Last Cases

8/10/2019 Last Cases

1/37

G.R. No. L-52364 March 25, 1983 RICARDO VALLADOLID, petitioner, vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, Dep !" M#$#%!er o& La'or, a$(O)ACA*ANA A)AR+M N+-HO+ L, respondents. M L NCIO-H RR RA, J.:

he Order dated December 26, 1979 of the Deputy Minister of Labor a rmin! the Order of May 2, 1979 for reinstatement "ithout bac#"a!essued by $e!iona% Director &rancisco L. 'stre%%a in (ase )o. $*+ T&+2+1-16+79 entit%ed, $icardo (. /a%%ado%id, 0r. vs. (opacabana partment+ote%, is bein! assai%ed by the parties in these petitions.

$. M. 3 (o., 4nc. 5hereinafter referred to as 0$M , as petitioner in .$. )o. 8--*9, is a%so the respondent in .$. )o. 82-6* named therein asopacabana partment+ ote%. 0$M ori!ina%%y o"ned and operated not on%y (opacabana but a%so Tropicana partment+ ote%. The principa%oc#ho%ders of 0$M "ere the brothers 0oseph, Manue%, /icente and $oman, a%% surnamed u. :pon the death of 0oseph on October 12, 1978,%thou!h both (opacabana and Tropicana continued technica%%y as o"ned by 0$M, the contro%%in! 57;< interest in (opacabana "as %od!ed in

he survivin! heirs of 0oseph, "ith brothers Manue% and $oman havin! a 18< interest each. 0$M "as p%aced under the mana!ement of theeirs of 0oseph. The brothers Manue%, $oman and /icente "ere a%%o"ed 1;;< e=uity interest in Tropicana, "hich "as operated separate%y from$M. 'ventua%%y, Tropicana and (opacabana became competin! businesses.

icardo /a%%ado%id, petitioner in .$. )o. 82-6* and respondent in .$. )o. 8--*9, after the death of 0oseph, "as emp%oyed by 0$M in 1977 as ae%ephone s"itchboard operator. e "as subse=uent%y transferred to the position of c%er#+co%%ector by Mrs. Lourdes T. u, >resident of 0$M.

ccordin! to the a davit of Danie% T. u, '?ecutive /ice+>resident, attached to the position paper submitted by 0$M before the $e!iona%Director, the transfer "as motivated by the fact@

?? ??? ???

hat as such s"itchboard operator numerous te%ephone conversations and communications re%atin! to business and conAdentia% matters "ere

ntercepted and re%ayed to Tropicana partment+ ote%, a competitorB

hat to conArm suspicion on $icardo /a%%ado%id as the person responsib%e for said interception and re%ay, Mrs. Lourdes T. u, >resident of 0$M 3o., 4nc. sent him on an errand to Mani%a ote% to brin! Co"ers on the occasion of eddin! nniversary of Mr. 3 Mrs. u on! Ty. Matters "hich

Mrs. Lourdes u to%d him in conAdence and admonitions not to te%% anyone, reached Tropicana peop%eB

?? ??? ??? 1

he a davit further disc%osed@

?? ??? ???

hat "hi%e servin! in his capacity as c%er#Eco%%ector, copies of ccounts $eceivab%es, reach Tropicana Mana!ement a%thou!h said copies "ereot referred to themB

hat conferred 5 sic on numerous conAdentia% matters ta#en in the o ce of (opacabana partment+ ote% reached Tropicana partment+ ote%B

hat to Ana%%y and fu%%y conArmed suspicions that $icardo /a%%ado%id "as the person responsib%e for the aforementioned disc%osures, a p%an forhe entrapment "as conceived by the mana!ement of (opacabana partment+ ote%B

hat on )ovember 9, 1979, pursuance of said p%an, a cash voucher for >8;;,;;;.;; supposed%y in payment for representation e?penses tomyse%f "ith the correspondin! chec# "ere prepared and issued respective%y by 0uan /. Fermudo, partment+ ote% Mana!er, "ho thereaftera%%ed $icardo /a%%ado%id and as#ed the %atter to brin! the said cash voucher and chec# to my room "hich he didB fe" minutes %ater 4 cameo"n to the o ce and as#ed Mr. $icardo /a%%ado%id to prepare the correspondin! deposit s%ip to >aciAc Fan#in! (orporation for said chec#B

