited not /ust upon the users, ut upon the entire

    student od1 and facult1.J%%KNeedless to stress, the rando

    testin- schee provided under the law ar-ues a-ainst the idea

    that the testin- ais to incriinate unsuspectin- individual

    students.

    "ust as in the case of secondar1 and tertiar1 level students, the

    andator1 ut rando dru- test prescried 1 Sec. #? of R'

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    71/78

    to protect the confidentialit1 of the test results.J#KNotal1, R'

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    72/78

    testin- are randoness and suspicionless. In the case of persons

    char-ed with a crie efore the prosecutors office, a andator1

    dru- testin- can never e rando or suspicionless. The ideas of

    randoness and ein- suspicionless are antithetical to their ein-

    ade defendants in a criinal coplaint. The1 are not randol1

    pic!ed neither are the1 e1ond suspicion. Bhen persons

    suspected of coittin- a crie are char-ed, the1 are sin-led outand are ipleaded a-ainst their will. The persons thus char-ed,

    1 the are fact of ein- haled efore the prosecutors office and

    peaceal1 suittin- theselves to dru- testin-, if that e the

    case, do not necessaril1 consent to the procedure, let alone waive

    their ri-ht to privac1. J4$KTo ipose andator1 dru- testin- on the

    accused is a latant attept to harness a edical test as a tool

    for criinal prosecution, contrar1 to the stated o/ectives of R'

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    73/78

    e reoved his shorts and underwear. e then spread her le-s

    and inserted his penis into her va-ina.

    'ccordin- to Sall1, she /ust closed her e1es while appellant had

    his wa1 with her. She did not call for help ecause she was afraid

    that nood1 would e in the ne9t house which was aout @$$eters awa1.J#K

    She cannot reeer how lon- appellant reained on top of her

    ut efore he left, he reiterated his threat to !ill her and her fail1

    if she told an1od1 of what happened. 'fter that, she would

    fre6uentl1 see appellant ut the latter never spo!e to her.

    2earful for her life and for her fail1>s safet1, she did not infor

    an1one of the incident. 'lthou-h it entered her ind that she

    could e pre-nant, she left her province to wor! as a doestic

    helper in the house of SPO% Constantino 0. Saret in Best Crae,San "uan, 5anila.

    On Noveer &%, &s

    narration of the incident, and the testion1 of 5a. u T. Santos,

    5edico e-al Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP)

    Crie aorator1, on the edico*le-al report issued 1 Dr.

    'nthon1 "oselito laasJK who e9ained Sall1.

    5a. u T. Santos, while referrin- to the edical report, e9plained

    that the h1en has a deep healed laceration at ?A$$ o>cloc!

    position ut she cannot deterine as to the tie when it was

    inflicted.J?K Due to the fact that the va-inal canal was still narrow

    with proinent ru-osities, Sall1 has not 1et -iven irth althou-h

    she was &@ to &< wee!s pre-nant countin- fro the last da1 ofher enstruation which was on "ul1 , &

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    74/78

    the case was referred to the Court of 'ppeals for interediate

    review pursuant to our rulin- in People v. 5ateo.J

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    75/78

    huan ind when placed under eotional stress are

    unpredictale and people react differentl1. In such a -iven

    situation, soe a1 shout soe a1 faint and soe a1 e

    shoc!ed into sensiilit1 while others a1 openl1 welcoe the

    intrusion. (People v. Caradilla, # SCR' 4 (&

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    76/78

    'dditionall1, 5ann1 Torrala, one of the accused>s fishin-

    copanions, declared that the1 went hoe fro fishin- ever1da1

    (TSN, 2eruar1 %@, %$$&, p. ?) and that ever1 tie the1 went

    hoe fro fishin-, the1 parted wa1s as each went to his own

    hoe, and would not !now what the accused would e doin-

    while he was at his own hoe (Ide, p. s

    presence in the house of the coplainant where the su/ect

    offense was coitted was far fro ipossile.J%?K

    The Court notes that appellant does not den1 the e9istence of the

    !nife durin- the coission of the rape. This Court sustains the

    findin- that the trial court did not err in convictin- appellant of the

    crie of rape perpetrated with the use of a deadl1 weapon. The

    presentation of the !nife is not necessar1 to his conviction, in li-ht

    of the victi>s unwaverin- testion1 as to how appellant, ared

    with a !nife, threatened and raped her.

    This is consistent with this Court>s rulin- in People v. De-aoAJ%=K

    It is settled that the non*presentation of the weapon used in the

    coission of rape is not essential to the conviction of the

    accused. The testion1 of the rape victi that appellant was

    ared with a deadl1 weapon when he coitted the crie is

    sufficient to estalish the fact for so lon- as the victi is credile.

