Villareal vs People [G.R No. 151258] Case Digest

 

Villareal vs People

G.R No. 151258

 

Facts:

SC was asked to revisit its decision in the case involving the death of Leonardo Villa  due to fraternity hazing. SC modified the assailed judgments of the CA and found respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The modification had the effect of lowering the criminal liability of Dizon from the crime of homicide, while aggravating the verdict against Tecson et al. from slight physical injuries.

The appealed Judgment in, acquitting Victorino et al., is hereby AFFIRMED. The appealed Judgments dismissing the criminal case filed against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano, are likewise AFFIRMED. Finally, pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the Petition in is hereby dismissed, and the criminal case against Artemio Villareal deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.

Respondents Tecson et al., essentially seek a clarification as to the effect of our Decision insofar as their criminal liability and service of sentence are concerned. According to respondents, they immediately applied for probation after the CA rendered its Decision lowering their criminal liability from the crime of homicide, to slight physical injuries, which carries a probationable sentence. Tecson et al.contend that, as a result, they have already been discharged from their criminal liability and the cases against them closed and terminated.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the completion by Tecson et al. of the terms and conditions of their probation discharged them from their criminal liability.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

The finality of a CA decision will not bar the state from seeking the annulment of the judgment via a Rule 65 petition.

In view thereof, we find that the proper interpretation of Section 7 of Rule 120 must be that it is inapplicable and irrelevant where the court’s jurisdiction is being assailed through a Rule 65 petition. Section 7 of Rule 120 bars the modification of a criminal judgment only if the appeal brought before the court is in the nature of a regular appeal under Rule 41, or an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, and if that appeal would put the accused in double jeopardy. As it is, we find no irregularity in the partial annulment of the CA Decision in spite of its finality, as the judgment therein was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

 

People vs Taruc [G.R. No. 185202] Case Digest

 

People vs Taruc

G.R. No. 185202

 

Facts:

Accused-appellant Francisco Taruc was charged in Criminal Case before the RTC of Bataan, with the crime of murder in connection with the death of Emelito Sualog. RTC found the accused guilty of the crime of murder with the attending aggravating circumstance of treachery, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH.

The case was brought to the Court of Appeals for automatic review pursuant to A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC. Accused-appellant, through the PAO, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief. Accused-appellant escaped from prison.

CA found the accused guilty of the crime charged but with modification as to the penalty to be imposed.  PAO appealed the case before SC.

 

Issue:

Whether the accused has lost his right to appeal his conviction because of he escaped from jail.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

An accused is required to be present before the trial court at the promulgation of the judgment in a criminal case. If the accused fails to appear before the trial court, promulgation of judgment shall be made in accordance with Rule 120, Section 6, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:

In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.

[O] nce an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.

By escaping prison, accused-appellant impliedly waived his right to appeal.

Icdang vs Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 185960] Case Digest

 

Icdang vs Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 185960

 

Facts

Petitioner Marino B. Icdang was the Regional Director of the Office for Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) Region XII in Cotabato City.

Special Audit team of COA initiated an administrative and criminal charges against Petitioner for the failure of the latter to liquidate the missing funds of OSCC. The petitioner was charged with Malversation of Public Funds and violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019.

On cross-examination, witness Mudag admitted that while they secured written and signed certifications from project officers and other individuals during the field interviews, these were not made under oath. He also admitted that they no longer visited the project sites after being told by the project officers that there was nothing to be inspected because no project was implemented.

SB rendered its decision convicting petitioner of malversation and acquitting him from violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that he be given another chance to present his evidence, stating that his inability to attend the trial were due to financial constraints such that even when some of the scheduled hearings were sometimes held in Davao City and Cebu City, he still failed to attend the same. However, the SB denied the motion noting that the decision has become final and executory on June 10, 2008 for failure of petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration, or new trial, or appeal before that date.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it rendered its judgment of conviction against petitioner.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

As observed by the SB, the 15-day period of appeal, counted from the date of the promulgation of its decision on May 26, 2008, lapsed on June 10, 2008, which rendered the same final and executory. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was thus filed 6 days late. Petitioner’s resort to the present special civil action after failing to appeal within the fifteen-day reglementary period, cannot be done. The special civil action of certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal which the petitioner already lost.

