Saturday, September 3, 2022

REPUBLIC ACT No. 11032 - AN ACT PROMOTING EASE OF DOING BUSINESS AND EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9485, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-RED TAPE ACT OF 2007

https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2018/ra_11032_2018.html


REPUBLIC ACT No. 11032

AN ACT PROMOTING EASE OF DOING BUSINESS AND EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9485, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-RED TAPE ACT OF 2007

Section 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9485, otherwise known as the "Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007", is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018"

Section 2. Section 2 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property as well as to establish effective practices, aimed at efficient turnaround of the delivery of government services and the prevention of graft and corruption in government. Towards this end, the State shall maintain honesty and responsibility among its public officials and employees, and shall take appropriate measures to promote transparency in each agency with regard to the manner of transacting with the public, which shall encompass a program for the adoption of simplified requirements and procedures that will reduce red tape and expedite business and nonbusiness related transactions in government."

Section 3. Section 3 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 3 . Coverage. – This Act shall apply to all government offices and agencies including local government units (LGUs), government-owned or controlled corporations and other government instrumentalities, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, that provide services covering business and nonbusiness related transactions as defined in this Act."

Section 4. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms are defined as follows:

"(a) Action refers to the written approval or disapproval made by a government office or agency on the application or request submitted by an applicant or requesting party for processing;

"(b) Business One Stop Shop (BOSS) – a single common site or location, or a single online website or portal designated for the Business Permit and Licensing System (BPLS) of an LGU to receive and process applications, receive payments, and issue approved licenses, clearances, permits, or authorizations;

"(c) Business-related transactions – a set of regulatory requirements that a business entity must comply with to engage, operate or continue to operate a business, such as, but not limited to, collection or preparation of a number of documents, submission to national and local government authorities, approval of application submitted, and receipt of a formal certificate or certificates, permits, licenses which include primary and secondary, clearances and such similar authorization or documents which confer eligibility to operate or continue to operate as a legitimate business;

"(d) Complex transactions – applications or requests submitted by applicants or requesting parties of a government office which necessitate evaluation in the resolution of complicated issues by an officer or employee of said government office, such transactions to be determined by the office concerned;

"(e) Fixer – any individual whether or not officially involved in the operation of a government office or agency who has access to people working therein, and whether or not in collusion with them, facilitates speedy completion of transactions for pecuniary gain or any other advantage or consideration;

"(f) Government service – the process or transaction between applicants or requesting parties and government offices or agencies involving applications for any privilege, right, reward, license, clearance, permit or authorization, concession, of for any modification, renewal or extension of the enumerated applications or requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the agency or office concerned;

"(g) Highly technical application – an application which requires the use of technical knowledge, specialized skills and/or training in the processing and/or evaluation thereof;

"(h) Nonbusiness transactions – all other government transactions not falling under Section 4 (c) of this Act;

"(i) Officer or employee – a person employed in a government office or agency required to perform specific duties and responsibilities related to the application or request submitted by an applicant or requesting party for processing;

"(j) Processing time – the time consumed by an LGU or national government agency (NGA) from the receipt of an application or request with complete requirements, accompanying documents and payment of fees to the issuance of certification or such similar documents approving or disapproving an application or request;

"(k) Red tape – any regulation, rule, or administrative procedure or system that is ineffective or detrimental in achieving its intended objectives and, as a result, produces slow, suboptimal, and undesirable social outcomes;

"(l) Regulation – any legal instrument that gives effect to a government policy intervention and includes licensing, imposing information obligation, compliance to standards or payment of any form of fee, levy, charge or any other statutory and regulatory requirements necessary to carry out activity; and

"(m) Simple transactions – applications or requests submitted by applicants or requesting parties of a government office or agency which only require ministerial actions on the part of the public officer or employee, or that which present only inconsequential issues for the resolution by an officer or employee of said government."

Section 5. Section 5 of the sajme Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 5. Reengineering of Systems and Procedures. – All offices and agencies which provide government services are hereby mandated to regularly undertake cost compliance analysis, time and motion studies, undergo evaluation and improvement of their transaction systems and procedures and reengineer the same if deemed necessary to reduce bureaucratic red tape and processing time.

"The Anti-Red Tape Authority, created in this Act, shall coordinate with all government offices covered under Section 3 of this Act in the review of existing laws, executive issuances and local ordinances, and recommend the repeal of the same if deemed outdated, redundant, and adds undue regulatory burden to the transacting public.

"All proposed regulations of government agencies under Section 3 of this Act shall undergo regulatory impact assessment to establish if the proposed regulation does not add undue regulatory burden and cost to these agencies and the applicants or requesting parties: Provided, That when necessary, any proposed regulation may undergo pilot implementation to assess regulatory impact.

"Upon effectivity of this Act, all LGUs and NGAs are directed to initiate review of existing policies and operations and commence with the reengineering of their systems and procedures in compliance with the provisions of this Act, pending the approval of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) thereof."

Section 6. Section 6 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 6. Citizen’s Charter. – All government agencies including departments, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities, or government-owned and/or –controlled corporations, or LGUs shall set up their respective most current and updated service standards to be known as the Citizen’s Charter in the form of information billboards which shall be posted at the main entrance of offices or at the most conspicuous place, in their respective websites and in the form of published materials written either in English, Filipino, or in the local dialect, that detail:

"(a) A comprehensive and uniform checklist of requirements for each type of application or request;

"(b) The procedure to obtain a particular service;

"(c) The person/s responsible for each step;

"(d) The maximum time to conclude the process;

"(e) The document/s to be presented by the applicant or requesting party, if necessary;

"(f) The amount of fees, if necessary; and

"(g) The procedure for filing complaints."

Section 7. A new Section 7 is hereby inserted after Section 6 of the same Act to read as follows:

"Sec. 7. Zero-Contact Policy. – Except during the preliminary assessment of the request and evaluation of sufficiency of submitted requirements, no government officer or employee shall have any contact, in any manner, unless strictly necessary with any applicant or requesting party concerning an application or request. Once the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) has completed a web-based software enabled business registration system that is acceptable to the public as mandated under Section 26 of this Act, all transactions shall be coursed through such system. All government agencies including LGUs shall adopt a zero-contact policy."

Section 8. Section 7 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 8 to read as follows:

"Sec. 8. Accountability of Heads of Offices and Agencies. – The head of the office or agency shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of this Act and shall be held accountable to the public in rendering fast, efficient, convenient and reliable service. All transactions and processes are deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned."

Section 9. Section 8 of the same Act is hereby amended and renumbered as Section 9 to read as follows:

"Sec. 9. Accessing Government Services. – The following shall adopted by all government offices and agencies:

"(a) Acceptance of Applications or Requests. –

"(1) All officers or employees shall accept written applications, requests, and/or documents being submitted by applicants or requesting parties of the offices or agencies.

"(2) The receiving officer or employee shall perform a preliminary assessment of the application or request submitted with its supporting documents to ensure a more expeditious action on the application or request. The receiving officer or employee shall immediately inform the applicant or requesting party of any deficiency in the accompanying requirements, which shall be limited to those enumerated in the Citizen’s Charter.

"(3) The receiving officer or employee shall assign a unique identification number to an application or request, which shall be the identifying number for all subsequent transactions between the government and the applicant or requesting party regarding such specific application or request.

"(4) The receiving officer or employee shall issue an acknowledgement receipt containing the seal of the agency, the name of the responsible officer or employee, his/her unit and designation, and the date and time of receipt of such application or request.

"(b) Action of Offices. –

"(1) All applications or requests submitted shall be acted upon by the assigned officer or employee within the prescribed processing time stated in the Citizen’s Charter which shall not be longer than three (3) working days in the case of simple transactions and seven (7) working days in the case of complex transactions from the date the request and/or complete application or request was received.

"For applications or requests involving activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals, public policy, and highly technical application, the prescribed processing time shall in no case be longer than twenty (20) working days or as determined by the government agency or instrumentality concerned, whichever is shorter.

"The maximum time prescribed above may be extended only once for the same number of days, which shall be indicated in the Citizen’s Charter. Prior to the lapse of the processing time, the office or agency concerned shall notify the applicant or requesting party in writing of the reason for the extension and final date of release of the government service/s requested. Such written notification shall be signed by the applicant or requesting party to serve as proof of notice.

"If the application or request for license, clearance permit, certification or authorization shall require the approval of the local Sangguniang Bayan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, or the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as the case may be, the Sanggunian concerned shall be given a period of forty-five (45) working days to act on the application or request, which can be extended for another twenty (20) working days. If the local Sanggunian concerned has denied the application or request, the reason for the denial, as well as the remedial measures that may be taken by the applicant shall be cited by the concerned Sanggunian.