    It ust e stressed that in rape, it is usuall1 onl1 the victi who

    can attest to its occurrence and that is wh1 courts su/ect the

    testion1 of the alle-ed victis to strict scrutin1 efore rel1in- onit for the conviction of the accused.

    People v. Philippines ;itancurJ%@K also illustrates this principleA

    The fact that the weapon with which coplainant claied she was

    intiidated 1 accused*appellant could not e presented in court

    could not ipeach private coplainant>s crediilit1 as the weapon

    is not essential to the prosecution of rape cases. Bhat is

    iportant is that ecause of force and intiidation, private

    coplainant was ade to suit to the will of accused*appellant.

    W JTKhe test is whether the threat or intiidation

    produces in the ind of a reasonale person fear that if she

    persists or does not 1ield to the desires of the accused, the threat

    will e carried out.

    'ppellant coitted the crie of rape with the use of a laded

    weapon, the iposale penalt1 of which is reclusion perpetua to

    death in accordance with 'rticle ## of the Revised Penal Code,

    as aended 1 R.'. No. =?s house. owever, he

    posits that the prosecution ust prove the asence of provocation

    1 Sall1.

    It suffices to state that private coplainant cate-oricall1 testified

    that she was sleepin- inside her house when appellant cae and

    perpetrated the crie. This is proof enou-h of the asence ofprovocation on the part of private coplainant. 2or a sleepin-

    thirteen () 1ear old arrio -irl cannot possil1 -ive an1 !ind of

    provocation to appellant under the circustances.

    Since the crie of rape was coitted 1 appellant with the use

    of a deadl1 weapon, punishale 1 reclusion perpetua to death,

    the presence of the a--ravatin- circustance of dwellin-, without

    76

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    77/78

    the presence of an1 iti-atin- circustance, /ustified the trial

    court>s iposition of the death penalt1.J#$K

    The aove rulin- is in accordance with 'rticle ?# of the Revised

    Penal Code which provides that in all cases in which the law

    prescries a penalt1 coposed of two indivisile penalties, the-reater penalt1 shall e applied when an a--ravatin-

    circustance, such as dwellin- in this case, is present in the

    coission of the offense.

    In People v. 'lfeche,J#&K wherein the coplainant, eplo1ed as a

    doestic helper, was inside the house of her eplo1er when she

    was raped 1 the appellant who was ared with a deadl1

    weapon, the Court considered dwellin- as an a--ravatin-

    circustance in convictin- the latter, and affired the trial court>s

    iposition of the -reater penalt1, which is death.

    The Court of 'ppeals, in affirin- the conviction of herein

    appellant and the iposition of the death penalt1, concluded thatA

    The Court, therefore, has no recourse ut to appl1 the law and

    affir the trial court>s iposition of the death penalt1. This is

    without pre/udice, of course, to the provisions of section %, R.'.

    =?< re-ardin- the possile e9ercise of the pardonin- power of

    the Office of the President upon the finalit1 of the death sentence.

    J#%K

    In li-ht, however, of the passa-e of Repulic 'ct No. s award of

    P$,$$$.$$ as oral daa-es should also e increased to

    P=,$$$ pursuant to current /urisprudence on 6ualified rape.

    astl1, e9eplar1 daa-es in the aount of P%,$$$.$$ is also

    called for, 1 wa1 of e9aple, and to protect the 1oun- fro

    se9ual ause.

    It should e noted that while the new law prohiits the ipositionof the death penalt1, the penalt1 provided for 1 law for a heinous

    offense is still death and the offense is still heinous.

    Conse6uentl1, the civil indenit1 for the victi is still P=,$$$.

    On the other hand, the autoatic appeal in cases when the trial

    court iposes the death penalt1 will henceforth not appl1, since

    its iposition is now prohiited, so that there is a need to perfect

    an appeal, if appeal is desired, fro a /ud-ent of conviction for

    77

  • 7/24/2019 SPL 1st Batch of Cases

    78/78

    an offense where the penalt1 iposed is reclusion perpetua in

    lieu of the death penalt1 pursuant to the new law prohiitin- its

    iposition.

    $EREFORE, the Decision of the Court of 'ppeals in C'*+.R.

    CR. No.*.C. No. $$=?=, dated "une &, %$$, ishere1 AFFIR!E"insofar as the conviction of appellant and the

    aount of daa-es are concerned. The sentence that shall e

    iposed upon appellant, however, is 5ODI2IED. In view of

    Repulic 'ct No.