Vaporoso vs. People, G.R. No. 238659, June 3, 2019 [Case Digest]

 

Vaporoso vs. People,

G.R. No. 238659, June 3, 2019

Second Division [Perlas-Bernabe, J.]

Facts:

            At around 7:00 in the evening of August 25, 2013, while Police Officer 2 Alexander D. Torculas (PO2 Torculas) was patrolling along National Highway, Barangay Salvacion, Panabo City, he noticed two (2) men - later on identified as petitioners - aboard a motorcycle with the back rider holding a lady bag which appeared to have been taken from a vehicle parked on the side of the road. When PO2 Torculas shouted at petitioners to halt, the latter sped away. At this point, the owner of the vehicle, Narcisa Dombase, approached PO2 Torculas and told him that petitioners broke the window of her vehicle and took her belongings. This prompted PO2 Torculas to chase petitioners until the latter entered a dark, secluded area in Bangoy Street, prompting him to call for back-up. Shortly after, Police Officer 1 Ryan B. Malibago (PO1 Malibago), together with some Intel Operatives, arrived and joined PO2 Torculas in waiting for petitioners to come out of the aforesaid area.

            About six (6) hours later, or at around 1:00 in the morning of the following day, PO2 Torculas and PO1 Malibago saw petitioners come out and decided to approach them. Petitioners, however, attempted to flee, but PO2 Torculas and PO1 Malibago were able to apprehend them. After successfully recovering Dombase's bags and belongings from petitioners, the police officers conducted an initial cursory body search on the latter, and thereafter, brought them to the Panabo Police Station. Thereat, the police officers conducted another "more thorough" search on petitioners, which yielded (5) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from Vaporoso and four (4) plastic sachets with similar white crystalline substance from Tulilik. PO1 Malibago then marked the said items in the presence of petitioners and conducted the requisite photo-taking and inventory in the presence of Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Ian Dionalo, Kagawad Elpidio Pugata, and media representative Jun Gumban.

            RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the RTC that the body search conducted on petitioners at the police station was a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest.

           

 

Issue:

            Whether the second search conducted to herein appellant which yielded an illegal drug valid.

 

Held:

            No; in warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), Rule 113, it is required that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. Verily, under Section 5 (b), Rule 113, it is essential that the element of personal knowledge must be coupled with the element of immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through the search incidental thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule of the 1987 Constitution.

            The reason for the element of the immediacy is this as the time gap from the commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected to external factors, interpretations and hearsay. On the other hand, with the element of immediacy imposed under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the police officer's determination of probable cause would necessarily be limited to raw or uncontaminated facts or circumstances, gathered as they were within a very limited period of time. The same provision adds another safeguard with the requirement of probable cause as the standard for evaluating these facts of circumstances before the police officer could effect a valid warrantless arrest.

            In this case, a judicious review of the records show that while PO2 Torculas was cruising on his motorcycle, he personally saw petitioners holding a lady bag which appeared to have been taken from a parked vehicle. Suspicious of the incident, PO2 Torculas told petitioners to halt, prompting the latter to speed away aboard their motorcycle. Immediately thereafter, the owner of the vehicle, Dombase, approached PO2 Torculas and sought for his assistance, narrating that petitioners broke the window of her vehicle and took her belongings. To the Court, petitioners' sudden flight upon being flagged by a police officer, coupled with Dombase's narration of what had just transpired is enough to provide PO2 Torculas with personal knowledge of facts indicating that a crime had just been committed and that petitioners are the perpetrators thereof. Moreover, upon gaining such personal knowledge, not only did PO2 Torculas chase petitioners until they entered a dark, secluded area, he also called for back-up and conducted a "stake-out" right then and there until they were able to arrest petitioners about six (6) hours later. These circumstances indubitably show that the twin requisites of personal knowledge and immediacy in order to effectuate a valid "hot pursuit" warrantless arrest are present, considering that PO2 Torculas obtained personal knowledge that a crime had just been committed and that he. did not waver in his continuous and unbroken pursuit of petitioners until they were arrested. From the foregoing, the Court concludes "that the police officers validly conducted a "hot pursuit" warrantless arrest on petitioners.

