Official Receipt is the best evidence to prove Payment.

 "We have reviewed the records of the case and we are more convinced with the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. Rosita P. Lee (Lee), respondent’s Treasurer, explained that it is the company practice to prepare four copies of SALES INVOICES. Respondent’s delivery personnel would bring two copies of the Sales Invoices at the time of the delivery – the original and a duplicate copy. Both copies were supposed to be signed by petitioner’s representative. Respondent’s delivery personnel would leave the duplicate copy with petitioner and retain the original copy of the Sales Invoice. Whenever respondent made a collection, it would prepare a STATEMENT  OF ACCOUNT and it would send the Statement of Account, together with the original copies of the SALES INVOICES, to petitioner.8

Considering this practice, it is impossible for respondent to present the original or duplicate copies of the Sales Invoices which bore the signatures of petitioner’s representative because they are both in petitioner’s possession. The Sales Invoices accepted by the trial court, which bore the signatures of petitioner’s representatives, were retained by respondent and not delivered to petitioner because they were not yet due at the time the Statement of Account was prepared.

The Court also notes that the SALES INVOICES state: "PAYMENT NOT VALID WITHOUT OUR OFFICIAL RECEIPT."9 The SALES INVOICES are NOT EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT . They are only evidence of the RECEIPT OF THE GOODS. The BEST EVIDENCE TO PROVE PAYMENT of the goods is the OFFICIAL RECEIPT. Petitioner failed to present any official receipt to prove that it had already paid the goods to respondent.

We agree with the Court of Appeals’ observation that petitioner DID NOT OBJECT to the entries in the STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT. Petitioner did not do anything despite the clear reminder in the Statements of Account which states: "IMPORTANT: If this statement does not agree with your record, please notify us at once."10 Petitioner remained SILENT for FOUR YEARS from the time it received the Statements of Account until the filing of the case against it. Petitioner did not even bother to respond to the DEMAND LETTER sent by respondent. Petitioner’s SILENCE is uncharacteristic of persons who have just been asked to pay an obligation to which they are not liable.11 In one case,12 the petitioner RECEIVED a STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT from the respondent WITHOUT PROTEST, and the petitioner DID NOT CONTROVERT the respondent’s demand letter. The Court applied ESTOPPEL IN PAIS where one, by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his own SILENCE when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.13 We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner’s SILENCE for FOUR YEARS is TANTAMOUNT TO ADMISSION of the entries in the Statements of Account sent by respondent."

EL ORO ENGRAVER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EVERETT CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, INC., respondents. G.R. No. 125267, February 18, 2008. 

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_125267_2008.html

Statement of Accounts and Estoppel

 "We agree with the Court of Appeals’ observation that petitioner did not object to the entries in the STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT. Petitioner did not do anything despite the clear reminder in the Statements of Account which states: "IMPORTANT: If this statement does not agree with your record, please notify us at once."10 Petitioner remained silent for four years from the time it received the Statements of Account until the filing of the case against it. Petitioner did not even bother to respond to the demand letter sent by respondent. Petitioner’s silence is uncharacteristic of persons who have just been asked to pay an obligation to which they are not liable.11 In one case,12 the petitioner received a statement of account from the respondent without protest, and the petitioner did not controvert the respondent’s demand letter. The Court applied ESTOPPEL IN PAIS where one, by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.13 We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner’s SILENCE FOR FOUR YEARS is TANTAMOUNT TO ADMISSION of the entries in the Statements of Account sent by respondent.

The Court of Appeals did not even have to rely on estoppel. Petitioner RECEIVED the STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT as well as the SALES INVOICES as evidenced by the handwritten statement of petitioner’s representative, Alicia Alcaraz,14 who wrote the words "rec’d original" on the Statements of Account.15 Lee testified:

Atty. Meris:

Do you have a proof that the originals of the said invoices are already in the hands of the defendant?

Witness:

Yes, we have given them the statements of accounts which together with the originals as shown by the signature of their employee Alicia Alcaras.

x x x x

Atty. Meris:

(to witness)

How do you know that this is the signature of Miss Alcaras?

Witness:

Because I am very familiar with her signature as I have been receiving communications with her frequently during the time that we are having business transaction with the defendant.16

Petitioner failed to rebut that it received the Statements of Accounts and the Sales Invoices attached to them. In sum, respondent PROVED during the trial that it DELIVERED d the goods, and that it had NOT RECEIVED PAYMENT for the goods so delivered.

In its Answer With Counterclaim,17 petitioner alleged that all its purchases from respondent had already been fully paid and satisfied. Petitioner alleged:

and by way of SPECIAL and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, defendant avers:

4. That there is no cause of action;

5. That the claim is unenforceable under the statute of fraud;

6. That the claim or demand had been paid, waived and/or otherwise extinguished;

7. That in the alternative, granting arguendo that the defendant received some of the said construction materials, the same are defective and not suitable for the purpose of which they have been purchased and/or some of these materials were not received by the defendant corporation. Consequently, it should not be obliged to pay for the same[.]

x x x x18

During the trial, petitioner did not show which of the materials covered by the Sales Invoices had been paid, waived or extinguished, which materials were defective, and which materials were not received. Petitioner only insisted that it had no obligation to respondent. Thus, petitioner FAILED TO PROVE  that it did not receive the goods, or that it already paid respondent for the goods delivered.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the 29 February 1996 Decision and 13 June 1996 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44782. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED."

EL ORO ENGRAVER CORPRATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EVERETT CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, INC., respondents. G.R. No. 125267, February 18, 2008. 

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_125267_2008.html

Robbery with Homicide

 "Time and time again, this Court has ruled that when conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all.26 As shown above, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that conspiracy had attended the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide. Despite the protestations of appellant that he did not conspire to rob and kill, but only to rob, the victim, we hold that appellant is liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

The elements of this special complex crime are the following: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed.27

The records and the pleadings show that all the above-mentioned elements are present in the case at bar. Appellant and his cohorts broke into the house of Aragon’s uncle;28 took the victim’s wallet and cash, wrist watch and several pieces of jewelry amounting to P67,000;29 and, in the course of the robbery, stabbed and killed the victim.