Salvador vs. Chua [G.R. No. 212865] Case Digest

 

Salvador vs. Chua

G.R. No. 212865

 

Facts:

The petitioner and his wife Marinel Salvador were charged in the RTC with estafa penalized under Article 315 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. On March 30, 2011, the date scheduled for the promulgation of the judgment, their counsel moved for the deferment of the promulgation inasmuch as the petitioner was then suffering from hypertension. Unconvinced of the reason, the RTC proceeded to promulgate its decision. RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the said crime.

The petitioner filed his Motion for Leave to file Notice of Appeal dated April 13, 2011, and attached thereto the medical certificate dated March 30, 2011 purportedly issued by Dr. David, certifying that the petitioner had submitted himself to a medical consultation at the Rizal Medical Center on March 30, 2011 and had been found to be suffering from hypertension.

RTC Judge Eugenio G. DelaCruz initially denied the petitioner's Motion for Leave to file Notice of Appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the July 1, 2011 order. Judge Dela Cruz granted the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on October 26, 2011, thereby giving due course to his notice of appeal.

The private prosecutor, filed its Motion for Reconsideration against the order issued on October 26, 2011, attaching to the motion the affidavit executed by Dr. Paolo Miguel A. David18 affirming that he had not examined the petitioner on March 30, 2011; that he had not issued any medical certificate in favor of the petitioner.

The respondent commenced a special civil action for certiorari in the CA to nullify the October 26, 2011 order. CA granted the respondent's certiorari petition.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Petitioner has lost his right to appeal his conviction.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice. [Rule 120, Sec. 6]

Ricalde vs. People [G.R. No. 211002] Case Digest

 

Ricalde vs. People

G.R. No. 211002

 

Facts:

 Accused Richard Ricalde (Ricalde) was charged with rape as described under the second paragraph of Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code or by Sexual Assault."

RTC found Ricalde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape through sexual assault. CA affirmed the conviction with the modification of lowering the amounts of damages awarded.

Petitioner argues the existence of reasonable doubt in his favor. Thar there are variances to the testimony of the victim. Petitioner contends that the court should have applied the "variance doctrine" in People v. Sumingwa, and the court would have found him guilty for the lesser offense of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt petitioner Richard Ricalde’s guilt for the crime of rape through sexual assault.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

In the instant case, no variance exists between what was charged and what was proven during trial. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all elements of the crime of rape through sexual assault.

XXX testified that he "felt something was inserted [into his] anus." The slightest penetration into one’s sexual organ distinguishes an act of lasciviousness from the crime of rape. 

People vs Lindo [G.R. No. 189818] Case Digest

 

People vs Lindo

G.R. No. 189818

 

Facts:

Accused-appellant was charged with two offenses, rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, and rape as an act of sexual assault under Art. 266-A, par. 2. Accused-appellant was charged with having carnal knowledge of AAA, who was under twelve years of age at the time, under par. 1(d) of Art. 266-A, and he was also charged with committing "an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person" under the second paragraph of Art. 266-A.

RTC find the accused guilty of (one count) rape.  CA affirmed the decision of RTC with modification as to civil liability of the accused.

 

Issue:

Whether or not RTC and CA erred in finding only one count of rape in the present case.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

 It is settled that in a criminal case, an appeal throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, whether they are made the subject of the assignment of errors or not.

Two instances of rape were indeed proved at the trial, as it was established that there was contact between accused-appellant's penis and AAA's labia; then AAA's testimony established that accused-appellant was able to partially insert his penis into her anal orifice.

Zafra vs. People [G.R. No. 176317] Case Digest

 

Zafra vs. People

G.R. No. 176317

 

Facts:

Appellant was the only Revenue Collection Agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Revenue District 3, in San Fernando, La Union from 1993-1995. An audit team composed of Revenue Officers, all from the central office of the BIR, was tasked to audit the cash and non-cash accountabilities of the appellant.

The audit team found discrepancy from the BIR documents submitted by appellant to COA. Appellant denied that he committed the crimes charged. He averred that as Revenue Collection Officer of San Fernando, La Union, he never accepted payments from taxpayers nor issued the corresponding revenue official receipts.