hat thereafter, the aforementioned cash voucher, correspondin! chec# and deposit s%ip "ere #ept in the hote% vau%t "ith no other personther than myse%f, 0uan Fermudo and $icardo /a%%ado%id havin! any #no"%ed!e of preparation and e?istence thereofB

hat un#no"n to $icardo /i%%ado%id, the aforementioned chec#, cash voucher and deposit s%ip "ere cance%%edB

hat on December *, 197G, Mr. Manue% u (hua, came to (opacabana partment+ ote% as minority stoc#ho%der of the %atter, vehement%yemandin! for an accountin! of (opacabana boo#sB

hat he stron!%y char!ed that information reached him that 4 received a disbursement of >8;;,;;;.;; from (opacabana partment+ ote% asepresentation e?penses in my capacity as '?ecutive /ice+>resident thereofB

hat at this Huncture, 4 brou!ht out the cance%%ed cash voucher, chec# and deposit s%ip "ith mouth a!ape Manue% u (hua, cou%d do nothin!%se but admit that in fact, his informer "ithin (opacabana partment+ ote% "as no other than Mr. $icardo (. /i%%ado%idB


2/37

hat 4 then informed Manue% u (hua, that under the circumstances, 4 cou%d no %on!er repose any trust "hatsoever on $icardo /a%%ado%id ande=uested him to ta#e the %atter to Tropicana partment+ ote% and Hust s"ap him "ith someone e%seB Mr. Manue% u (hua directed me to te%%a%%ado%id to see himB

hat after fe" days, $icardo /a%%ado%id came bac# and to%d me that Manue% u (hua has no p%ace for him at Tropicana partment+ ote%B in thisonversation, $icardo /a%%ado%id apo%o!iIed for havin! betrayed the trust that "e had reposed on him, especia%%y after Mrs. Lourdes T. u hado%d him to stay impartia%B that he then havin! done this for Manue% u (hua, the %atter cou%d not even accept him in Tropicana partment+ote%B

?? ??? ??? 2

he entrapment scheme "as corroborated by the a davits of oAa Mo. ianan, '?terna% uditor of 0.$.M. 3 (o., 4nc., and 0uan /. Fermudo,opacabana partment+ ote% Mana!er, "hich a davits formed part of 0$MJs position paper A%ed before the a!ency be%o". 3 The cance%%edash /oucher, the uncashed chec#, and the unused deposit s%ip, a%% in the respective amounts of >8;;,;;;.;; "ere a%so attached to the sameosition paper as '?hibits * , 8 and 6 .

On December 29, 197G, or after the entrapment scheme had been eKected, /a%%ado%id A%ed a "ritten re=uest for a Ave 58 day vacation %eaveartin! December -;, 197G "ith the Mana!er of (opacabana, statin! therein that he "ou%d report for "or# on 0anuary 8, 1979. 4 e did not

eport for "or# on 0anuary 8 but sent a te%e!ram from Fico% on 0anuary G, 1979 re=uestin! for 18 days sic# %eave as he "as conAned for Cu athe Dr. 'stre%%ado (%inic. 5 On 0anuary 2-, 1979, /a%%ado%idJs "ife a%%e!ed%y ca%%ed up 0$M informin! the company throu!h its accountant, 'ddiecueta, that her husband "as sti%% sic# and re=uested for -; days sic# %eave, "hich "as a%%e!ed%y !ranted. This "as denied by 0$M.

a%%ado%id reported for "or# on &ebruary 16, 1979. The '?ecutive /ice+ >resident, Mr. Danie% u, a%%e!ed%y refused to admit him and insteads#ed him to resi!n. 0$M maintains that /a%%ado%id %eft the o ce that same day and never returned, because he "as reprimanded for his

nauthoriIed absences.

On &ebruary 22, 1979, /a%%ado%id A%ed a (omp%aint for 4%%e!a% Dismissa% "ith vacation and sic# %eave pay. 6

On &ebruary 2*, 1979, 0$M sent a %etter to /a%%ado%id si!ned by Danie% T. u, advisin! him of his preventive suspension eKective &ebruary 26,979 preparatory to the termination of his services 1; days from receipt of a copy of the app%ication for c%earance to dismiss him. The !roundsven "ere@ 51 i%%fu% Freach of Trust for havin! divu%!ed, in various instances, conAdentia% business matters to competitors of the companyBnd 52 ross )e!%ect of Duty for havin! been absent "ithout %eave or notice for more than 28 days, to the detriment of the company.