As aforesaid, whenever a homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the asportation will be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not all actually take part in the homicide, unless it appears that those who did not do so endeavored to prevent the killing.30

Appellant, upon hearing the groaning emanating from the bedroom, did not do anything to check on what was happening. Thinking that his cohorts were stabbing the victim,31 appellant simply allowed them to finish their dastardly deed. He hid for two years – first in the house of his grandmother32 and, later on, in that of his mother.33 On January 6, 1994, a barangay official apprehended and brought him to the Mandaluyong jail.34

It is therefore clear that appellant did not do anything to prevent his co-conspirators from stabbing and ultimately killing the victim. When he left the scene of the crime; he could have gone to the police to report the crime, but he hid and tried to escape the arm of the law. Because he did not do anything to prevent the homicide, he is therefore equally guilty of robbery with homicide.

We affirm the awards of actual damages which were duly proven.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED."

G.R. No. 121272,  June 6, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs. REYDERICK LAGO, appellant.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jun2001/gr_121272_2001.html

Conspiracy

 "The second paragraph of Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy, as follows:

"A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."

The elements of conspiracy are the following: (1) two or more persons came to an agreement, (2) the agreement concerned the commission of a felony, and (3) the execution of the felony was decided upon. Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence, because it may be inferred from the parties’ conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of the crime. Neither is it necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective to be carried out. The conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or manner in which the crime was perpetrated; it may also be inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.12"

G.R. No. 121272,  June 6, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs. REYDERICK LAGO, appellant.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jun2001/gr_121272_2001.html

Conspiracy in Robbery with Homicide

 "When conspiracy is proven in a case of robbery with homicide, all those who participated in the robbery will be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if not all of them actually took part in the homicide perpetrated by just one of them on the occasion or as a consequence of the asportation."

G.R. No. 121272,  June 6, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs. REYDERICK LAGO, appellant.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jun2001/gr_121272_2001.html

If land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.

 "Second, we dispose of the issue of registration of the properties in the name of respondent alone. Having found that the true buyer of the disputed house and lots was the Austrian Wilhelm Jambrich, what now is the effect of registration of the properties in the name of respondent?

It is settled that registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership.21 It is only a means of confirming the fact of its existence with notice to the world at large.22 Certificates of title are not a source of right. The mere possession of a title does not make one the true owner of the property. Thus, the mere fact that respondent has the titles of the disputed properties in her name does not necessarily, conclusively and absolutely make her the owner. The rule on indefeasibility of title likewise does not apply to respondent. A certificate of title implies that the title is quiet,23 and that it is perfect, absolute and indefeasible.24 However, there are well-defined exceptions to this rule, as when the transferee is not a holder in good faith and did not acquire the subject properties for a valuable consideration.25 This is the situation in the instant case. Respondent did not contribute a single centavo in the acquisition of the properties. She had no income of her own at that time, nor did she have any savings. She and her two sons were then fully supported by Jambrich.

Respondent argued that aliens are prohibited from acquiring private land. This is embodied in Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution,26 which is basically a reproduction of Section 5, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution,27 and Section 14, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution.28 The capacity to acquire private land is dependent on the capacity "to acquire or hold lands of the public domain." Private land may be transferred only to individuals or entities "qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain." Only Filipino citizens or corporations at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by Filipinos are qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Thus, as the rule now stands, the fundamental law explicitly prohibits non-Filipinos from acquiring or holding title to private lands, except only by way of legal succession or if the acquisition was made by a former natural-born citizen.29

Therefore, in the instant case, the transfer of land from Agro-Macro Development Corporation to Jambrich, who is an Austrian, would have been declared invalid if challenged, had not Jambrich conveyed the properties to petitioner who is a Filipino citizen. In United Church Board for World Ministries v. Sebastian,30 the Court reiterated the consistent ruling in a number of cases31 that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid. Applying United Church Board for World Ministries, the trial court ruled in favor of petitioner, viz.:

[W]hile the acquisition and the purchase of (sic) Wilhelm Jambrich of the properties under litigation [were] void ab initio since [they were] contrary to the Constitution of the Philippines, he being a foreigner, yet, the acquisition of these properties by plaintiff who is a Filipino citizen from him, has cured the flaw in the original transaction and the title of the transferee is valid.

The trial court upheld the sale by Jambrich in favor of petitioner and ordered the cancellation of the TCTs in the name of respondent. It declared petitioner as owner in fee simple of the residential house of strong materials and three parcels of land designated as Lot Nos. 1, 3 and 5, and ordered the Register of Deeds of Mandaue City to issue new certificates of title in his name. The trial court likewise ordered respondent to pay petitioner ₱25,000 as attorney’s fees and ₱10,000 as litigation expenses, as well as the costs of suit.

We affirm the Regional Trial Court.

The rationale behind the Court’s ruling in United Church Board for World Ministries, as reiterated in subsequent cases,32 is this – since the ban on aliens is intended to preserve the nation’s land for future generations of Filipinos, that aim is achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by naturalization or those transfers made by aliens to Filipino citizens. As the property in dispute is already in the hands of a qualified person, a Filipino citizen, there would be no more public policy to be protected. The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 42929 dated April 10, 2002 and its Resolution dated July 8, 2003 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City in Civil Case No. MAN-1148 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED."

G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009

CAMILO F. BORROMEO, Petitioner,

vs.

ANTONIETTA O. DESCALLAR, Respondent.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_159310_2009.html

Adulterous cohabitation

 "Further, the fact that the disputed properties were acquired during the couple’s cohabitation also does not help respondent. The rule that co-ownership applies to a man and a woman living exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, but are otherwise capacitated to marry each other, does not apply. In the instant case, respondent was still legally married to another when she and Jambrich lived together. In such an adulterous relationship, no co-ownership exists between the parties. It is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition of property in order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply."

G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009

CAMILO F. BORROMEO, Petitioner,

vs.

ANTONIETTA O. DESCALLAR, Respondent.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_159310_2009.html

Secondary evidence

Rule 130, Section 5, etc. 

2019 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE

2. Secondary Evidence

Section 5. When original document is unavailable. - When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his or her part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (5a)

Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. - If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party, he or she must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (6a)

Section 7. Summaries. - When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous accounts are voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation.

The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court. (n)

Section 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (7)

Section 9. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (8)

Original document rule

Rule 130

A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC

RULE 130

2019 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE

1. Original Document Rule

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. - When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole;

(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office; and

(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue. (3a)

Section 4. Original of document. —

(a) An "original" of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original."

(b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.

(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. (4a)

What need not be proved

 RULE 129

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)

Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. - A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. - During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.

Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (3a)

Section 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, oral or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.