            On this note, case law requires a strict application of this rule, that is, "to absolutely limit a warrantless search of a person who is lawfully arrested to his or her person at the time of and incident to his or her arrest and to 'dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.' Such warrantless search obviously cannot be made in a place other than the place of arrest."

            Applying the foregoing parameters to this case, the Court concludes that the first search made on petitioners, i.e., the cursory body search which, however, did not yield any drugs but only personal belongings of petitioners, may be considered as a search incidental to a lawful arrest as it was done contemporaneous to their arrest and at the place of apprehension. On the other hand, the same cannot be said of the second search which yielded the drugs subject of this case, considering that a substantial amount of time had already elapsed from the time of the arrest to the time of the second search, not to mention the fact that the second search was conducted at a venue other than the place of actual arrest, i.e., the Panabo Police Station.

            In sum, the subsequent and second search made on petitioners at the Panabo Police Station is unlawful and unreasonable. Resultantly, the illegal drugs allegedly recovered therefrom constitutes inadmissible evidence pursuant to the exclusionary clause enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. Given that said illegal drugs is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, petitioners must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability.

 

Ursua vs. CA, G.R. No. 112170 April 10, 1996 [Case Digest]

 

Ursua vs. CA,

G.R. No. 112170   April 10, 1996

Facts:

            Petitioner Cesario Ursua was a Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer assigned in Kidapawan, Cotabato. On 9 May 1989 the Provincial Governor of Cotabato requested the Office of the Ombudsman in Manila to conduct an investigation on a complaint for bribery, dishonesty, abuse of authority and giving of unwarranted benefits by petitioner and other officials of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The complaint was initiated by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cotabato through a resolution advising the Governor to report the involvement of petitioner and others in the illegal cutting of mahogany trees and hauling of illegally-cut logs in the area.

            On 1 August 1989 Atty. Francis Palmones, counsel for petitioner, wrote the Office of the Ombudsman in Davao City requesting that he be furnished copy of the complaint against petitioner. Atty. Palmones then asked his client Ursua to take his letter-request to the Office of the Ombudsman because his law firm's messenger, Oscar Perez, had to attend to some personal matters. Before proceeding to the Office of the Ombudsman petitioner talked to Oscar Perez and told him that he was reluctant to personally ask for the document since he was one of the respondents before the Ombudsman. However, Perez advised him not to worry as he could just sign his (Perez) name if ever he would be required to acknowledge receipt of the complaint.

            When petitioner arrived at the Office of the Ombudsman in Davao City he was instructed by the security officer to register in the visitors' logbook. Instead of writing down his name petitioner wrote the name "Oscar Perez" after which he was told to proceed to the Administrative Division for the copy of the complaint he needed. He handed the letter of Atty. Palmones to the Chief of the Administrative Division, Ms. Loida Kahulugan, who then gave him a copy of the complaint, receipt of which he acknowledged by writing the name "Oscar Perez."

            Before petitioner could leave the premises he was greeted by an acquaintance, Josefa Amparo, who also worked in the same office. They conversed for a while then he left. When Loida learned that the person who introduced himself as "Oscar Perez" was actually petitioner Cesario Ursua, a customer of Josefa Amparo in her gasoline station, Loida reported the matter to the Deputy Ombudsman who recommended that petitioner be accordingly charged.

            Trial court found him guilty of violating Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085. He was sentenced to suffer a prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional minimum as minimum, to four (4) years of prision correccional medium as maximum, with all the accessory penalties provided for by law, and to pay a fine of P4,000.00 plus costs.

            CA affirmed the conviction of petitioner but modified the penalty by imposing an indeterminate term of one (1) year as minimum to three (3) years as maximum and a fine of P 5,000.