"In cases where the cause of delay is due to force majeure or natural or man-made disasters, which result to damage or destruction of documents, and/or system failure of the computerized or automatic processing, the prescribed processing times mandated in this Act shall be suspended and appropriate adjustments shall be made.

"(2) No application or request shall be returned to the applicant or requesting party without appropriate action. In case an application or request is disapproved, the officer or employee who rendered the decision shall send a formal notice to the applicant or requesting party within the prescribed processing time, stating therein the reason for the disapproval. A finding by a competent authority of a violation of any or other laws by the applicant or requesting party shall constitute a valid ground for the disapproval of the application or request, without prejudice to other grounds provided in this Act or other pertinent laws.

"(c) Denial of Application or Request for Access to Government Service. – Any denial of application or request for access to government service shall be fully explained in writing, stating the name of the person making the denial and the grounds upon which such denial is based. Any denial of application or request is deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned.

"(d) Limitation of Signatories – The number of signatories in any document shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) signatures which shall represent officers directly supervising the office or agency concerned: Provided, That in case the authorized signatory is on official business or official leave, an alternate shall be designated as signatory. Electronic signatures or pre-signed license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization with adequate security and control mechanism may be used.

"(e) Electronic Versions of Licenses, Clearances, Permits, Certifications or Authorizations. – All government agencies covered under Section 3 of this Act shall, when applicable, develop electronic versions of licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations with the same level of authority as that of the signed hard copy, which may be printed by the applicants or requesting parties in the convenience of their offices.

"(f) Adoption of Working Schedules to Serve Applicants or Requesting Parties. – Heads of offices and agencies which render government services shall adopt appropriate working schedules to ensure that all applicants or requesting parties who are within their premises prior to the end of official working hours are attended to and served even during lunch break and after regular working hours.

"(g) Identification Card. – All employees transacting with the public shall be provided with an official identification card which shall be visibly worn during office hours.

"(h) Establishment of Public Assistance/Complaints Desk. – Each office or agency shall establish a public assistance/complaints desk in all their offices."

Section 10. Section 9 of the same Act is hereby amended and renumbered as Section 10 to read as follows:

"Sec. 10. Automatic Approval or Automatic Extension of License, Clearance, Permit, Certification or Authorization. – If a government office or agency fails to approve or disapprove an original application or request for issuance of license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization within the prescribed processing time, said application or request shall be deemed approved: Provided, That all required documents have been submitted and all required fees and charges have been paid. The acknowledgment receipt together with the official receipt for payment of all required fees issued to the applicant or requesting party shall be enough proof or has the same force and effect of a license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization under this automatic approval mechanism.

"if a government office or agency fails to act on an application or request for renewal of a license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization subject for renewal within the prescribed processing time, said license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization shall automatically be extended: Provided, That the Authority, in coordination with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and other agencies which shall formulate the IRR of this Act, shall provide a listing of simple, complex, highly technical applications, and activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals or to public policy."

Section 11. New sections to be numbered as Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are hereby inserted after Section 9 of the same Act, to read as follows:

"Sec. 11. Streamlined Procedures for the Issuance of Local Business Licenses, Clearances, Permits, Certifications or Authorizations. – The LGUs are mandated to implement the following revised guidelines in the issuance of business licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations:

"(a) A single or unified business application form shall be used in processing new applications for business permits and business renewals which consolidates all the information of the applicant or requesting party by various local government departments, such as, but not limited to, the local taxes and clearances, building clearance, sanitary permit, zoning clearance, and other specific LGU requirements, as the case may be, including the fire clearance from the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP). The unified form shall be made available online using technology-neutral platforms such as, but not limited to, the central business portal or the city/municipality’s website and various channels for dissemination. Hard copies of the unified forms shall likewise be made available at all times in designated areas of the concerned office and/or agency.

"(b) A one-stop business facilitation service, hereinafter referred to as the business one stop shop, (BOSS) for the city/municipality’s business permitting and licensing system to receive and process manual and/or electronic submission of application for license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization shall be established within the cities/municipalities’ Negosyo Center as provided for under Republic Act No. 10644, otherwise known as the "Go Negosyo Act." There shall be a queuing mechanism in the BOSS to better manage the flow of applications among the LGUs’ departments receiving and processing applications. LGUs shall implement collocation of the offices of the treasury, business permits and licensing office, zoning office, including the BFP, and other relevant city/municipality offices/departments, among others, engaged in starting a business, dealing with construction permits.

"(c) Cities/Municipalities are mandated to automate their business permitting and licensing system or set up an electronic BOSS within a period of three (3) years upon the effectivity of this Act for a more efficient business registration processes. Cities/Municipalities with electronic BOSS shall develop electronic versions of licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations with the same level of authority, which may be printed by businesses in the convenience of their offices. The DICT shall make available to LGUs the software for the computerization of the business permit and licensing system. The DICT, DTI, and DILG, shall provide technical assistance in the planning and implementation of a computerized or software-enabled business permitting and licensing system.

"(d) To lessen the transaction requirements, other local clearances such as, but not limited to, sanitary permits, environmental and agricultural clearances shall be issued together with the business permit.

"(e) Business permits shall be valid for a period of one (1) year. The city/municipality may have the option to renew business permits within the first month of the year or on the anniversary date of the issuance of the business permit.

"(f) Barangay clearances and permits related to doing business shall be applied, issued, and collected at the city/municipality in accordance with the prescribed processing time of this Act: Provided, That the share in the collections shall be remitted to the respective barangays.

"The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as "The Local Government Code of 1991", specifically Article IV, Section 152(c) is hereby amended accordingly."

"Sec. 12. Sreamlined Procedures for Securing Fire Safety Evaluation Clearance (FSEC), Fire Safety Inspection Certificate (FSIC), and Certification of Fire Incidents for Fire Insurance.- For the issuance of FSEC, FSIC, and certification of fire incidents, the following shall be adopted to make business permitting more efficient:

"(a) Issuance of FSEC and FSIC shall in no case be longer than seven (7) working days;

"(b) For new business permit application, the FSIC already issued during the occupancy permit stage shall be sufficient as basis for the issuance of the FSIC for a business entity as a requirement for the business permit;

"(c) For renewal of business permit, the BFP shall, within three (3) working days from application, present the FSIC to the city/municipality, either thru the copy of the FSIC or the negative/positive list: Provided, That the business entity shall inform the BFP and submit the necessary documentary requirements if renovations, modifications or any form of alterations are made to the original building structure thirty (30) working days before the expiration of the business permit;

"(d) If the BFP fails to furnish the city/municipality with an FSIC or to inform the same through the negative/positive list within three (3) working days from the application of business renewal, the business entity shall be deemed to have a temporary valid FSIC and, therefore, shall serve as the basis for the automatic renewal of the business permit;

"(e) Issuance of the certification of fire incident for fire insurance purposes shall in no case be longer than twenty (20) working days, and may be extended only once for another twenty (20) working days;

"(f) The BFP or any of its officials or employees shall not sell, offer to sell, or recommend specific brands of fire extinguishers and other fire safety equipment to any applicant or requesting party or business entity. Any violation thereof shall be punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year to six (6) years and a penalty of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), but not more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);

"(g) The BFP shall collocate with the BOSS or in an appropriate area designated by the city/municipality within its premises to assess and collect the fire safety inspection fees;

"(h) The BFP may enter into agreements with cities/municipalities, allowing the latter to be deputized as assessors and/or collecting agents for the fire safety inspection fees; and

"(i) The BFP shall develop and adopt an online or electronic mechanism in assessing fees, collecting/accepting payments and sharing/exchange of other relevant data on business permit processing.

"The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9514, otherwise known as the "Revised Fire Code of the Philippines of 2008", are herby amended accordingly."

"Sec. 13. Central Business Portal (CBP). – To eliminate bureaucratic red tape, avert graft and corrupt practices and to promote transparency and sustain ease of doing business, the DICT shall be primarily responsible in establishing, operating and maintaining a CBP or other similar technology, as the DICT may prescribe.

"The CBP shall serve as a central system to receive applications and capture application data involving business-related transactions, including primary and secondary licenses, and business clearances, permits, certifications, or authorizations issued by the LGUs: Provided, That the CBP may also provide links to the online registration or application systems established by NGAs.

"The DICT, upon consultation with the National Privacy Commission (NPC), NGAs and LGUs shall issue rules and guidelines on the following: (a) the establishment, operation and maintenance of the CBP; and (b) the use of electronic signatures.

"The DICT is hereby mandated to implement an Interconnectivity Infrastructure Development Program for interconnectivity between and among NGAs and LGUs.

"The DICT, in coordination with other concerned NGAs and LGUs shall also conduct information dissemination campaigns aimed towards raising public awareness on the existence of the CBP and the improved access to and effective utilization of the program."