A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC

2019 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE

The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.

"Second Issue: Prescription

The instant action for reconveyance, restitution, and accounting impleads the Estate/Heirs of Gregorio Licaros for previous acts committed by the decedent during his lifetime, more particularly for conspiring with the main defendants to prejudice the Republic. An action to recover ill-gotten wealth is outside the purview of the ordinary rules on prescription, as contained in Article 1146 of the Civil Code.[17] Section 15 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states:

“Section 15. The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.”

The intendment of the foregoing constitutional provision -- exempting actions to recover ill-gotten wealth from the operation of the general rules of prescription -- presumably lies in the special attendant circumstances and the primordial state interests involved in cases of such nature.

From the preceding discussion, it is clear that any action involving the recovery of unlawfully acquired properties against Licaros or his transferees, may not be deemed to have prescribed. The language of the Constitution, the law and the Rules of Court is clear and unequivocal. Clearly, the Sandiganbayan did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the assailed Resolutions denying, for lack of merit, petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss."

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 157438. October 18, 2004 ]

HEIRS OF GREGORIO LICAROS; NAMELY, CONCEPCION B. LICAROS AND ABELARDO B. LICAROS, PETITIONERS, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

https://elibrary.judiciary.govph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/46207

Cause of action

"A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect and not to violate that right; and (3) an act or omission constituting a breach of obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff or violating the right of the plaintiff, for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.[12]

The allegations in the Second Amended Complaint clearly and unequivocally outlines its cause of action against Defendant Licaros as follows:

“The wrongs committed by Defendants, acting singly or collectively and in unlawful concert with one another, include the misappropriation and theft of public funds, plunder of the nation’s wealth, extortion, blackmail, bribery, embezzlement and other acts of corruption, betrayal of public trust and brazen abuse of power, as more fully described below, all at the expense and to the grave and irreparable damage of the plaintiff and the Filipino people.

x x x x x x x x x

“Former Central Bank Governor Gregorio Licaros, now deceased, had facilitated the fraudulent acquisition of the assets x x x General Bank and Trust Company (GBTC) worth over P688-Million at that time, to favor the Marcoses and the Lucio Tan group who acquired said GBTC’s assets for a measly sum of P500,000.00. Hence, his Estate represented by his heirs must be impleaded as a party defendant for the purpose of obtaining complete relief.”[13]

The Second Amended Complaint was unambiguous when it charged that Licaros, during his lifetime, had conspired with the main defendants -- particularly former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Lucio Tan and Philippine National Bank President Panfilo O. Domingo -- in facilitating the allegedly questionable transfer of the GBTC assets to Tan.

This charge of “conspiracy” casts a wide net, sufficiently extensive to include all acts and all incidents incidental, related to or arising from the charge of systematic plunder and pillage against the main defendants in Sandiganbayan Case No. 0005. The assailed role of Licaros as Central Bank governor in the questioned GBTC deal is not excluded therefrom. If proven, the allegation of conspiracy may make him liable with his co-defendants.

The alleged conspiracy to defraud the Republic put the case against the Estate/Heirs of Licaros squarely under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Said the Court:

“Under Section 2 of the President’s Executive Order No. 14 issued on May 7, 1986, all cases of the Commission regarding the ‘Funds, Moneys, Assets and Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated by Former President Ferdinand Marcos, their close Relatives, Subordinates, Business Associates, Dummies, Agents or Nominees’ whether civil or criminal are lodged with the ‘exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan’ and

necessarily fall likewise under the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive and original jurisdiction, subject to the review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court.”[14] (Emphasis supplied). "

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 157438. October 18, 2004 ]

HEIRS OF GREGORIO LICAROS; NAMELY, CONCEPCION B. LICAROS AND ABELARDO B. LICAROS, PETITIONERS, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/46207

Citizenship requirement for elective officials

"In sum, we rule that the citizenship requirement in the Local Government Code is to be possessed by an elective official at the latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at the start of the term of office to which he has been elected. We further hold P.D. No. 725 to be in full force and effect up to the present, not having been suspended or repealed expressly nor impliedly at any time, and Frivaldo's repatriation by virtue thereof to have been properly granted and thus valid and effective. Moreover, by reason of the remedial or curative nature of the law granting him a new right to resume his political status and the legislative intent behind it, as well as his unique situation of having been forced to give up his citizenship and political aspiration as his means of escaping a regime he abhorred, his repatriation is to be given retroactive effect as of the date of his application therefor, during the pendency of which he was stateless, he having given up his U.S. nationality. Thus, in contemplation of law, he possessed the vital requirement of Filipino citizenship as of the start of the term of office of governor, and should have been proclaimed instead of Lee. Furthermore, since his reacquisition of citizenship retroacted to August 17, 1994, his registration as a voter of Sorsogon is deemed to have been validated as of said date as well. The foregoing, of course, are precisely consistent with our holding that lack of the citizenship requirement is not a continuing disability or disqualification to run for and hold public office. And once again, we emphasize herein our previous rulings recognizing the Comelec's authority and jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for annulment of proclamations."

Source  - 

GR No. 120295 June 28, 1996

JUAN G. FRIVALDO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and RAUL R. LEE, respondents.

G.R. No. 123755 June 28, 1996

RAUL R. LEE, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JUAN G. FRIVALDO, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jun1996/gr_120295_1996.html

 

Unlawful possession of firearm

"Unlawful possession of firearm is punishable under Section 28 (a), Article V of REPUBLIC ACT 10591, otherwise known as the "COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT" which provides that:

"SEC. 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. – The unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and ammunition shall be penalized as follows:

"(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm." 

The elements of Unlawful Possession of Firearm were enumerated and explained by the Court in the case of CASTIL VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GR 253930, JULY 13, 2022, where the Supreme Court speaking through Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando stated that:

"Section 28 penalizes unlawful possession of a firearm. The elements of the offense are: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and, (b) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. If the firearm is loaded with ammunition, the penalty is increased one degree higher. xxx

"Under contention is the second element of lack of license. The CA ruled that petitioner's JUDICIAL ADMISSION proves the existence of the second element. Petitioner, however, contends that his admission is insufficient for a conviction as there is a need for the prosecution to submit a NEGATIVE CERTIFICATION from the PNP to prove the second element.

"The Court agrees with the CA. Petitioner's own JUDICIAL ADMISSION of his lack of license to carry a firearm is SUFFICIENT to establish the second element of the crime.