            Petitioner now comes to us for review of his conviction as he reasserts his innocence. He contends that he has not violated C.A. No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085 as he never used any alias name; neither is "Oscar Perez" his alias. An alias, according to him, is a term which connotes the habitual use of another name by which a person is also known. He claims that he has never been known as "Oscar Perez" and that he only used such name on one occasion and it was with the express consent of Oscar Perez himself. It is his position that an essential requirement for a conviction under C.A. No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085 has not been complied with when the prosecution failed to prove that his supposed alias was different from his registered name in the Registry of Births. He further argues that the Court of Appeals erred in not considering the defense theory that he was charged under the wrong law.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not Ursua is guilty under the illegal use of alias punishable in Commonwealth Act 142.

 

Held:

            No; time and again we have decreed that statutes are to be construed in the light of the purposes to be achieved and the evils sought to be remedied. Thus in construing a statute the reason for its enactment should be kept in mind and the statute should be construed with reference to the intended scope and purpose. The court may consider the spirit and reason of the statute, where a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of the lawmakers.

            For a clear understanding of the purpose of C.A. No. 142 as amended, which was allegedly violated by petitioner, and the surrounding circumstances under which the law was enacted, the pertinent provisions thereof, its amendments and related statutes are herein cited. C.A. No. 142, which was approved on 7 November 1936, and before its amendment by R.A. No. 6085, is entitled An Act to Regulate the Use of Aliases.

            The objective and purpose of C.A. No. 142 have their origin and basis in Act No. 3883, An Act to Regulate the Use in Business Transactions of Names other than True Names, Prescribing the Duties of the Director of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry in its Enforcement, Providing Penalties for Violations thereof, and for other purposes, which was approved on 14 November 1931 and amended by Act No. 4147, approved on 28 November 1934. he pertinent provisions of Act No. 3883 as amended follow — Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to use or sign, on any written or printed receipt including receipt for tax or business or any written or printed contract not verified by a notary public or on any written or printed evidence of any agreement or business transactions, any name used in connection with his business other than his true name, or keep conspicuously exhibited in plain view in or at the place where his business is conducted, if he is engaged in a business, any sign announcing a firm name or business name or style without first registering such other name, or such firm name, or business name or style in the Bureau of Commerce together with his true name and that of any other person having a joint or common interest with him in such contract, agreement, business transaction, or business.

            For a bit of history, the enactment of C.A. No. 142 as amended was made primarily to curb the common practice among the Chinese of adopting scores of different names and aliases which created tremendous confusion in the field of trade. Such a practice almost bordered on the crime of using fictitious names which for obvious reasons could not be successfully maintained against the Chinese who, rightly or wrongly, claimed they possessed a thousand and one names. C.A. No. 142 thus penalized the act of using an alias name, unless such alias was duly authorized by proper judicial proceedings and recorded in the civil register.

            Clearly therefore an alias is a name or names used by a person or intended to be used by him publicly and habitually usually in business transactions in addition to his real name by which he is registered at birth or baptized the first time or substitute name authorized by a competent authority. A man's name is simply the sound or sounds by which he is commonly designated by his fellows and by which they distinguish him but sometimes a man is known by several different names and these are known as aliases.  Hence, the use of a fictitious name or a different name belonging to another person in a single instance without any sign or indication that the user intends to be known by this name in addition to his real name from that day forth does not fall within the prohibition contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended. This is so in the case at bench.

 

It is not disputed that petitioner introduced himself in the Office of the Ombudsman as "Oscar Perez," which was the name of the messenger of his lawyer who should have brought the letter to that office in the first place instead of petitioner. He did so while merely serving the request of his lawyer to obtain a copy of the complaint in which petitioner was a respondent. There is no question then that "Oscar Perez" is not an alias name of petitioner. There is no evidence showing that he had used or was intending to use that name as his second name in addition to his real name. The use of the name "Oscar Perez" was made by petitioner in an isolated transaction where he was not even legally required to expose his real identity. For, even if he had identified himself properly at the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner would still be able to get a copy of the complaint as a matter of right, and the Office of the Ombudsman could not refuse him because the complaint was part of public records hence open to inspection and examination by anyone under the proper circumstances.