RTC rendered its consolidated decision convicting the petitioner of 18 counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents. CA affirmed the decision of RTC.

Petitioner contends that the RTC and the CA erroneously convicted him of several counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents on the basis of the finding that he had been negligent in the performance of his duties as Revenue District Officer; that the acts imputed to him did not constitute negligence.

 

Issue:

Whether or not RTC and the CA erroneously convicted the Petitioner of several counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

The findings of fact of the RTC were affirmed by the CA. Hence, the petitioner was correctly convicted of the crimes charged because such findings of fact by the trial court, being affirmed by the CA as the intermediate reviewing tribunal, are now binding and conclusive on the Court. Accordingly, we conclude that the Prosecution sufficiently established that the petitioner had been the forger of the falsified and tampered public documents, and that the falsifications of the public documents had been necessary to commit the malversations of the collected taxes.

The petitioner relies on the passage of the RTC’s ruling to buttress his contention that he should be found guilty of malversation through negligence. His reliance is grossly misplaced, however, because the RTC did not thereby pronounce that he had been merely negligent. The passage was nothing but a brief forensic discourse on the legal consequence if his defense were favorably considered, and was not the basis for finding him guilty. To attach any undue significance to such discourse is to divert attention away from the firmness of the finding of guilt. It cannot be denied, indeed, that the RTC did not give any weight to his position.

Cruz v. Pandacan Hiker’s Club, Inc., [G.R. No. 188213] Case Digest

 

Cruz v. Pandacan Hiker’s Club, Inc.,

G.R. No. 188213

 

 

Facts:

Petitioner Natividad C. Cruz was Punong Barangay of Brgy, 848, City of Manila. Petitioner Cruz confronted persons playing basketball and thereby instructed Barangay Tanod Benjamin dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), to destroy the basketball ring by cutting it up with a hacksaw,  thus, rendering the said basketball court unusable.

The acts of petitioners prompted the filing of a Complaint (for Malicious Mischief, Grave Misconduct and others before the Prosecutor's Office and the Office of the Ombudsman by the group that claims to be the basketball court's owners. Cruz alleged that the basketball court affected the peace in the barangay and was the subject of many complaints from residents asking for its closure. In support of her answer, Cruz attached copies of the complaints, a "certification" and letters of barangay residents asking for a solution to the problems arising from the disruptive activities on the said playing venue.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Cruz can order to destroy the basketball ring because it is a public nuisance.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

The destructive acts of petitioners, however, find no legal sanction. This Court has ruled time and again that no public official is above the law. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that although petitioners claim to have merely performed an abatement of a public nuisance, the same was done summarily while failing to follow the proper procedure therefor and for which, petitioners must be held administratively liable.

Prevailing jurisprudence holds that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may not be summarily abated.

There is a nuisance when there is "any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property." But other than the statutory definition, jurisprudence recognizes that the term "nuisance" is so comprehensive that it has been applied to almost all ways which have interfered with the rights of the citizens, either in person, property, the enjoyment of his property, or his comfort.

 

Republic v. Tan, G.R. No. 199537 Case Digest

 

Republic v. Tan,

G.R. No. 199537

 

 

Facts:

 Tan applied for the original registration of title of Lot No. 4080 situated in Casili, Consolacion, Cebu. She alleged that she is the absolute owner in fee simple of the said 7,807 square-meter parcel of residential land she purchased from a certain Julian Gonzaga.  The land registration court granted Tan’s application. The court confirmed her title over the subject lot and ordered its registration. The Republic appealed the case to the CA.  CA denied the appeal.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the alienable public property not been withdrawn from public use or public service can be acquired by prescription.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

Even though it has been declared alienable and disposable, the property has not been withdrawn from public use or public service. Without this, prescription cannot begin to run because the property has not yet been converted into patrimonial property of the State. It remains outside the commerce of man and the respondent’s physical possession and occupation thereof do not produce any legal effect. In the eyes of the law, the respondent has never acquired legal possession of the property and her physical possession thereof, no matter how long, can never ripen into ownership.