"Sec. 14. Philippine Business Databank (PBD). – Within a period of one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, the DICT, in coordination with the concerned agencies, shall established, manage and maintain a PBD which shall provide the concerned NGAs and LGUs access to data and information of registered business entities for purposes of verifying the validity, existence of and other relevant information pertaining to business entities. All concerned NGAs and LGUs shall either link their own database with the system or periodically submit to the system updates relevant to the information registered with them.

"The DICT, in consultation with the DTI, SEC, Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), NPC, DILG, LGUs, and other concerned agencies, shall issue the IRR on the development management, operation and maintenance of the PBD within three (3) months from the effectivity of this Act.

"Documents already submitted by an applicant or requesting party to an agency which has access to the PBD shall no longer be required by other NGAs and LGUs having the same access. Documents or information shall be crosschecked and retrieved in the PBD.

"At the local government level, the city or municipal business process and licensing office shall not require the same documents already provided by an applicant or requesting party to the local government departments in connection with other business-related licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations such as, but not limited to, tax clearance, occupancy permit and barangay clearance."

"Sec. 15. Interconnectivity Infrastructure Development. – In order to expedite the processing of licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations, the Authority, together with the DICT, shall develop a fast and reliable interconnectivity infrastructure. In relation to this, the processing and approval or licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations for the installation and operation of telecommunication, broadcast towers, facilities, equipment and service shall be:

"(a) a total of seven (7) working days for those issued by the barangay;

"(b) a total of seven (7) working days for those issued by LGUs; and

"(c) seven (7) working days for those issued by NGAs.

"If the granting authority fails to approve or disapprove an application for a license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization within the prescribed processing time, said application shall be deemed approved: Provided, That when the approval of the appropriate local legislative body is necessary, a nonextendible period of twenty (20) working days is hereby prescribed.

"For homeowners and other community clearances, the officers of the homeowners association shall be given ten (10) working days to refer the application to the members of the association pursuant to Section 10(k) of Republic Act No. 9904, otherwise known as the "Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners Associations": Provided, That a nonextendible period of thirty (30) working days is granted the homeowners association to give its consent or disapproval: Provided, further, That in case of disapproval, the granting authority shall notify the applicant or requesting party within the prescribed period of the reason/s for disapproval as well as remedial measures that may be taken by the applicant or requesting party.

"Within three (3) months upon the approval of the IRR of this Act, the Authority, in coordination with the DICT, shall review and recommend the repeal of outdated, redundant and unnecessary licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations being required by NGAs, LGUs, and private entities."

"Sec. 16. Anti-Red Tape Unit in the Civil Service Commission (CSC). – The CSC shall maintain an anti-red tape unit in its central and all its regional offices, utilize Report Card Survey findings for purposive and integrated government-wide human resource systems and programs toward efficient delivery of government service as contemplated in this Act; and receive, review, hear, and decide on complaints on erring government employees and officials and noncompliance with the provisions of this Act."

"Sec. 17. Anti-Red Tape Authority. – To ensure the attainment of the objectives of this Act, there is hereby created the Anti-Red Tape Authority, herein referred to as the Authority, which shall be organized within six (6) months after the effectivity of this Act. The authority shall be attached to the Office of the President.

"The Authority shall have the following powers and functions:

"(a) Implement and oversee a national policy on anti-red tape and ease of doing business;

"(b) Implement various ease of doing business and anti-red tape reform initiatives aimed at improving the ranking of the Philippines;

"(c) Monitor and evaluate the compliance of agencies covered under Section 3 of this Act, and issue notice of warning to erring and/or noncomplying government employees or officials;

"(d) Initiate investigation, motu proprio or upon receipt of a complaint, refer the same to the appropriate agency, or file cases for violations of this Act;

"(e) Assist complainants in filing necessary cases with the CSC, the Ombudsman and other appropriate courts, as the case may be;

"(f) Recommend policies, processes and systems to improve regulatory management to increase the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of business permitting and licensing agencies;

"(g) Review proposed major regulations of government agencies, using submitted regulatory impact assessments, subject to proportionality rules to be determined by the Authority;

"(h) Conduct regulatory management training programs to capacitate NGAs and LGUs to comply with sound regulatory management practices;

"(i) Prepare, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, regulatory management manuals for all government agencies and/or instrumentalities and LGUs;

"(j) Provide technical assistance and advisory opinions in the review of proposed national or local legislation, regulations or procedures;

"(k) Ensure the dissemination of and public access to information on regulatory management system and changes in laws and regulations relevant to the public by establishing the Philippine Business Regulations Information System;

"(l) Enlist the assistance of the CSC, DTI and other government agencies in the implementation of its powers and functions provided for in this Act; and

"(m) Perform such acts as may be necessary to attain the objectives of this Act."

"Sec. 18. Composition of the Authority.- The Authority shall be headed by a Director General to be appointed by the President of the Philippines upon effectivity of this Act, and such appointment shall be coterminous with the tenure of the President of the Philippines. The Director General shall enjoy the benefits, privileges, and emoluments equivalent to the rank of Secretary.

"The Director General shall oversee the day-to-day operations of the Authority. He/She shall be assisted by three (3) Deputy Directors General each for legal, operations, and administration and finance: Provided, That they are career officials as defined in existing laws, rules and regulations. The Deputy Directors General shall enjoy the benefits, privileges, and emoluments equivalent to the rank of Undersecretary and shall likewise be appointed by the President of the Philippines.

"The Director General of the Authority, in consultation with the CSC, DTI and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), shall determine the organizational structures including regional or field offices, qualification standards, staffing pattern and compensation of the newly created Authority in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations: Provided, That in the absence of regional or field offices, the Authority may deputize the regional personnel of the DTI to perform its powers and functions."

"Sec. 19. Ease of Doing Business and Anti-Red Tape Advisory Council.- There is hereby created an Ease of Doing Business and Anti-Red Tape Advisory Council, herein referred to as the Council. It shall be composed of the Secretary of the DTI as Chairperson, the Director General of the Authority as Vice-Chairperson, the Secretaries of the DICT, DILG and Department of Finance (DOF), and two (2) representatives from the private sector as the members. The department secretaries may designate their representatives, who shall sit in a permanent capacity, with no less than Undersecretary in rank, and their acts shall be considered the acts of their principals. The private sector representatives shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines for a term of three (3) years, and may be reappointed only once, from the nominees submitted by reputable business groups or associations.

"The Council shall be the policy and advisory body to the Authority. The Council shall formulate policies and programs that will continuously enhance and improve the country’s competitiveness and ease of doing business. Towards this end, the Council shall have the following powers and functions:

"(a) Plan, draft and propose a national policy on ease of doing business and anti-red tape;

"(b) Recommend policies, processes and systems to improve regulatory management to increase the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of permitting and licensing agencies;

"(c) Design and identify systems that will continuously enhance and improve the delivery of services in government and ease of doing business in the country;

"(d) Authorize the creation or appointment of specific working groups or task forces in aid of the implementation of this Act;

"(e) Propose legislation, amendments or modifications to Philippine laws related to anti-red tape and ease of doing business;

"(f) Periodically review and assess the country’s competitiveness performance, challenges, and issues;

"(g) Provide technical assistance and advisory opinions in the review of proposed national or local legislation, regulations, or procedures;

"(h) Recommend to the Authority the issuance of the appropriate measures to promote transparency and efficiency in business practices and delivery of services in government; and

"(i) Perform such other functions as may be necessary or as may be directed by the President of the Philippines for the successful implementation to attain the objectives of this Act.

"The Authority shall serve as Secretariat to the Council to be headed by its Deputy Director General for operations.

"The National Competitiveness Council (NCC), created under Executive Order No. 44, Series of 2011, shall be renamed and reorganized as the Council. The pertinent provisions under the following presidential orders: Executive Order No. 571, Executive Order No. 44, and Administrative Order No. 38 are hereby repealed accordingly."

Section 12. Section 10 of the same Act is hereby amended and renumbered as Section 20 to read as follows:

"Sec. 20. Report Card Survey. – All offices and agencies providing government services shall be subjected to a Report Card Survey to be initiated by the Authority, in coordination with the CSC, and the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), which shall be used to obtain feedback on how provisions of this Act are being followed and how the agency is performing.

"The Report Card Survey shall also be used to obtain information and/or estimates of hidden costs incurred by applicants or requesting parties to access governments services which may include, but is not limited to, bribes and payment to fixers. The result of the survey shall also become basis for the grant of awards, recognition and/or incentives for excellent delivery of services in all government agencies.

"A feedback mechanism shall be established in all agencies covered by this Act and the results thereof shall be incorporated in their annual report."