"To be clear, there is no exact way of proving the second element of Illegal Possession of Firearms. What matters is that the courts, including this Court, are convinced that the element is proven beyond reasonable doubt regardless of the kind of evidence offered to prove it. Notably, RA 10591 and case law do not provide for specific modes to prove the element of lack of license to carry a firearm.

"Hence, as proof of the second element, the Court usually accepts the presentation of a certification issued by the Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP showing that the accused is not a licensed or registered holder of a firearm, or the testimony to that effect of a representative therefrom.

... There is no exact way to prove the element of lack of corresponding license to possess or carry firearm and the "Negative Certification" from the FEO is not the only acceptable evidence to prove lack of corresponding license for the firearm. The testimony of the officer from the said office may be accepted to support the second element of lack of license..."

Source - 

https://www.manilatimes.net/2023/03/10/legal-advice/illegal-possession-of-firearm/1882085

On "premature campaigning" under the automated election system

"xxx.

Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code defines a "candidate" as "any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy x x x." The second sentence, third paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by Section 13 of RA 9369, provides that "[a]ny person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the period for filing] shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy." The immediately succeeding proviso in the same third paragraph states that "unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period." These two provisions determine the resolution of this case.

The Decision states that "[w]hen the campaign period starts and [the person who filed his certificate of candidacy] proceeds with his/her candidacy, his/her intent turning into actuality, we can already consider his/her acts, after the filing of his/her COC and prior to the campaign period, as the promotion of his/her election as a candidate, hence, constituting premature campaigning, for which he/she may be disqualified."1

Under the Decision, a candidate may already be liable for premature campaigning after the filing of the certificate of candidacy but even before the start of the campaign period. From the filing of the certificate of candidacy, even long before the start of the campaign period, the Decision considers the partisan political acts of a person so filing a certificate of candidacy "as the promotion of his/her election as a candidate." Thus, such person can be disqualified for premature campaigning for acts done before the start of the campaign period. In short, the Decision considers a person who files a certificate of candidacy already a "candidate" even before the start of the campaign period. lawphil

The assailed Decision is contrary to the clear intent and letter of the law.

The Decision reverses Lanot v. COMELEC,2 which held that a person who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the campaign period. In Lanot, this Court explained:

Thus, the essential elements for violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code are: (1) a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity; (2) the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates; (3) the act is done outside the campaign period.

The second element requires the existence of a "candidate." Under Section 79(a), a candidate is one who "has filed a certificate of candidacy" to an elective public office. Unless one has filed his certificate of candidacy, he is not a "candidate." The third element requires that the campaign period has not started when the election campaign or partisan political activity is committed.

Assuming that all candidates to a public office file their certificates of candidacy on the last day, which under Section 75 of the Omnibus Election Code is the day before the start of the campaign period, then no one can be prosecuted for violation of Section 80 for acts done prior to such last day. Before such last day, there is no "particular candidate or candidates" to campaign for or against. On the day immediately after the last day of filing, the campaign period starts and Section 80 ceases to apply since Section 80 covers only acts done "outside" the campaign period.

Thus, if all candidates file their certificates of candidacy on the last day, Section 80 may only apply to acts done on such last day, which is before the start of the campaign period and after at least one candidate has filed his certificate of candidacy. This is perhaps the reason why those running for elective public office usually file their certificates of candidacy on the last day or close to the last day.

There is no dispute that Eusebio’s acts of election campaigning or partisan political activities were committed outside of the campaign period. The only question is whether Eusebio, who filed his certificate of candidacy on 29 December 2003, was a "candidate" when he committed those acts before the start of the campaign period on 24 March 2004.

Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 ("RA 8436") moved the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy to 120 days before election day. Thus, the original deadline was moved from 23 March 2004 to 2 January 2004, or 81 days earlier. The crucial question is: did this change in the deadline for filing the certificate of candidacy make one who filed his certificate of candidacy before 2 January 2004 immediately liable for violation of Section 80 if he engaged in election campaign or partisan political activities prior to the start of the campaign period on 24 March 2004?

Section 11 of RA 8436 provides:

SECTION 11. Official Ballot. – The Commission shall prescribe the size and form of the official ballot which shall contain the titles of the positions to be filled and/or the propositions to be voted upon in an initiative, referendum or plebiscite. Under each position, the names of candidates shall be arranged alphabetically by surname and uniformly printed using the same type size. A fixed space where the chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors shall affix his/her signature to authenticate the official ballot shall be provided.

Both sides of the ballots may be used when necessary.

For this purpose, the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition for registration/ manifestation to participate in the election shall not be later than one hundred twenty (120) days before the elections: Provided, That, any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he/she is holding in a permanent capacity, except for president and vice-president, shall be deemed resigned only upon the start of the campaign period corresponding to the position for which he/she is running: Provided, further, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That, for purposes of the May 11, 1998 elections, the deadline for filing of the certificate of candidacy for the positions of President, Vice-President, Senators and candidates under the party-list system as well as petitions for registration and/or manifestation to participate in the party-list system shall be on February 9, 1998 while the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy for other positions shall be on March 27, 1998.

The official ballots shall be printed by the National Printing Office and/or the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas at the price comparable with that of private printers under proper security measures which the Commission shall adopt. The Commission may contract the services of private printers upon certification by the National Printing Office/Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas that it cannot meet the printing requirements. Accredited political parties and deputized citizens’ arms of the Commission may assign watchers in the printing, storage and distribution of official ballots.

To prevent the use of fake ballots, the Commission through the Committee shall ensure that the serial number on the ballot stub shall be printed in magnetic ink that shall be easily detectable by inexpensive hardware and shall be impossible to reproduce on a photocopying machine, and that identification marks, magnetic strips, bar codes and other technical and security markings, are provided on the ballot.

The official ballots shall be printed and distributed to each city/municipality at the rate of one (1) ballot for every registered voter with a provision of additional four (4) ballots per precinct.

Under Section 11 of RA 8436, the only purpose for the early filing of certificates of candidacy is to give ample time for the printing of official ballots. This is clear from the following deliberations of the Bicameral Conference Committee:

SENATOR GONZALES. Okay. Then, how about the campaign period, would it be the same[,] uniform for local and national officials?

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). Personally, I would agree to retaining it at the present periods.

SENATOR GONZALES. But the moment one files a certificate of candidacy, he’s already a candidate, and there are many prohibited acts on the part of candidate.