Rana v. Wong, [G.R. No. 192861-62] Case Digest

 

Rana v. Wong,

G.R. No. 192861-62

 

 

Facts:

Teresita Lee Wong (Wong) and Sps. Ong are co-owners pro-indiviso of a residential land situated in Peace Valley Subdivision, Lahug, Cebu City, abutting a 10-meter wide subdivision road (subject road). On the opposite side of the subject road, across the Wong-Ong property, are the adjacent lots of Sps Uy and Sps Rana.

Sps. Rana elevated and cemented a portion of the subject road that runs between the Rana and Wong-Ong properties (subject portion) in order to level the said portion with their gate. Sps. Rana likewise backfilled a portion (subject backfilling) of the perimeter fence separating the Rana and Uy properties without erecting a retaining wall that would hold the weight of the added filling materials.

Wong, Sps. Ong, and Sps. Uy (Wong, et al.) filed a Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance with Damages against Sps. Rana before the RTC. RTC found that the backfilling done by Sps. Rana on their property exerted pressure on the perimeter fence of the Uy property, thereby constituting a nuisance. CA affirmed the decision of RTC.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the backfilling done by Sps. Rana on their property exerted pressure on the perimeter fence of the Uy property constitute nuisance.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

SC finds that the same is not a nuisance per se. By its nature, it is not injurious to the health or comfort of the community. It was built primarily to facilitate the ingress and egress of Sps. Rana from their house which was admittedly located on a higher elevation than the subject road and the adjoining Uy and Wong-Ong properties.Since the subject portion is not a nuisance per se(but actually a nuisance per accidensas will be later discussed) it cannot be summarily abated.

El Deposito v. Lood 47 SCRA 174 [G.R. No. L-31864] Case Digest

 

El Deposito v. Lood 47 SCRA 174

G.R. No. L-31864

 

Facts:

Petitioners filed an action for certiorari  and prohibition with preliminary injunction to set aside respondent court's questioned orders denying petitioners' motions for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to stay the demolition and removal of their houses and structures on a parcel of public land in barrios in San Juan, Rizal (more popularly known as "El Deposito" from the Spanish times). Petitioners' action below was one for declaratory relief to declare as null and void as ex post facto legislation, municipal ordinance No. 89, as amended, of respondent Municipality of San Juan, prohibiting squatting on public property.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the properties of the Petitioners were public nuisance.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

On the main issue at bar, the Court is satisfied that by no means may respondent court be said to have exceeded its authority or gravely abused its discretion in issuing its questioned orders denying petitioners' motion below for a writ of preliminary injunction allegedly "to maintain the status quo" and stay demolition and removal of their illegal constructions found to be public nuisances per se and serious hazards to public health.

 

City of Manila v. Garcia, G. R. No. L-26053 Case Digest

 

City of Manila v. Garcia,

G. R. No. L-26053

 

 

Facts:

City of Manila is owner of parcels of land. Shortly after liberation from 1945 to 1947, defendants entered upon these premises without plaintiff's knowledge and consent. They built houses of second-class materials, again without plaintiff's knowledge and consent, and without the necessary building permits from the city. There they lived thru the years to the present.

Mayor Fugoso give the Respondents a written permits labeled "lease contract" — to occupy specific areas in the property upon conditions therein set forth. For their occupancy, defendants were charged nominal rentals.

City Engineer, pursuant to the Mayor's directive to clear squatters' houses on city property, gave each of defendants thirty (30) days to vacate and remove his construction or improvement on the premises for the purpose of expansion of Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School. Trial court  directed defendants to vacate the premises and to pay the rentals.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the houses and constructions by the respondent were public nuisance.

 

Held:

Yes

 

Ratio:

In the situation thus obtaining, the houses and constructions aforesaid constitute public nuisance per se. And this, for the reason that they hinder and impair the use of the property for a badly needed school building, to the prejudice of the education of the youth of the land. They shackle the hands of the government and thus obstruct performance of its constitutionally ordained obligation to establish and maintain a complete and adequate system of public education, and more, to "provide at least free public primary instruction".

The public nuisance could well have been summarily abated by the city authorities themselves, even without the aid of the courts.