Section 13. Sections 11 and 12 of the same Act are hereby deleted, and replaced with new sections to be numbered as Sections 21 and 22, to read as follows:

"Sec. 21. Violations and Persons Liable. – Any person who performs or cause the performance of the following acts shall be liable:

"(a) Refusal to accept application or request with complete requirements being submitted by an applicant or requesting party without due cause;

"(b) Imposition of additional requirements other than those listed in the Citizen’s Charter;

"(c) Imposition of additional costs not reflected in the Citizen’s Charter;

"(d) Failure to give the applicant or requesting party a written notice on the disapproval of an application or request;

"(e) Failure to render government services within the prescribed processing time on any application or request without due cause;

"(f) Failure to attend to applicants or requesting parties who are within the premises of the office or agency concerned prior to the end of official working hours and during lunch break;

"(g) Failure or refusal to issue official receipts; and

"(h) Fixing and/or collusion with fixers in consideration of economic and/or other gain or advantage."

"Sec. 22. Penalties and Liabilities. – Any violations of the preceding actions will warrant the following penalties and liabilities.1âwphi1

"(a) First Offense: Administrative liability with six (6) months suspension: Provided, however, That in the case of fixing and/or collusion with fixers under Section 21(h), the penalty and liability under Section 22(b) of this Act shall apply.

"(b) Second Offense: Administrative liability and criminal liability of dismissal from the service, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and forfeiture of retirement benefits and imprisonment of one (1) year to six (6) years with a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), but not more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).

"Criminal liability shall also be incurred through the commission of bribery, extortion, or when the violation was done deliberately and maliciously to solicit favor in cash or in kind. In such cases, the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code and other special laws shall apply."

Section 14. Section 13 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 23 to read as follows:

"Sec. 23. Civil and Criminal Liability, Not Barred.- The finding of administrative liability under this Act shall not be a bar to the filing of criminal, civil or other related charges under existing laws arising from the same act or omission as herein enumerated."

Section 15. Section 14 of the same Act is hereby amended and renumbered as Section 24 to read as follows:

"Sec. 24. Administrative Jurisdiction. – The administrative jurisdiction on any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be vested in either the CSC, or the Office of the Ombudsman as determined by appropriate laws and issuances."

Section 16. Section 15 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 25, and all succeeding sections of the same Act are hereby deleted.

"Sec. 25. Immunity, Discharge of Co-Respondent/Accused to be a Witness. – Any public official or employee or any person having been charged with another offense under this Act and who voluntarily gives information pertaining to an investigation or who willingly testifies therefore, shall be exempt from prosecution in the case/s where his/her information and testimony are given. The discharge may be granted and directed by the investigating body or court upon the application or petition of any of the respondent/accused-informant and before the termination of the investigation: Provided, That:

"(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the respondent/accused-informant whose discharge is requested;

"(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said respondent/accused-informant;

"(c) The testimony of said respondent can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

"(d) The respondent/accused-informant has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; and

"(e) Said respondent/accused-informant does not appear to be the most guilty.

"Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the records of the investigation. Should the investigating body or court deny the motion or request for discharge as a witness, his/her sworn statement shall be inadmissible as evidence."

Section 17. New sections to be numbered as Sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 are hereby inserted after Section 15 of the same Act to read as follows:

"Sec. 26. Transition from Manual to Software-Enabled Business-Related Transactions. – The DICT, in coordination with other concerned agencies, shall within three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act, automate business-related transactions by developing the necessary software and technology-neutral platforms and secure infrastructure that is web-based and accessible to the public. The DICT shall ensure that all municipalities and provinces classified as third (3rd), fourth (4th), fifth (5th) and sixth (6th) class are provided with appropriate equipment and connectivity, information and communications technology platform, training and capability building to ensure the LGUs compliance with this Act."

"Sec. 27. Transitory Provisions. –

"(a) The Director General of the Authority, in consultation with the DTI, shall determine the organizational structure and personnel complement of the Authority.1âwphi1 To ensure continued implementation of ease of doing business and anti-red tape reforms, the teams or units involved in regulatory improvement and/or ease of doing business-related programs of the DTI-Competitiveness Bureau shall serve as temporary secretariat of the Authority until such time that its organizational structure and personnel complement have been determined and filled up: Provided, That the staff of the DTI-Competitiveness Bureau shall have the option to be absorbed or transferred laterally to the Authority without diminution of their rank, position, salaries and other emoluments once the staffing pattern and plantilla position of the Authority has been approved.

"(b) All regulatory management programs and anti-red tape initiatives across government agencies shall be gathered by the Authority. The DTI, CDA, NCC, DOF, Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), and National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) shall submit to the Authority a report on the status of their respective projects related to regulatory management.

"(c) The Authority, in coordination with CSC and the Council, shall conduct an information dissemination campaign in all NGAs and LGUs to inform them of this Act amending Republic Act No. 9485, otherwise known as the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007."

"Sec. 28. Congressional Oversight Committee. – To monitor the implementation of this Act, there shall be created a Congressional Oversight Committee on Ease of Doing Business (COC-EODB), to be composed of five (5) members from the Senate, which shall include the Chairpersons of the Senate Committees on Trade and Commerce and Entrepreneurship, Civil Service, Government Reorganization and Professional Regulation, and Economic Affairs; and five (5) members from the House of Representatives which shall include the Chairpersons of the House Committees on Trade and Industry, Civil Service and Professional Regulation, Government Reorganization, and Economic Affairs. The COC-EODB shall be jointly chaired by the Chairpersons of the Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce and Entrepreneurship and the House of Representatives Committee on Trade and Industry: Provided, That the oversight committee shall cease to exist after five (5) years upon the effectivity of this Act.

"The Secretariat of the COC-EODB shall be drawn from the existing personnel of the Senate and House of Representatives committees comprising the COC-EODB."

"Sec. 29. Appropriations. – The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be charged against the current year’s appropriations of the concerned agencies. In addition, the amount of Three hundred million pesos (P300,000,000.00) as initial funding for the Authority to be charged against the unexpended Contingency Fund of the Office of the President is hereby appropriated. Thereafter, the amount needed for the implementation of this Act shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act."

"Sec. 30. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The Authority with the CSC and DTI, and in coordination with the DICT, DOF, DILG, NEDA, PSA, CDA, SEC, the Office of the Ombudsman, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations within ninety (90) working days from the effectivity of this Act."

"Sec. 31. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act."

"Sec. 32. Repealing Clause. – All provisions of laws, presidential decrees, letters of instruction and other presidential issuances which are incompatible or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby deemed amended or repealed accordingly."

"Sec. 33. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect within fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation."

Section 18. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Friday, September 2, 2022

MUTILATION, Article 262, Revised Penal Code



"xxx.

As to the charge of mutilation, Art. 262 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime as –

Art. 262. Mutilation. – The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.

Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.

A straightforward scrutiny of the above provision shows that the elements55 of mutilation under the first paragraph of Art. 262 of the Revised Penal Code to be 1) that there be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation; and 2) that the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some essential organ for reproduction. According to the public prosecutor, the facts alleged did not amount to the crime of mutilation as defined and penalized above, i.e., "[t]he vasectomy operation did not in any way deprived (sic) Larry of his reproductive organ, which is still very much part of his physical self." Petitioner Gloria Aguirre, however, would want this Court to make a ruling that bilateral vasectomy constitutes the crime of mutilation.

This we cannot do, for such an interpretation would be contrary to the intentions of the framers of our penal code.

A fitting riposte to the issue at hand lies in United States v. Esparcia,56 in which this Court had the occasion to shed light on the implication of the term mutilation. Therein we said that:

The sole point which it is desirable to discuss is whether or not the crime committed is that defined and penalized by article 414 of the Penal Code. The English translation of this article reads: "Any person who shall intentionally castrate another shall suffer a penalty ranging from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua." The Spanish text, which should govern, uses the word "castrare," inadequately translated into English as "castrate." The word "capar," which is synonymous of "castrar," is defined in the Royal Academic Dictionary as the destruction of the organs of generation or conception. Clearly it is the intention of the law to punish any person who shall intentionally deprived another of any organ necessary for reproduction. An applicable construction is that of Viada in the following language:

"At the head of these crimes, according to their order of gravity, is the mutilation known by the name of 'castration' which consists of the amputation of whatever organ is necessary for generation. The law could not fail to punish with the utmost severity such a crime, which, although not destroying life, deprives a person of the means to transmit it. But bear in mind that according to this article in order for 'castration' to exist, it is indispensable that the 'castration' be made purposely. The law does not look only to the result but also to the intention of the act. Consequently, if by reason of an injury or attack, a person is deprived of the organs of generation, the act, although voluntary, not being intentional to that end, it would not come under the provisions of this article, but under No. 2 of article 431." (Viada, Codigo Penal, vol. 3, p. 70. See to same effect, 4 Groizard, Codigo Penal, p. 525.)

Thus, the question is, does vasectomy deprive a man, totally or partially, of some essential organ of reproduction? We answer in the negative.