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). Unless we. . . .

SENATOR GONZALES. And you cannot say that the campaign period has not yet began (sic).

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). If we don’t provide that the filing of the certificate will not bring about one’s being a candidate.

SENATOR GONZALES. If that’s a fact, the law cannot change a fact.

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). No, but if we can provide that the filing of the certificate of candidacy will not result in that official vacating his position, we can also provide that insofar he is concerned, election period or his being a candidate will not yet commence. Because here, the reason why we are doing an early filing is to afford enough time to prepare this machine readable ballots.

So, with the manifestations from the Commission on Elections, Mr. Chairman, the House Panel will withdraw its proposal and will agree to the 120-day period provided in the Senate version.

THE CHAIRMAN (SENATOR FERNAN). Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

x x x x

SENATOR GONZALES. How about prohibition against campaigning or doing partisan acts which apply immediately upon being a candidate?

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). Again, since the intention of this provision is just to afford the Comelec enough time to print the ballots, this provision does not intend to change the campaign periods as presently, or rather election periods as presently fixed by existing law.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (SEN. FERNAN). So, it should be subject to the other prohibition.

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). That’s right.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (SEN. FERNAN). Okay.

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). In other words, actually, there would be no conflict anymore because we are talking about the 120-day period before election as the last day of filing a certificate of candidacy, election period starts 120 days also. So that is election period already. But he will still not be considered as a candidate.

Thus, because of the early deadline of 2 January 2004 for purposes of printing of official ballots, Eusebio filed his certificate of candidacy on 29 December 2003. Congress, however, never intended the filing of a certificate of candidacy before 2 January 2004 to make the person filing to become immediately a "candidate" for purposes other than the printing of ballots. This legislative intent prevents the immediate application of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code to those filing to meet the early deadline. The clear intention of Congress was to preserve the "election periods as x x x fixed by existing law" prior to RA 8436 and that one who files to meet the early deadline "will still not be considered as a candidate."3 (Emphasis in the original)

Lanot was decided on the ground that one who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the campaign period. This ground was based on the deliberations of the legislators who explained the intent of the provisions of RA 8436, which laid the legal framework for an automated election system. There was no express provision in the original RA 8436 stating that one who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the campaign period.

When Congress amended RA 8436, Congress decided to expressly incorporate the Lanot doctrine into law, realizing that Lanot merely relied on the deliberations of Congress in holding that —

The clear intention of Congress was to preserve the "election periods as x x x fixed by existing law" prior to RA 8436 and that one who files to meet the early deadline "will still not be considered as a candidate."4 (Emphasis supplied)

Congress wanted to insure that no person filing a certificate of candidacy under the early deadline required by the automated election system would be disqualified or penalized for any partisan political act done before the start of the campaign period. Thus, in enacting RA 9369, Congress expressly wrote the Lanot doctrine into the second sentence, third paragraph of the amended Section 15 of RA 8436, thus:

x x x

For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition for registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers and employees in government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. (Boldfacing and underlining supplied)

Congress elevated the Lanot doctrine into a statute by specifically inserting it as the second sentence of the third paragraph of the amended Section 15 of RA 8436, which cannot be annulled by this Court except on the sole ground of its unconstitutionality. The Decision cannot reverse Lanot without repealing this second sentence, because to reverse Lanot would mean repealing this second sentence.

The assailed Decision, however, in reversing Lanot does not claim that this second sentence or any portion of Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, is unconstitutional. In fact, the Decision considers the entire Section 15 good law. Thus, the Decision is self-contradictory — reversing Lanot but maintaining the constitutionality of the second sentence, which embodies the Lanot doctrine. In so doing, the Decision is irreconcilably in conflict with the clear intent and letter of the second sentence, third paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369.

In enacting RA 9369, Congress even further clarified the first proviso in the third paragraph of Section 15 of RA 8436. The original provision in RA 8436 states —

x x x Provided, further, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period, x x x.

In RA 9369, Congress inserted the word "only" so that the first proviso now reads —

x x x Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, Congress not only reiterated but also strengthened its mandatory directive that election offenses can be committed by a candidate "only" upon the start of the campaign period. This clearly means that before the start of the campaign period, such election offenses cannot be so committed.

When the applicable provisions of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, are read together, these provisions of law do not consider Penera a candidate for purposes other than the printing of ballots, until the start of the campaign period. There is absolutely no room for any other interpretation.

We quote with approval the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Antonio T. Carpio:

x x x The definition of a "candidate" in Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code should be read together with the amended Section 15 of RA 8436. A "‘candidate’ refers to any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy by himself or through an accredited political party, aggroupment or coalition of parties." However, it is no longer enough to merely file a certificate of candidacy for a person to be considered a candidate because "any person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the filing] period shall only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy." Any person may thus file a certificate of candidacy on any day within the prescribed period for filing a certificate of candidacy yet that person shall be considered a candidate, for purposes of determining one’s possible violations of election laws, only during the campaign period. Indeed, there is no "election campaign" or "partisan political activity" designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to public office simply because there is no "candidate" to speak of prior to the start of the campaign period. Therefore, despite the filing of her certificate of candidacy, the law does not consider Penera a candidate at the time of the questioned motorcade which was conducted a day before the start of the campaign period. x x x

The campaign period for local officials began on 30 March 2007 and ended on 12 May 2007. Penera filed her certificate of candidacy on 29 March 2007. Penera was thus a candidate on 29 March 2009 only for purposes of printing the ballots. On 29 March 2007, the law still did not consider Penera a candidate for purposes other than the printing of ballots. Acts committed by Penera prior to 30 March 2007, the date when she became a "candidate," even if constituting election campaigning or partisan political activities, are not punishable under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. Such acts are within the realm of a citizen’s protected freedom of expression. Acts committed by Penera within the campaign period are not covered by Section 80 as Section 80 punishes only acts outside the campaign period.5

The assailed Decision gives a specious reason in explaining away the first proviso in the third paragraph, the amended Section 15 of RA 8436 that election offenses applicable to candidates take effect only upon the start of the campaign period. The Decision states that:

x x x [T]he line in Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended, which provides that "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period," does not mean that the acts constituting premature campaigning can only be committed, for which the offender may be disqualified, during the campaign period. Contrary to the pronouncement in the dissent, nowhere in said proviso was it stated that campaigning before the start of the campaign period is lawful, such that the offender may freely carry out the same with impunity.