 

Roel Degamo vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212416. December 05, 2018 [Case Digest]

 

Roel Degamo vs. Office of the Ombudsman,

G.R. No. 212416. December 05, 2018

Third Division [Leonen, J]

 

Facts:

            The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (Council) requested the release of P961,550,000.00 to the Negros Oriental province (provincial government) to finance the rehabilitation of various infrastructures damaged by Typhoon Sendong and a 6.9-magnitude earthquake. he Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr., approved the request, charging the amount against the Calamity Fund for Fiscal Year 2012, subject to availability.

                The Department, through its Regional Office No. VII, issued on June 5, 2012 Special Allotment Release Order which covered the approved amount. It also issued a Notice of Cash Allocation worth P480,775,000.00, or 50% of the approved sum.

                In a June 18, 2012 letter to Budget and Management Secretary Florencio Abad (Abad), Public Works and Highways Secretary Rogelio L. Singson requested the Department not to indicate the recipient local government unit in the Special Allotment Release Order yet, since the Department of Public Works and Highways needed to evaluate the local government units' capability to implement projects prior to the release of a fund. Thus, Abad ordered Relampagos to withdraw the previously issued Special Allotment Release Order and Notice of Cash Allocation.

                Relampagos informed Degamo that the Department is withdrawing the Special Allotment Release Order because its release did not comply with the guidelines on large-scale fund releases for infrastructure projects. He said this withdrawal was effective until the Department of Public Works and Highways could determine that the local government units are able to implement the projects.

                On June 29, 2012, the Department's Regional Office VII Director advised Degamo that the Special Allotment Release Order had been withdrawn, and ordered the provincial government to return and deposit P480,775,000.00, the previously released amount, to the National Treasury.

                On July 16, 2012, Degamo informed Relampagos that the provincial government would not be returning the funds, and claimed that he was illegally withdrawing funds unbeknownst to higher authorities.

                Degamo filed before the Office of the Ombudsman a Complaint for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions against Relampagos. He alleged that when Relampagos wrote the June 19, 2012 letter-advice, Relampagos falsely posed himself to have been authorized by President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. Degamo added that Relampagos usurped the official functions of the Executive Secretary, who had the sole authority to write and speak for and on behalf of the President.

                Relampagos maintained that he wrote the letter as the Department's Undersecretary for Operations. He claimed that he acted upon Abad's instructions, and that the Office of the President was informed of the withdrawal.

                Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the Complaint. It found no probable cause to charge Relampagos with Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions since he signed the letter in his own name and under the words, "By Authority of the Secretary." There was also no positive express, and explicit representation made. Neither did Relampagos act under pretense of official position, nor without legal authority.

                Degamo filed this Petition for Certiorari, arguing that public respondent, the Office of the Ombudsman, gravely abused its discretion when it held that there was no probable cause to indict private respondent Relampagos of the crime charged.

                Petitioner does not dispute the Department's authority in approving or disapproving Special Allotment Release Orders; however, it must be under the law. According to him, the funding assistance was a calamity fund governed by Republic Act No. 10121, or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010, and the special provisions of Republic Act No. 10155 or the General Appropriations Act of 2012 (2012 GAA), as provided in the Department's Budget Circular No. 2012-2.37 Per these laws, releasing funds to the implementing agency requires the approval of the President with favorable recommendation of the Council. Hence, there was no need for the Department of Public Works and Highways' prior determination before the Special Allotment Release Order could be released.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Complaint for usurpation of authority or official functions, which petitioner filed against private respondent, for lack of probable cause.

 

Held:

            No; SC has adopted a policy of non-interference with public respondent's determination of probable cause. In Dichaves v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al.: As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutional mandate. Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) give the Ombudsman wide latitude to act on criminal complaints against public officials and government employees. The rule on non-interference is based on the respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman.

            The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power to investigate. It is, therefore, in a better position to assess the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence on hand needed to make a finding of probable cause. As this Court is not a trier of facts, we defer to the sound judgment of the Ombudsman.