In the male sterilization procedure of vasectomy, the tubular passage, called the vas deferens, through which the sperm (cells) are transported from the testicle to the urethra where they combine with the seminal fluid to form the ejaculant, is divided and the cut ends merely tied.57 That part, which is cut, that is, the vas deferens, is merely a passageway that is part of the duct system of the male reproductive organs. The vas deferens is not an organ, i.e., a highly organized unit of structure, having a defined function in a multicellular organism and consisting of a range of tissues.58 Be that as it may, even assuming arguendo that the tubular passage can be considered an organ, the cutting of the vas deferens does not divest or deny a man of any essential organ of reproduction for the simple reason that it does not entail the taking away of a part or portion of the male reproductive system. The cut ends, after they have been tied, are then dropped back into the incision.59

Though undeniably, vasectomy denies a man his power of reproduction, such procedure does not deprive him, "either totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction." Notably, the ordinary usage of the term "mutilation" is the deprivation of a limb or essential part (of the body),60 with the operative expression being "deprivation." In the same manner, the word "castration" is defined as the removal of the testies or ovaries.61 Such being the case in this present petition, the bilateral vasectomy done on Larry could not have amounted to the crime of mutilation as defined and punished under Article 262, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code. And no criminal culpability could be foisted on to respondent Dr. Agatep, the urologist who performed the procedure, much less the other respondents. Thus, we find sufficient evidence to explain why the Assistant City Prosecutor and the DOJ ruled the way they did. Verily, We agree with the Court of Appeals that the writ of certiorari is unavailing; hence, should not be issued.

It is once more apropos to pointedly apply the Court's general policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations. As it has been oft said, the Supreme Court cannot order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case.62 The courts try and absolve or convict the accused but, as a rule, have no part in the initial decision to prosecute him.63 The possible exception to this rule is where there is an unmistakable showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that will justify judicial intrusion into the precincts of the executive. But that is not the case herein.

Xxx."


G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008

GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MICHELINA S. AGUIRRE-OLONDRIZ, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, DR. JUVIDO AGATEP and DR. MARISSA B. PASCUAL, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html




FALSIFICATION, Articles 171 and 172, Revised Penal Code



"xxx.

Applying the foregoing disquisition to the present petition, the reasons of the Assistant City Prosecutor in dismissing the criminal complaints for falsification and mutilation, as affirmed by the DOJ, is determinative of whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

In ruling the way he did – that no probable cause for falsification and mutilation exists - the Assistant City Prosecutor deliberated on the factual and legal milieu of the case. He found that there was no sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for the crimes complained of as defined and punished under Articles 172, paragraph 2, and 262 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, respectively. Concerning the crime of falsification of a private document, the Assistant City Prosecutor reasoned that the circumstances attendant to the case did not amount to the crime complained of, that is, the lack of consent by Larry Aguirre before he was vasectomized; or the fact that the latter was not consulted. The lack of the two preceding attendant facts do not in any way amount to falsification, absent the contention that it was made to appear in the assailed report that said consent was obtained. That would have been an untruthful statement. Neither does the fact that the Psychiatric Report state that Lourdes Aguirre has Bipolar Mood Disorder by the same token amount to falsification because said report does not put forward that such finding arose after an examination of the concerned patient. Apropos the charge of mutilation, he reasoned that though the vasectomy rendered Larry unable to procreate, it was not the permanent damage contemplated under the pertinent provision of the penal code.

We agree. Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the DOJ and the Assistant City Prosecutor was not shown in the present case.

In the present petition, respondents Pedro Aguirre, Olondriz, Dr. Agatep and Dr. Pascual are charged with violating Articles 172 and 262 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. Article 172, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, defines the crime of falsification of a private document, viz –

Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

x x x x

2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.

Petitioner Gloria Aguirre charges respondents with falsification of a private document for conspiring with one another in keeping Larry "in the dark about the foregoing (vasectomy) as the same was concealed from him by the respondents x x x,"53 as well as for falsely concluding and diagnosing Lourdes Aguirre to be suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder.

A scrutiny, however, of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code which defines the acts constitutive of falsification, that is –

Art. 171. x x x shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric;

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.

vis-à-vis the much criticized Psychiatric Report, shows that the acts complained of do not in any manner, by whatever stretch of the imagination, fall under any of the eight (8) enumerated acts constituting the offense of falsification.

In order to properly address the issue presented by petitioner Gloria Aguirre, it is necessary that we discuss the elements of the crime of falsification of private document under the Revised Penal Code, a crime which all the respondents have been accused of perpetrating. The elements of said crime under paragraph 2 of Article 172 of our penal code are as follows: 1) that the offender committed any acts of falsification, except those in par. 7, enumerated in Article 171; 2) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and 3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage. Under Article 171, paragraph 2, a person may commit falsification of a private document by causing it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or proceeding, when such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding. On the other hand, falsification under par. 3 of the same article is perpetrated by a person or persons who, participating in an act or proceeding, made statements in that act or proceeding and the offender, in making a document, attributed to such person or persons statements other than those in fact made by such person or persons. And the crime defined under paragraph 4 thereof is committed when 1) the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts; 2) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; 3) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and 4) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.

Applying the above-stated elements of the crime to the case at bar, in order that respondent Dr. Pascual, and the rest acting in conspiracy with her, to have committed the crime of falsification under par. 3 and 4 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, it is essential that that there be prima facie evidence to show that she had caused it to appear that Larry gave his consent to be vasectomized or at the very least, that the proposed medical procedure was explained to Larry. But in the assailed report, no such thing was done. Lest it be forgotten, the reason for having Larry psychiatrically evaluated was precisely to ascertain whether or not he can validly consent with impunity to the proposed vasectomy, and not to obtain his consent to it or to oblige respondent Dr. Pascual to explain to him what the import of the medical procedure was. Further, that Larry's consent to be vasectomized was not obtained by the psychiatrist was of no moment, because nowhere is it stated in said report that such assent was obtained. At any rate, petitioner Gloria Aguirre contradicts her very own allegations when she persists in the contention that Larry has the mental age of a child; hence, he was legally incapable of validly consenting to the procedure.

In the matter of the supposed incorrect diagnosis of Lourdes Aguirre, with regard to paragraph 2 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, we quote with approval the succinct statements of the Assistant City Prosecutor:

[T]he fact that Dra. Pascual cited finding, which is not of her own personal knowledge in her report does not mean that she committed falsification in the process. Her sources may be wrong and may affect the veracity of her report, but for as long as she has not alleged therein that she personally diagnosed Lourdes Aguirre, which allegation would not then be true, she cannot be charged of falsification. Therefore, it goes without saying that if the author of the report is not guilty, then with more reason the other respondents are not liable.54

Xxx."


G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008

GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MICHELINA S. AGUIRRE-OLONDRIZ, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, DR. JUVIDO AGATEP and DR. MARISSA B. PASCUAL, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html




Probable cause



"xxx.

PROBABLE CAUSE has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.43 The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty.44 It is merely based on OPINION AND REASONABLE BELIEF;45 that is, the belief that the act or omission complained of CONSTITUTES THE OFFENSE CHARGED. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect TO STAND TRIAL. It is NOT A PRONOUNCEMENT OF GUILT. 46

The EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT of the government is accountable for the PROSECUTION OF CRIMES, its principal obligation being the FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAWS Lof the land. A necessary component of the power to execute the laws is the RIGHT TO PROSECUTE their violators,47 the responsibility of which is thrust upon the DOJ. Hence, the determination of whether or not probable cause exists to warrant the prosecution in court of an accused is consigned and entrusted to the DOJ. And by the nature of his office, a public prosecutor is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion.

Put simply, PUBLIC PROSECUTORS under the DOJ have a WIDE RANGE OF DISCRETION, the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by (public) prosecutors.48 And this Court has consistently adhered to the POLICY OF NON-INTERFERENCE IN THE CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS, and to leave to the investigating prosecutor SUFFICIENT LATITUDE OF DISCRETION in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of an information against the supposed offender.49

But this is NOT to discount the possibility of the commission of ABUSES on the part of the prosecutor. It is entirely possible that the investigating prosecutor MAY ERRONEOUSLY EXERCISE THE DISCRETION LODGED IN HIM by law. This, however, does NOT render his act amenable to CORRECTION AND ANNULMENT by the EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF CERTIORARI, absent any showing of GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.50

Prescinding from the above, the court's duty in an appropriate case, therefore, is confined to a determination of whether the assailed executive determination of probable cause was done WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION resulting from a GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. For courts of law to grant the extraordinary writ of certiorari, so as to justify the reversal of the finding of whether or not there exists probable cause to file an information, the one seeking the writ must be able to establish that the investigating prosecutor exercised his power in an ARBITRARY AND DESPOTIC MANNER by reason of PASSION OR PERSONAL HOSTILITY, and it must be PATENT AND GROSS as would amount to an EVASION or to a UNILATERAL REFUSAL TO PERFORM THE DUTY enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. Grave abuse of discretion is not enough.51 Excess of jurisdiction signifies that he had jurisdiction over the case but has transcended the same or acted without authority.52

Applying the foregoing disquisition to the present petition, the reasons of the Assistant City Prosecutor in dismissing the criminal complaints for falsification and mutilation, as affirmed by the DOJ, is determinative of whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Xxx."