As previously established, a person, after filing his/her COC but prior to his/her becoming a candidate (thus, prior to the start of the campaign period), can already commit the acts described under Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code as election campaign or partisan political activity, However, only after said person officially becomes a candidate, at the beginning of the campaign period, can said acts be given effect as premature campaigning under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. Only after said person officially becomes a candidate, at the start of the campaign period, can his/her disqualification be sought for acts constituting premature campaigning. Obviously, it is only at the start of the campaign period, when the person officially becomes a candidate, that the undue and iniquitous advantages of his/her prior acts, constituting premature campaigning, shall accrue to his/her benefit. Compared to the other candidates who are only about to begin their election campaign, a candidate who had previously engaged in premature campaigning already enjoys an unfair headstart in promoting his/her candidacy.6 (Emphasis supplied)

It is a basic principle of law that any act is lawful unless expressly declared unlawful by law. This is specially true to expression or speech, which Congress cannot outlaw except on very narrow grounds involving clear, present and imminent danger to the State. The mere fact that the law does not declare an act unlawful ipso facto means that the act is lawful. Thus, there is no need for Congress to declare in Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, that political partisan activities before the start of the campaign period are lawful. It is sufficient for Congress to state that "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period." The only inescapable and logical result is that the same acts, if done before the start of the campaign period, are lawful.

In layman’s language, this means that a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done during the campaign period, not before. The law is clear as daylight — any election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election law cannot be committed before the start of the campaign period. In ruling that Penera is liable for premature campaigning for partisan political acts before the start of the campaigning, the assailed Decision ignores the clear and express provision of the law.

The Decision rationalizes that a candidate who commits premature campaigning can be disqualified or prosecuted only after the start of the campaign period. This is not what the law says. What the law says is "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period." The plain meaning of this provision is that the effective date when partisan political acts become unlawful as to a candidate is when the campaign period starts. Before the start of the campaign period, the same partisan political acts are lawful.

The law does not state, as the assailed Decision asserts, that partisan political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period are unlawful, but may be prosecuted only upon the start of the campaign period. Neither does the law state that partisan political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period are temporarily lawful, but becomes unlawful upon the start of the campaign period. This is clearly not the language of the law. Besides, such a law as envisioned in the Decision, which defines a criminal act and curtails freedom of expression and speech, would be void for vagueness.

Congress has laid down the law — a candidate is liable for election offenses only upon the start of the campaign period. This Court has no power to ignore the clear and express mandate of the law that "any person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the filing] period shall only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy." Neither can this Court turn a blind eye to the express and clear language of the law that "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period."

The forum for examining the wisdom of the law, and enacting remedial measures, is not this Court but the Legislature. This Court has no recourse but to apply a law that is as clear, concise and express as the second sentence, and its immediately succeeding proviso, as written in the third paragraph of Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT petitioner Rosalinda A. Penera’s Motion for Reconsideration. We SET ASIDE the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 181613 promulgated on 11 September 2009, as well as the Resolutions dated 24 July 2007 and 30 January 2008 of the COMELEC Second Division and the COMELEC En Banc, respectively, in SPA No. 07-224. Rosalinda A. Penera shall continue as Mayor of Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte.

SO ORDERED."

EN BANC
G.R. No. 181613, November 25, 2009

ROSALINDA A. PENERA, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDGAR T. ANDANAR, Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO, J.:

Domestic violence

Domestic violence 

Read:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02PuxyFeaCQ9dPrzsBVPe4xm6P9mqa14FbLXa1wM9LMC2248ZAWYWMuoKRCk8TE9HDl&id=100002290961177&mibextid=Nif5oz

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02XcR6ivHmjasXKktdPCPzk4JNvKToyCw6LLC5zgtakPuSXL4tLuTzcQUXAkp3ZDT6l&id=100002290961177&mibextid=Nif5oz

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02PkMZZpA2hg8qW3yp5T8w7dnYYMhbtkCWDyBm8ohtWx5KCnAqJEsQhDZHpwwAL7sDl&id=100002290961177&mibextid=Nif5oz

When Private Offended Party Can Appeal Judgments, Orders in Criminal Proceedings

SC Sets Rules on When Private Offended Party Can Appeal Judgments, Orders in Criminal Proceedings

February 4, 2023

The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines on the legal standing of private offended parties when questioning judgments or orders in criminal proceedings.

In a 36-page Decision penned by Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Supreme Court En Banc denied the Petition for Certiorari filed by Mamerto Austria challenging the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which overturned the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) acquittal of Austria on criminal charges of acts of lasciviousness.

In 2006, the RTC convicted Austria, a public school teacher, of five counts of acts of lasciviousness against two 11-year old female students (“private complainants”). Austria’s conviction, however, was reversed when a new presiding judge granted Austria’s motion for reconsideration.

After the private complainants’ own motion for reconsideration was denied, they elevated the case to the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. The CA ruled in favor of the private complainants, finding that the RTC disregarded the constitutional requirement that a decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The CA also held that as the assailed RTC orders were void, double jeopardy did not attach. Nullifying the RTC’s orders, the CA ruled that the previous decision convicting Austria be reinstated.

This prompted Austria to challenge the appellate court’s ruling before the Supreme Court, invoking his right against double jeopardy and claiming that the private complainants had no legal personality to question his acquittal. The Supreme Court then required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file a comment on the private complainants’ legal standing in a criminal case.

In denying Austria’s petition, the High Court reviewed existing jurisprudence on the issue of the legal personality of a private offended party in criminal proceedings.

Harmonizing the divergent doctrines laid down in previous decisions, the Court formulated the following guidelines in determining the legal personality of a private offended party in questioning criminal judgments or orders:

As to the civil liability of the accused, the private complainant has the legal personality to appeal. The private offended party’s specific pecuniary interest should be alleged in the appeal or petition for certiorari.

If such appeal or petition necessarily affects the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, the reviewing court shall require the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file a comment within a non-extendible period of 30 days from notice. The OSG’s comment must state whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of the private complainant. If the OSG is not given an opportunity to comment, the private complainant’s relief may be set aside.

As to the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, the private complainant has no legal personality to appeal without the conformity of the OSG, to be requested by the private complainant within the period to appeal or file a petition for certiorari. If the OSG’s conformity is not granted within such period, the private complainant must allege in his or her appeal/petition that the request is still pending with the OSG. If the OSG denies the request for conformity, the reviewing court shall dismiss the private complainant’s appeal/petition for lack of legal personality.