On &ebruary 2G, 1979, 0$M A%ed said app%ication for c%earance "ith the Ministry of Labor. 8 The app%ication for c%earance and /a%%ado%idJsomp%aint for 4%%e!a% Dismissa% "ere conso%idated and doc#eted as $*+ T&+2+1-16+79. The parties submitted their respective position papersnd documentary evidence. On May 2, 1979, the $e!iona% Director issued the fo%%o"in! cha%%en!ed Order@

'$'&O$', premises considered, the app%ication for c%earance "ith preventive suspension is hereby denied. $espondent is hereby orderedo reinstate comp%ainant to his former position "ithout bac#"a!es and "ithout %oss of seniority ri!hts. Let the time this case "as pendin! beonsidered as comp%ainantJs suspension for his absences.

he c%aim for vacation sic# %eave pay is dismissed for fai%ure to substantiate the same.

a%%ado%id appea%ed the fore!oin! order to the Minister of Labor see#in! modiAcation of the same, prayin! for the a"ard of bac#"a!es fromhe time he "as i%%e!a%%y dismissed on &ebruary 16, 1979 to the date of his actua% reinstatement. 0$M a%so appea%ed the said Order.

On December 26, 1979, the Deputy Minister of Labor, in a succinct Order, dismissed both appea%s after Andin! no su cient HustiAcation ora%id reason to a%ter, modify, much %ess reverse the Order appea%ed from.

On 0anuary 21, 19G;, /a%%ado%id A%ed a >etition for certiorari "ith this (ourt, doc#eted as .$. )o. 82-6*, prayin! for a modiAcation of the

Order of December 26, 1979 of the Deputy Minister of Labor so as to !rant him bac#"a!es. This (ourt reso%ved. on &ebruary *, 19G;, to !iveue course to the petition, and re=uired the parties to submit simu%taneous memoranda.

On March 12, 19G;, 0$M a%so A%ed a petition for certiorari "ith this (ourt assai%in! that same Order. This (ourt !ave due course to the petitionnd conso%idated the same "ith .$. )o. 82-6*. Thereafter, the parties A%ed their respective memoranda.

he non+a"ard of bac#"a!es is the on%y issue bein! raised by /a%%ado%id c%aimin! that the Orders in =uestion are contrary to %a" and evidence,nd "ere issued arbitrari%y and capricious%y "ith !rave abuse of discretion, amountin! to e?cess or %ac# of Hurisdiction.

$M, on the other hand, assai%s the said Orders on the fo%%o"in! !rounds@


3/37


4/37

Andin!s of fact and the conc%usions of %a" dra"n from those facts by the $e!iona% Director, there "as no necessity of discussin! ane" thesues raised therein.

$M admits that /a%%ado%id re=uested for %eave for 8 days from December -;, 197G, and thereafter for 18 days, but denies that he notiAed theompany of his absences subse=uent to this. The $e!iona% Director ru%ed that the absences of /a%%ado%id "ere unauthoriIed but did notmount to !ross ne!%ect of duty or abandonment of "or# "hich re=uires de%iberate refusa% to resume emp%oyment or a c%ear sho"in! in termsf speciAc circumstances that the "or#er does not intend to report for "or#. e a!ree. Fut as /a%%ado%id had been OL, no error "asommitted by respondent $e!iona% Director in orderin! his reinstatement "ithout bac#"a!es. 16

'$'&O$', both >etitions for certiorari are hereby denied. )o costs

G.R. No. 8648 /a$ ar" 24, 1989

RA0A L N. N NAL, petitioner, vs. COMMI ION ON A DI+ AND M NICI)ALI+ O0 I A* LA, *A ILAN, respondents. M L NCIO-H RR RA, J.:

&or reso%ution is petitionerJs Motion for $econsideration of the Minute $eso%ution of this (ourt of 11 May 19GG dismissin! the >etitionor certiorari for fai%ure of the petitioner to su cient%y sho" that the pub%ic respondent had committed !rave abuse of discretion in ho%din!,mon! others, that the compromise a!reement of the parties is not enforceab%e a!ainst the Municipa%ity of 4sabe%a, the %atter not havin! beenmp%eaded as an indispensab%e party in the case.

n the present Motion, petitioner contends@

. The decision does not c%ear%y and distinct%y e?press the facts and the %a" on "hich it is basedB