G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008

GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MICHELINA S. AGUIRRE-OLONDRIZ, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, DR. JUVIDO AGATEP and DR. MARISSA B. PASCUAL, respondents.


https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html




Wednesday, August 17, 2022

Jurisdiction over Crimes Punishable Only by a Fine - Prof. Manuel Riguera



Source - https://legisperit.com/2022/08/17/jurisdiction-over-crimes-punishable-only-by-a-fine/


"Jurisdiction over Crimes Punishable Only by a Fine


Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 09-94 (14 June 1994) provides that it is the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MTCs) which have jurisdiction over crimes punishable only by a fine, where such fine does not exceed ₱4,000.

It is axiomatic that the Supreme Court does not have the power to lay down rules regarding subject-matter jurisdiction. SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94 was thus anchored on the original provision of Section 32(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 (prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 7691) which provides that the MTCs shall have jurisdiction over crimes punishable only by a fine not exceeding ₱4,000. Hence, a crime punishable only by a fine exceeding ₱4,000 is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

However, the Rules on Expedited Procedure in the First Level Courts (effective 11 April 2022) provide that “[a]ll … criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is … a fine not exceeding Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00)” shall be governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure (Section 1[B][5]). The Rule on Summary Procedure of course applies exclusively to cases before the MTCs. In effect, the REPFLC increased the jurisdictional amount provided for in Administrative Circular No. 09-94 from ₱4,000 to ₱50,000. Hence, from the text of the REPFLC, a crime punishable only by a fine exceeding ₱4,000 but not ₱50,000 would fall within the MTC’s jurisdiction.

It is submitted however with due respect that the REPFLC cannot effectively increase the jurisdictional amount to ₱50,000. Unlike SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94 which was anchored on B.P. Blg. 129, Section 1(B)(5) of the REPFLC is bereft of statutory mooring. A legislative amendment of Section 32(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 would be required to increase the jurisdictional amount for offenses punishable by fine only. It is thus opined that the RTCs retain jurisdiction over offenses punishable only by a fine exceeding ₱4,000.

In line with the foregoing observations, it is also submitted that Section 1(B)(5) of the REPFLC be amended as follows:

“All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding one (1) year or where the prescribed penalty consists only of a fine not exceeding Four Thousand Pesos (₱4,000.00). In offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱150,000.00).”"

Tuesday, August 2, 2022

RA 11057 - Personal Property Security Act (2018)



R.A. No. 11057, approved in 2018, is known as the "PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY ACT".

It applies to all transactions of any form that SECURE AN OBLIGATION with MOVABLE COLLATERAL, EXCEPT interests in AIRCRAFTS subject to Republic Act No. 9497, or the "Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008", and interests in SHIPS subject to Presidential Decree No. 1521, or the "Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978. (Section 4).

Please note SECTION 68 of the law, which provides that notwithstanding the entry into force of the Act under Section 67, the IMPLEMENTATION thereof shall be CONDITIONED UPON THE REGISTRY BEING ESTABLISHED AND OPERATIONAL UNDER SECTION 26.

NOTABLE PROVISIONS:

SECTION 26. ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTRONIC REGISTRY.—

(a) The Registry shall be established in and administered by the LRA.

(b) The Registry shall provide electronic means for registration and searching of notices.

Section 27. PUBLIC RECORD .—

(a) Information contained in a registered notice shall be considered as a public record.

(b) Any person may search notices registered in the Registry.

(c) The electronic records of the Registry shall be the official records.

SECTION 62. IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS. — Within six (6) months from the passage of this Act, the DOF in coordination with the Department of Justice, through the LRA, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for’ the effective implementation of this Act.

SECTION 63. RULES ON ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE.— Subject to Section 47, the expedited hearing/proceedings shall be conducted in a SUMMARY MANNER consistent with the declared policies of this Act and in accordance with the rules of procedure that the SUPREME COURT may promulgate.

SECTION 66. REPEALING CLAUSE .— The following laws, and all laws, decrees, orders, and issuances or portions thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly:

(a) Sections 1 to 16 of Act No. 1508, otherwise known as "THE CHATTEL MORTGAGE LAW";

(b) Articles 2085-2123, 2127, 2140-2141, 2241, 2243, and 2246-2247 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the "CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES";

(c) Section 13 of Republic Act No. 5980, as amended by Republic Act No. 8556, otherwise known as the "FINANCING COMPANY ACT OF 1998";

(d) Sections 114-116 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the "PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE";

(e) Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, insofar as the provision thereof is inconsistent with this Act; and

(f) Section 5(e) of Republic Act No. 4136, otherwise known as the "LAND TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CODE".

SECTION 68. IMPLEMENTATION .— Notwithstanding the entry into force of this Act under Section 67, the IMPLEMENTATION of the Act shall be CONDITIONED UPON THE REGISTRY BEING ESTABLISHED AND OPERATIONAL UNDER SECTION 26.

Read -

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2019/10/10/implementing-rules-and-regulations-of-republic-act-no-11057/

https://www.dof.gov.ph/advocacies/personal-property-security-act/

http://www.investphilippines.info/arangkada/ra-11057-personal-property-security-act/




Issuance of title to subdivision lot buyer or condominium unit buyer upon full payment of the price - PD No. 957



"FEPI is liable under Sections 17
and 25 of PD 957.

We now tackle Sections 17 and 25 of PD 957, viz.:

Section 17. Registration. All contracts to sell, deeds of sale and other similar instruments relative to the sale or conveyance of the subdivision lots and condominium units, whether or not the purchase price is paid in full, shall be registered by the seller in the Office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the property is situated.

x x x x

Section 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith. (Emphases supplied)

The registration of the final deed of sale here is the obligation of FEPI under Section 17. On the other hand, issuance of title under Section 25 should be construed to mean delivery by FEPI of the owner's duplicate copy of the CCT, again for purposes of causing the registration of the property in the buyer's name.

As it was, FEPI violated both provisions of law. Not only did it fail to register the deed of absolute sale before the Register of Deeds, it also refused to deliver to HRI the owner's duplicate copy of the CCT.

Notably, FEPI's obligations to register the final deed of sale (Section 17) and deliver the owner's duplicate copy of the CCT (Section 25) are distinct from the obligation of HRI, as buyer, to legally process the transfer of the CCT in its name as the now registered owner."


G.R. No. 231936, November 25, 2020

FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HERMANA REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_231936_2020.html

Owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title


"Presentation of the owner's
duplicate certificate of title and
proof of payment of taxes and fees
are conditions sine qua non to the
transfer of title before the Register
of Deeds

Under Section 135 of the LGC, proof of payment of taxes and fees is a requirement before the Register of Deeds may initiate the transfer of title over a property, viz.:

SECTION 135. Tax on Transfer of Real Property Ownership. -

x x x x

(b) For this purpose, the Register of Deeds of the province concerned shall, before registering any deed, require the presentation of the evidence of payment of this tax. The provincial assessor shall likewise make the same requirement before canceling an old tax declaration and issuing a new one in place thereof. Notaries public shall furnish the provincial treasures with a copy of any deed transferring ownership or title to any real property within thirty (30) days from the date of notarization. (Emphasis supplied)

Here, HRI recognizes its obligation to pay the taxes and registration expenses as buyer of the condominium unit pursuant to paragraph 4 (b) of the Contract to Sell.23 It also does not dispute the common fact that it needs to pay the relevant taxes and fees for registration of a new title under its name. The only thing HRI demands from FEPI, which the latter has persistently refused to deliver, is copy of the owner's duplicate certificate of title on the premise that HRI must first present proof that it had already paid the required taxes and fees.

FEPI is mistaken.

Section 41 Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the "Property Registration Decree," provides:

Section 41. Owner's duplicate certificate of title. The owner's duplicate certificate of title shall be delivered to the registered owner or to his duly authorized representative. If two or more persons are registered owners, one owner's duplicate certificate may be issued for the whole land, or if the co-owners so desire, a separate duplicate may be issued to each of them in like form, but all outstanding certificates of title so issued shall be surrendered whenever the Register of Deeds shall register any subsequent voluntary transaction affecting the whole land or part thereof or any interest therein. The Register of Deeds shall note on each certificate of title a statement as to whom a copy thereof was issued.