When the petition for certiorari filed by the private complainant challenges the acquittal of the accused, the dismissal of the criminal case, and the interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the reviewing court shall require the OSG to file a comment within a non-extendible period of 30 days from notice.

These guidelines shall apply prospectively.

In Austria’s case, while the private complainants filed the petition before the CA without the OSG’s prior conformity, the Court held that they cannot be faulted for relying on jurisprudence allowing them to assail the criminal aspect of the case through a petition for certiorari on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process.

The Court also noted that in any event, the OSG later joined the cause of the private complainants and gave its conformity to the petition for certiorari filed before the CA.

The Court held further that the private complainants sufficiently established that the RTC’s acquittal orders were rendered “with grave abuse of discretion that is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment as when the assailed order is bereft of any factual and legal justification or when the disputed act of the trial court goes beyond the limits of discretion thus effecting an injustice.”

Thus, the CA was correct in nullifying the RTC’s orders, which simply copied the allegations of Austria in his motions for reconsideration and memoranda. “The Joint Orders are mere recital of facts with a dispositive portion. They contained neither an analysis of the evidence nor a reference to any legal basis for the conclusion,” said the Court.

Finally, as to the issue of double jeopardy, the Court ruled that as the RTC’s acquittal orders were void judgments, they have no legal effect and thus did not terminate the case. Hence, Austria’s right against double jeopardy was not violated.

While the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the CA in favor of the private complainants, the case was ordered remanded to the RTC for resolution of Austria’s motion for reconsideration in accordance with the constitutional requirement that a decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

FULL TEXT OF G.R. No. 205275 dated June 28, 2022 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32735/

Source - 

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32794/

Default order

"xxx.

In a nutshell, the ultimate issue is: Did the court commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting respondent's motion for a bill of particulars as executor of former President Marcos' estates considering that the deceased defendant was then a defaulting defendant when the motion was filed?

We rule in the negative, and dismiss the instant petition for utter lack of merit.

Under the Rules of Court, a defending party may be declared in default, upon motion and notice, for failure to file an answer within the allowable period. As a result, the defaulting party cannot take part in the trial albeit he is entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings.33

The remedies against a default order are: (1) a motion to set aside the order of default at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment on the ground that the defendant's failure to file an answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect and that the defendant has a meritorious defense; (2) a motion for new trial within 15 days from receipt of judgment by default, if judgment had already been rendered before the defendant discovered the default, but before said judgment has become final and executory; (3) an appeal within 15 days from receipt of judgment by default; (4) a petition for relief from judgment within 60 days from notice of judgment and within 6 months from entry thereof; and (5) a petition for certiorari in exceptional circumstances.34

In this case, former President Marcos was declared in default for failure to file an answer. He died in Hawaii as an exile while this case was pending, since he and his family fled to Hawaii in February 1986 during a people-power revolt in Metro Manila. His representatives failed to file a motion to lift the order of default. Nevertheless, respondent, as executor of his father's estate, filed a motion for leave to file a responsive pleading, three motions for extensions to file an answer, and a motion for bill of particulars all of which were granted by the anti-graft court.

Given the existence of the default order then, what is the legal effect of the granting of the motions to file a responsive pleading and bill of particulars? In our view, the effect is that the default order against the former president is deemed lifted.

Considering that a motion for extension of time to plead is not a litigated motion but an ex parte one, the granting of which is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court; that in some cases we have allowed defendants to file their answers even after the time fixed for their presentation; that we have set aside orders of default where defendants' failure to answer on time was excusable; that the pendency of the motion for a bill of particulars interrupts the period to file a responsive pleading; and considering that no real injury would result to the interests of petitioner with the granting of the motion for a bill of particulars, the three motions for extensions of time to file an answer, and the motion with leave to file a responsive pleading, the anti-graft court has validly clothed respondent with the authority to represent his deceased father. The only objection to the action of said court would be on a technicality. But on such flimsy foundation, it would be erroneous to sacrifice the substantial rights of a litigant. Rules of procedure should be liberally construed to promote their objective in assisting the parties obtain a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their case.35

While it is true that there was no positive act on the part of the court to lift the default order because there was no motion nor order to that effect, the anti-graft court's act of granting respondent the opportunity to file a responsive pleading meant the lifting of the default order on terms the court deemed proper in the interest of justice. It was the operative act lifting the default order and thereby reinstating the position of the original defendant whom respondent is representing, founded on the court's discretionary power to set aside orders of default.

It is noteworthy that a motion to lift a default order requires no hearing; it need be under oath only and accompanied by an affidavit of merits showing a meritorious defense.36 And it can be filed "at any time after notice thereof and before judgment." Thus, the act of the court in entertaining the motions to file a responsive pleading during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings effectively meant that respondent has acquired a locus standi in this case. That he filed a motion for a bill of particulars instead of an answer does not pose an issue because he, as party defendant representing the estate, is allowed to do so under the Rules of Court to be able to file an intelligent answer. It follows that petitioner's filing of a bill of particulars in this case is merely a condition precedent to the filing of an answer.

Indeed, failure to file a motion to lift a default order is not procedurally fatal as a defaulted party can even avail of other remedies mentioned above.

As default judgments are frowned upon, we have been advising the courts below to be liberal in setting aside default orders to give both parties every chance to present their case fairly without resort to technicality.37 Judicial experience shows, however, that resort to motions for bills of particulars is sometimes intended for delay or, even if not so intended, actually result in delay since the reglementary period for filing a responsive pleading is suspended and the subsequent proceedings are likewise set back in the meantime. As understood under Section 1 of Rule 12, mentioned above, a motion for a bill of particulars must be filed within the reglementary period for the filing of a responsive pleading to the pleading sought to be clarified. This contemplates pleadings which are required by the Rules to be answered under pain of procedural sanctions, such as default or implied admission of the facts not responded to.38

But as defaulted defendants are not actually thrown out of court because the Rules see to it that judgments against them must be in accordance with the law and competent evidence, this Court prefers that the lifting of default orders be effected before trial courts could receive plaintiffs' evidence and render judgments. This is so since judgments by default may result in considerable injustice to defendants, necessitating careful and liberal examination of the grounds in motions seeking to set them aside. The inconvenience and complications associated with rectifying resultant errors, if defendant justifies his omission to seasonably answer, far outweigh the gain in time and dispatch of immediately trying the case.39 The fact that former President Marcos was in exile when he was declared in default, and that he later died still in exile, makes the belated filing of his answer in this case understandably excusable.