            Moreover, in a special civil action for certiorari, this Court cannot correct errors of fact or law not amounting to grave abuse of discretion. This Court may review public respondent's exercise of its investigative and prosecutorial powers, but only upon a clear showing that it abused its discretion in an "arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner,"

                In his Complaint, petitioner charged private respondent with violation of Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which states: ARTICLE 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. — Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

                This law provision penalizes the crimes of usurpation of authority and usurpation of official functions. As worded, any person who commits the punishable acts enumerated can be held liable. This was upheld in People v. Hilvano, where the Court denied the appellant public official's attempt to restrict Article 177's application to private individuals only. The same case held that good faith is a defense against a charge under it.

                The crime of usurpation of authority punishes the act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent, or representative of any department or agency of the government.

                What petitioner posits is that by signing the letter, private respondent led the addressee to believe that he had the authority to do so when he did not, which constitutes usurpation of authority. He is incorrect. The punishable act in usurpation of authority is false and knowing representation, i.e. the malicious misrepresentation as an agent, officer, or representative of the government.

               

 

 

Private respondent did not maliciously misrepresent himself as an agent, officer, or representative of the government. He is a public official himself, the Department's Undersecretary for Operations, whom public respondent had found to have signed the letter in his own name and under the words, "By Authority of the Secretary."

Clearly, the facts presented by petitioner do not constitute the crime of usurpation of authority. Public respondent was not in grave abuse of discretion when it found that there was no sufficient evidence to support an indictment for usurpation of authority against private respondent.

The crime of usurpation of official functions punishes any person who, under pretense of official position, performs any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so.

                Under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the elements of the crime of usurpation of official functions are when a person: (1) performs any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof; (2) acts under pretense of official position; and (3) acts without being lawfully entitled to do so.

As discussed, the public respondent found that private respondent signed the letter in his own name as the Undersecretary for Operations, and under the words, "By Authority of the Secretary." Petitioner did not dispute this finding. However, he argues that respondent acted without legal authority and usurped the Executive Secretary's function, as the latter is the only one who can write and speak for and on behalf of the President.

At the onset, private respondent did not claim to write for and on behalf of the President in the letter. This Court fails to see how he usurped the Executive Secretary's function when there was no attempt to represent the President in the letter. In any case, petitioner insists that only the President can withdraw the Special Allotment Release Order from his provincial government.

In Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan, this Court acquitted Leovegildo R. Ruzol (Ruzol), then Mayor of Nakar, Quezon, who issued 221 permits for the transportation of salvaged products. The Sandiganbayan convicted him of usurpation of official functions of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. However, this Court found that the government agency did not have the sole authority to issue the questioned permits, and that local government units may likewise exercise such power under the general welfare clause. Moreover, the permit that Ruzol issued was not intended to replace the one required by the government agency. He was found to have acted in good faith and was acquitted.

Following Ruzol, an inquiry must be made on whether private respondent may exercise the power to withdraw the Special Allotment Release Order through a letter-advice, and whether he acted in good faith.

Private respondent argues that he acted under Abad's authority, under the August 18, 2011 Department Order No. 2011-11. A scrutiny of this document confirms that private respondent himself was designated to sign documents on Abad's behalf, which explicitly includes the Special Allotment Release Order, the Notice of Cash Allocation, and the letter-advice to agencies.

It appears that private respondent was acting on behalf of Abad, upon the instructions of the President. Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, department secretaries may act for and on behalf of the President on matters where the President is required to exercise authority in their respective departments.

It bears stressing at this point that in People v. Hilvano, this Court enunciated that good faith is a defense in criminal prosecutions for usurpation of official functions. The term "good faith" is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even though technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts, which render transaction unconscientious." Good faith is actually a question of intention and although something internal, it can be ascertained by relying not on one's self-serving protestations of good faith but on evidence of his conduct and outward acts.

The records fail to show that private respondent acted in bad faith in withdrawing the Special Allotment Release Order. On the contrary, it appears it was petitioner who acted in bad faith. Private respondent claims that despite the notice of withdrawal and the directive to return the public fund to the National Treasury pending compliance with the rules, petitioner brazenly procured various infrastructure projects. Petitioner was the only one among the local chief executives who disregarded the order from the Executive Department.