Section 53 of the same law expounds:

Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new certificate. No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument, except in cases expressly provided for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for cause shown.

The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration, shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and in good faith.

x x x x

Thus, it is clear that for purposes of registration of any voluntary transactions before the Register of Deeds and the subsequent issuance of a new certificate of title,24 the owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title must be surrendered by the parties to the Register of Deeds.

To emphasize, upon HRI's full payment of the purchase price, not only has it acquired the right to a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale but the right as well to the owner's duplicate CCT. For without these documents, HRI may not possibly cause the registration of a new title under its name."


G.R. No. 231936, November 25, 2020

FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HERMANA REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_231936_2020.html

Deed of Sale


"HRI may demand as a matter of
right a notarized Deed of Absolute
Sale in its favor.

While FEPI did execute a Deed of Absolute Sale upon HRI's full payment of the purchase price, the same was undated and unnotarized. FEPI asserts that the document will stay that way until HRI remits the corresponding payment for the DST and other taxes on the sale.

Article 1358 of the Civil Code reads:

Article 1358. The following must appear in a public document:

(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein are governed by articles 1403, No. 2, and1405;

x x x x

In Cenido v. Spouses Apacionado,21 the Court ruled that contrary to petitioner's claim, the "Pagpapatunay" is a valid contract of sale despite being unnotarized since under Article 1358, a private document, though not reduced to a public one, remains to be valid and is merely unenforceable. So that after the existence of the contract has been admitted, a party to the sale, if he or she is so minded, has the right to compel the other party to execute the proper document following Article 135722 of the Civil Code.

Section 135 of the Local Government Code (LGC) further speaks of the requirements for registration of deeds on transfer of real property and the corresponding duty of notaries public who notarized the deeds, thus:

SECTION 135. Tax on Transfer of Real Property Ownership. -

a. x x x

b. For this purpose, the Register of Deeds of the province concerned shall, before registering any deed, require the presentation of the evidence of payment of this tax. The provincial assessor shall likewise make the same requirement before canceling an old tax declaration and issuing a new one in place thereof. Notaries public shall furnish the provincial treasures with a copy of any deed transferring ownership or title to any real property within thirty (30) days from the date of notarization. (Emphasis supplied)

On the strength of Article 1357 of the Civil Code and relevant jurisprudence, in relation to Section 135 of the LGC, therefore, HRI has the right to compel FEPI to execute a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale in its favor for purposes of registration."


G.R. No. 231936, November 25, 2020

FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HERMANA REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_231936_2020.html

Contract to sell



"Upon full payment of the contract
price, HRI became rightfully
entitled to the execution of a Deed
of Absolute Sale in its favor.

A contract to sell has been defined as "a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds itself to sell the property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, that is, full payment of the purchase price." In a contract to sell, "ownership is retained by the seller and is not to pass until the full payment of the price."20 Consequently, once the buyer has paid the purchase price in full, the contract to sell is converted to an absolute sale and the buyer has the right to demand the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in its favor.

Here, there is no question that HRI has paid in full the contract price in the amount of ₱20,998,400.00. There is no question either that by operation of law, HRI as the buyer has become rightfully entitled to the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in its favor."

G.R. No. 231936, November 25, 2020
FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HERMANA REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_231936_2020.html

Thursday, June 30, 2022

Res judicata vs. Conclusiveness of judgment



"xxx.

Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment."72 It rises from the underlying idea that parties should not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once, and that a right or fact that has already been judicially determined by a competent court should be conclusive as to the parties.73 More than being a technicality, the Court has long pronounced this as a fundamental precept designed to promote just, fair and speedy justice.74 This doctrine is set forth in Section 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which in its relevant part reads:


Section. 47. Effect of Judgments or Final Orders. — The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:


x x x


(b)
In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and


(c)
In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.



In Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan,75 the Court elucidated on the concept and appreciation of conclusiveness of judgment:


Conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest). and continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the conclusively settled fact or question furthermore cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.

While conclusiveness of judgment does not have the same barring effect as that of a bar by former judgment that proscribes subsequent actions, the former nonetheless estops the parties from raising in a later case the issues or points that were raised and controverted, and were determinative of the ruling in the earlier case. In other words, the dictum laid down in the earlier final judgment or order becomes conclusive and continues to be binding between the same parties, their privies and successors-in-interest, as long as the facts on which that judgment was predicated continue to be the facts of the case or incident before the court in a later case; the binding effect and enforceability of that earlier dictum can no longer be re-litigated in a later case since the issue has already been resolved and finally laid to rest in the earlier case.76


Before res judicata can apply, the following requisites must be present: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must be rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action.77


Xxx."


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Prejudicial question liberally construed



"xxx.

Given the foregoing, and as applied to the instant controversy, the Court finds that although the facts of this case involve a criminal action which preceded the institution of the civil action, a prejudicial question nevertheless exists because a survey of the jurisprudential appreciation and application of the doctrine of a prejudicial question demonstrably shows that the strict sequence of institution of the two actions as provided for by Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is more directory than mandatory, and must give way to the chief litmus test of whether the two actions involve prejudicial issues and facts that are similar or otherwise intimately related so that a resolution in one concludes the resolution in the other.

The directory application of the sequence of institution of actions, i.e., the civil case must precede the criminal action, is supported by the fact that the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are prefaced by the instruction that it must be liberally construed, and that this procedural requirement must be seen in light of the more general principle that substantive rights must prevail over procedural rules. As astutely observed by literature on the framework of the application of the doctrine of prejudicial question in the Philippines:


The very fact that the Court each and every time considered whether or not the criminal case is dependent on the civil case or whether or not the civil case is determinative of the guilt of the accused, before declaring whether or not a prejudicial question exists, indicates that while the Rules may have been phrased in such strict manner, the substance of the issues involved are more important than the mere sequence provided for in the Rules.

According to the Rules, the elements of a prejudicial question are that (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in a subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. It must be noted that the words "previous" and "subsequent" may be more apparent than the other words, such as "issues" "similarly[,]" "resolution[,]" and "determines," provided for in the rule. A reading of the decisions, however, militate against the conclusion that the Court gives less importance to the determinative factor of the issue in the civil case, than on whether or not the strict sequence is followed.

Hence, the rule is directory insofar as the strict sequence of the cases is involved, but is mandatory as to the requirement that the issue in the civil case must be so similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case, so as to determine whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Consequently, there are instances when the strict sequence may be dispensed with for as long as the mandatory requirement as to the determinative, similar or intimately related issue is present.103


Xxx. "


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Prejudicial question



"xxx.

In sum, the prejudicial factual finding of genuineness of Sps. Granda's signatures on the questioned Deeds of Sale in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135 must operate to bar the prosecution of respondents for the falsification of the same signatures on the same questioned Deeds of Sale. This is the heart of the doctrine of a prejudicial question, without the appreciation of which the application of said doctrine may never come to be.

Finally, petitioner's submission that it must be allowed to present new evidence in order to establish the allegation of forgery which was already conclusively found as without basis in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135, is to completely render nugatory the very premise of a prejudicial question, for one, and the value of finality of judgments, for another.

Chiefly, the doctrine of a prejudicial question serves the following purposes: (i) to avoid multiplicity of suits; (ii) avoid unnecessary litigation; (iii) avoid conflicting decisions; (iv) safeguard the rights of the accused; and (v) unclog the courts' dockets.115 Therefore, if petitioner is allowed to effectively relitigate a point of prejudicial fact already tried and found by another court in a civil case, and which has, in this case, already attained finality, then the above purposes of the doctrine of a prejudicial question will be wholly defeated.

To be sure, the Court is not unmindful of the fact that there may have been failures on the discharge of proof of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135. However, the Court cannot turn away from the pivotal fact that the said civil case already held as unfounded the very same allegation of forgery that the pending criminal cases seek to prove. What's more, said factual finding in the Civil Case No. 2001-09-135 had already obtained finality, when the decision of the RTC therein became final with the CA's Resolution dated October 26, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00990.

Unfortunately for petitioner's cause, therefore, the Court finds no outweighing benefit in overturning the finality of RTC-Branch 9's decision in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135, the core finding of which predisposes the Court now to dismiss the pending criminal cases.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 27, 2015 and Resolution dated September 23, 2015 of the Court of Appeals Former Eighteenth Division in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 01796 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City in Criminal Case Nos. 2008-03-109 to 111 against respondent Robert Lastrilla, and Criminal Case Nos. 2001-07-482 to 484 against respondent Camilo Camenforte are AFFIRMED by virtue of the existence of a prejudicial question.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Xxx. "


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Public document - presumption of regularity of genuineness and due execution



"xxx.