The anti-graft court required the Marcos siblings through its January 11, 1999 Order40 to substitute for their father without informing them that the latter was already declared in default. They were unaware, therefore, that they had to immediately tackle the matter of default. Respondent, who stands as the executor of their father's estate, could assume that everything was in order as far as his standing in court was concerned. That his motion for leave to file a responsive pleading was granted by the court gave him credible reason not to doubt the validity of his legal participation in this case. Coupled with his intent to file an answer, once his motion for a bill of particulars is sufficiently answered by petitioner, the circumstances abovementioned warrant the affirmation of the anti-graft court's actions now being assailed.

Xxx."

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 148154, December 17, 2007

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), petitioner,

vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. (as executor of the estate of FERDINAND E. MARCOS), respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_148154_2007.html

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 148154, December 17, 2007




REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), petitioner,

vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. (as executor of the estate of FERDINAND E. MARCOS), respondents.




https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_148154_2007.html

Ratification of contract of sale

"xxx.

In the light of the foregoing disquisition, the question of whether or not petitioner’s undisputed utilization of the proceeds of the sale constitutes, within the purview of Article 1393 of the Civil Code,33 implied ratification of the contracts of sale need not detain us long. Suffice it to state in this regard that the ruling of the Court of Appeals on the matter is well-taken. Wrote the appellate court: 34

In the case at bench, Free Press’s own witnesses admitted that the proceeds of the 1973 sale were used to settle the claims of its employees, redeem the shares of its stockholders and finance the company’s entry into money-market shareholdings and fishpond business activities (TSN, 2 May 1988, pp. 16, 42-45). It need not be overemphasized that by using the proceeds in this manner, Free Press only too clearly confirmed the voluntaries of its consent and ratified the sale. Needless to state, such ratification cleanses the assailed contract from any alleged defects from the moment it was constituted (Art. 1396, Civil Code).

Petitioner’s posture that its use of the proceeds of the sale does not translate to tacit ratification of what it viewed as voidable contracts of sale, such use being a "matter of [its financial] survival",35 is untenable. As couched, Article 1393 of the Civil Code is concerned only with the act which passes for ratification of contract, not the reason which actuated the ratifying person to act the way he did. "Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. When the law does not distinguish, neither should we". 36

Finally, petitioner would fault the Court of Appeals for excluding Exhibits "X-6" to "X-7" and "Y-3" (proffer). These excluded documents which were apparently found in the presidential palace or turned over by the US Government to the PCGG, consist of, among others, what appears to be private respondent’s Certificate of Stock for 24,502 shares in the name of Gen. Menzi, but endorsed in blank. The proffer was evidently intended to show that then President Marcos owned private respondent, Liwayway Publishing Inc. Said exhibits are of little relevance to the resolution of the main issue tendered in this case. Whether or not the contracts of sale in question are voidable is the issue, not the ownership of Liwayway Publishing, Inc.

Xxx."

THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 132864 October 24, 2005

PHILIPPINE FREE PRESS, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (12th Division) and LIWAYWAY PUBLISHING, INC., Respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/gr_132864_2005.html

The novel provisions of the Charter prescribing private sector participation, especially in the field of economic activity, come, indeed, no more as responses to State monopoly of economic forces which has unfairly kept individual initiative from the economic processes and has held back competitiveness in the market. The Constitution does not bar, however, the Government from undertaking its own initiatives, especially in the domain of public service, and neither does it repudiate its primacy as chief economic caretaker of the nation.

"xxx.

There is no merit in this petition.

The duty of the State is preeminently "to serve . . . the people, 9 and so also, to "promote a just and dynamic social order . . . through policies that provide adequate social services. . . . and an improved quality of life for all. 10

The objectives of government, as expressed in the Charter, are, among other things, "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth . . . [and] a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people . . . "11 With respect in particular to property, the Constitution decrees:

Sec. 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands. 12

There can hardly be any valid argument against providing for public corresponding, free of charge. It is compatible with State aims to serve the people under the Constitution, and certainly, amid these hard times, the State can do no less.

The petitioners can not legitimately rely on the provisions of Section 20, of Article II, of the Constitution, to defeat the act complained of. The mandate "recogni[zing] the indispensable role of the private sector" is no more than an acknowledgment of the importance of private initiative in building the nation. However, it is not a call for official abdication of duty to citizenry.

The novel provisions of the Charter prescribing private sector participation, especially in the field of economic activity, 13 come, indeed, no more as responses to State monopoly of economic forces which has unfairly kept individual initiative from the economic processes and has held back competitiveness in the market. The Constitution does not bar, however, the Government from undertaking its own initiatives, especially in the domain of public service, and neither does it repudiate its primacy as chief economic caretaker of the nation.

The principle of laissez faire has long been denied validity in this jurisdiction. In 1969, the Court promulgated Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration v. Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and offices, 14 where it was held:

x x x x x x x x x

... The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally and only because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than in any private individual or group of individuals," continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of economic forces. Here of course this development was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the promotion of social justice. 15

The requirements of social justice and the necessity for a redistribution of the national wealth and economic opportunity find in fact a greater emphasis in the 1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the novel concepts inscribed there. 16 And two decades after this Court wrote it, ACCFAs message remains the same and its lesson holds true as ever.

The Court is not of the thinking that the act complained of is equivalent to a taking without just compensation. Albeit we have held that "[w]here the owner is deprived of the ordinary and beneficial use of his property or of its value by its being diverted to public use, there is taking within the constitutional sense, 17 it does not seem to us that the Department of Transportation and Communication, by providing for free public correspondence, is guilty of an uncompensated taking. Rather, the Government merely built a bridge that made the boat obsolete, although not entirely useless. Certainly, the owner of the boat can not charge the builder of the bridge for lost income. And certainly, the Government has all the right to build the bridge.

Xxx."


EN BANC
G.R. No. 86953, November 6, 1990.

MARINE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (MARCAPI), ROBERTO GAYA, DAVID ZAFRA and SEGUNDO P. LUSTRE, JR., petitioners,

vs.

HON. RAINERIO O. REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), HON. JOSE LUIS ALCUAZ, as Commissioner of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), and HON. ROSAURO SIBAL, as Chief of the Telecommunications Office (TELOF) of DOTC, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/nov1990/gr_86953_1990.html