In addition, the requirement of clear and convincing proof in ousting the presumption of genuineness and due execution of a public document is further echoed in Bernardo v. Court of Appeals,113 viz.:

It is a fact that the transaction between private respondent and the spouses Bernardo was reduced into writing by way of a document denominated "Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage." This document, admitted as signed by private respondent and his wife, was duly notarized by Notary Public Pedro B. Binuya and had two instrumental witnesses. Being a notarized document, it had in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to overcome the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise the document should be upheld.

The question that must be addressed, therefore, is: Was the evidence presented by private respondent against the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant? We do not think so.

Far from being clear and convincing, all that private respondent offered by way of evidence was his and his wife's mere denial that they had intended to sell the subject land. Such bare and unsubstantiated denial will not suffice to overcome the positive presumption of the due execution of the subject Deed, being a notarized document. Indeed, when the evidence is conflicting, the public document must still be upheld.114chanRoblesvirtualLawl

Xxx."


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Notarized documents and presumption of regularity

"xxx.

In the same vein, clear and convincing evidence is similarly required to overcome the due execution and genuineness that a public document is imbued with. Without such proof, a gaping doubt results in the criminal prosecution for falsification. Such doubt becomes irremediable when said presumption of due execution is elevated to the level of a final and conclusive finding of a competent court in a civil case.

The case of Aznar Brothers Realty Co. v. Court of Appeals,111 illustrates how the Court dovetailed the importance of proving a claim of falsification in a public document through clear and convincing proof, otherwise the latter's presumption of genuineness is maintained, to wit:

It is worthy to note that the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale is a notarized document. As such, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. He who denies its due execution has the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in the Acknowledgment he never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged the deed to be his voluntary act. It must also be stressed that whoever alleges forgery has the burden of proving the same. Forgery cannot be presumed but should be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Private respondents failed to discharge this burden of proof; hence, the presumption in favor of the questioned deed stands.112


Xxx. "


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Best evidence of forged document



"x x x.

Further on this score, the Court reminds with significance that in order to establish an allegation of forgery in a civil case, a party forwarding the same must establish so through clear and convincing proof. The Court quotes its instructive rationale in the case of Heirs of Gregorio v. Court of Appeals,109 thus:

Basic is the rule of evidence that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. This is especially true when the issue is that of forgery.

As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged. Without the original document containing the alleged forged signature, one cannot make a definitive comparison which would establish forgery. A comparison based on a mere xerox copy or reproduction of the document under controversy cannot produce reliable results.110

X x x."


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Forgery



"x x x.

It is further crucial to remember that RTC-Branch 9, the RTC in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135, already found that with the claim of forgery unfounded, the Deeds of Sale are considered to have been validly executed, viz.:

x x x This Court is not impressed with the said evidence presented by the plaintiffs in support of their claim that the three (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale were falsified, hence null and void.

In the case of Veloso vs. CA. 260 SCRA 593, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that:

Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged; forgery cannot be presumed. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same. Just like the petitioner, witness Atty. Tubig merely pointed out that his signature was different from that in the Power of Attorney and Deed of Sale. There had never been an accurate examination of the signature, even that of the petitioner.

To determine forgery, it was held in Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 54719-50m, 17 Hab 185) quoting Osbora x x x that:

The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the extent, kind and significance of this resemblance as well as the variation. It then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different personality or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is the result of more skillful imitation, or is the habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these two questions are correctly answered, the whole problem of identification is solved.
Failure, therefore, on the part of the plaintiffs to show that the variation of the signature in Exhibit "E" (if ever there was) with that of the three (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale was due to the operation of a different personality negates their claim of forgery and cannot overcome the regularity of the herein questioned documents.107
X x x. "


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757

Saturday, May 21, 2022

Voter, qualification/ disqualification of.



"Velasco's Qualifications/Disqualifications as a Voter

Whether Velasco possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to register as a voter of Sasmuan, Pampanga is a matter that is not directly before us as his inclusion as a Sasmuan voter is not before us. As the COMELEC did, we rely on the final and executory RTC ruling excluding Velasco from the Sasmuan voters' list. We observe, however, that at the time he filed his application for registration with the COMELEC local office on October 13, 2006, Velasco was a dual citizen. The records show that Velasco renounced his American citizenship only on March 28, 2007,13 although he secured his dual citizenship status as early as July 31, 2006 at the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco, California.14 Under his dual citizenship status, he possessed the right to vote in Philippine elections through the absentee voting scheme under Republic Act No. 9189 (the Oversees Absentee Voting Law or the OAVL)15 as we ruled in Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC.16 In Macalintal v. COMELEC,17 we significantly said that absentee voters are exempted from the constitutional residency requirement for regular Philippine voters. Thus, the residency requirements we cited above under the VRA and the LGC do not apply to Velasco, assuming he registered as a dual citizen/absentee voter.

By law, however, the right of dual citizens who vote as absentee voters pertains only to the election of national officials, specifically: the president, the vice-president, the senators, and party-list representatives.18 Thus, Velasco was not eligible to vote as an absentee voter in the local election of 2007. In fact, the records do not show that Velasco ever registered as an absentee voter for the 2007 election.19

On the other hand, Velasco could not have registered as a regular voter because he did not possess the residency requirement of one-year stay in the Philippines and six-months stay in the municipality where he proposed to vote at the time of the election. The records show that he arrived in the Philippines only on September 14, 2006 and applied for registration on October 13 of that year20 for the election to be held in May of the following year (2007). To hark back and compare his case to a similar case, Coquilla v. COMELEC,21 Velasco, before acquiring his dual citizenship status, was an American citizen who had lost his residency and domiciliary status in the Philippines; whose sojourn in the Philippines was via a visitor's visa; and who never established permanent residence in the Philippines. Like Coquilla before him, Velasco could not have therefore validly registered as a regular voter eight months before the May 2007 local elections."


G. R. No. 180051, December 24, 2008

NARDO M. VELASCO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MOZART P. PANLAQUI, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_180051_2008.html

Voter's inclusion /exclusion proceedings



"The Voters' Inclusion/Exclusion Proceedings.

The process of voters' inclusion/exclusion, as part of the voters' registration process, is provided and defined under Sections 138, 139 and 143 of the OEC. These sections provide:

Sec. 138. Jurisdiction in inclusion and exclusion cases. - The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters from the list in their respective cities or municipalities. Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the Regional Trial Courts within five (5) days from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become final and executory. The regional trial court shall decide the appeal within ten (10) days from the time it is received and the decision shall become final and executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained [As amended by Section 33 of Republic Act No. 8189 (RA 8189)].

Sec. 139. Petition for inclusion of voters in the list. - Any person whose application for registration has been disapproved by the Board or whose name has been stricken out from the list may file with the court a petition to include his name in the permanent list of voters in his precinct at any time except one hundred five (105) days prior to a regular election or seventy-five (75) days prior to a special election. It shall be supported by a certificate of disapproval of his application and proof of service of notice of his petition upon the Board. The petition shall be decided within fifteen (15) days after its filing.

If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of voters, the Board shall place the application for registration previously disapproved in the corresponding book of voters and indicate in the application for registration the date of the order of inclusion and the court which issued the same [As amended by Section 34 of RA 8189].

Section 143. Common rules governing judicial proceedings in the matter of inclusion, exclusion and correction of names of voters. -

(a) Petition for inclusion, exclusion, or correction of names of voters shall be filed during office hours;

(b) Notice of the place, date and time of the hearing of the petition shall be served upon the members of the Board and the challenged voter upon the filing of the petition. Service of such notice may be made by sending a copy thereof by personal delivery or by leaving it in the possession of a person of sufficient discretion in the residence of the challenged voter, or by registered mail. Should the foregoing procedures be not practicable, the notice shall be posted in the bulletin board of the city or municipal hall and in two (2) other conspicuous places within the city or municipality;

x x x

(c) A petition shall refer only one to one (1) precinct and implead the Board as respondents;.

(d) No costs shall be assessed against any party in these proceedings. However, if the court should find that the application has been filed solely to harass the adverse party and cause him to incur expenses, it shall order the culpable party to pay the costs and incidental expenses.

(e) Any voter, candidate or political party who may be affected by the proceedings may intervene and present his evidence.

(f) The decision shall be based on the evidence presented and in no case rendered upon a stipulation of facts. x x x

(g) The petition shall be heard and decided within ten (10) days from the date of its filing. Cases appealed to the Regional Trial Court shall be decided within ten (10) days from receipt of the appeal. In all, cases, the court shall decide these petitions not later than fifteen (15) days before the election and the decision shall be immediately final and executory. [As amended by Section 32 of RA 8189]

Inclusion/exclusion proceedings essentially involve the simple issue of whether a petitioner shall be included in or excluded from the list of voters based on the qualifications required by law and the facts presented to show possession of these qualifications."


G. R. No. 180051, December 24, 2008

NARDO M. VELASCO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MOZART P. PANLAQUI, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_180051_2008.html