. The Municipa%ity of 4sabe%a, Fasi%an, is bound by the compromise a!reementB and

>ub%ic respondent (ommission on udit 5(O , for short !rave%y abused its discretion in denyin! the %a"fu% c%aim for separation pay by youretitioner. 5Motion for $econsideration, p. 1B $o%%o, p. 67

he facts disc%ose that on 2* &ebruary 19G6 petitioner "as appointed as Municipa% dministrator of 4sabe%a, Fasi%an. On 1 &ebruary 19G; heas administrative%y char!ed and dismissed from the service for dishonesty, misconduct and for %ac# of conAdence. On appea%, the Meritystems Foard e?onerated petitioner and reinstated him to his position as Municipa% dministrator on G May 19G;.

On 29 0anuary 19G1 petitioner "as a!ain dismissed for %ac# of conAdence by then Municipa% Mayor %vin Dans under dministrative Order )o.*, eries of 19G1. :pon denia% of his Motion for $econsideration, petitioner A%ed (ase )o. *-, a suit for mandamus and Dama!es "ithre%iminary 4nHunction a!ainst the Municipa% Mayor, the Municipa% Treasurer, and the an!!unian! Fayan of 4sabe%a, Fasi%an, before the thenourt of &irst 4nstance in Fasi%an >rovince, Franch 1, prayin! for reinstatement "ith fu%% bac#"a!es and other ri!hts inherent in the position.e a%so A%ed (ase )o. *8 "ith the same (ourt see#in! that he and his "ife be paid their bac# sa%aries from 1 &ebruary 19G; to -1 May 19G;ursuant to the Decision of the Merit ystems Foard on 16 &ebruary 19G1.

On 2; &ebruary 19G*, durin! the pendency of the said case, the an!!unian! Fayan of 4sabe%a, Fasi%an, abo%ished the subHect position in itseso%ution )o. 9;2, eries of 19G*, and Ordinance )o. --6, pursuant to the provisions of the Loca% overnment (ode.

On 8 December 19G*, petitioner and his "ife, on the one hand, and on the other, Mayor Dans in his capacity both as Municipa% Mayor and asresidin! O cer of the an!!unian! Fayan of 4sabe%a, Fasi%an, the Municipa% Treasurer and the >rovincia% &isca% 5p. *, $ep%y To (omment ofO , entered into a (ompromise !reement stipu%atin!, amon! others, that@

%. The respondents sha%% pay petitioner $afae% )una% a%% bac# sa%aries and other emo%uments due him by reason of his emp%oyment as Municipa%dministrator of 4sabe%a, Fasi%an, coverin! the period from 0anuary 1, 19G; to u!ust 18, 19G*, to!ether "ith accumu%ated vacationEsic#

%eaves, mid+year and (hristmas bonuses in 19G2 and 19G-, and separation pay under the Loca% overnment (ode, "hich are reCected in theomputation hereto attached and made an inte!ra% part hereof... 5p. 1-, $o%%o

nder the same (ompromise !reement, petitioner "as a%so considered as retired upon receipt of the monetary considerations mentionedherein.

On 12 December 19G*, the (ourt approved the (ompromise !reement.

On 1 pri% 19G8, petitioner co%%ected his retirement beneAts a%thou!h, conceded%y, no provision for the same had been inc%uded in theompromise !reement 5>etition, p. 6B $o%%o, >. 9 .


5/37

On 17 eptember 19G8, petitioner A%ed his c%aim for separation pay in the amount of >8*,;92.8; to "hich he is a%%e!ed%y entit%ed due to thebo%ition of the position of Municipa% dministrator, "hich separation pay is provided for by the Loca% overnment (ode 5F.>. --7, ection 76 .

On 6 0anuary 19G6 the Municipa% treasurer for"arded petitionerJs c%aim to the >rovincia% uditor of Fasi%an. On 11 0anuary, 19G6, in a &irstndorsement, the >rovincia% uditor opined that the c%aim "as %e!a% and proper but payment thereof "as made subHect to avai%abi%ity of fundsnd the ru%in! of the $e!iona% O ce of the (ommission on udit, $e!ion 4 , amboan!a (ity.

On 12 &ebruary 19G6, in a 2nd 4ndorsement, the $e!iona% Director of the (ommission on udit, $e!ion 4 , amboan!a (ity, reversed therovincia% uditor of Fasi%an and denied petitionerJs c%aim for separation pay. >etitionerJs Motion for $econsideration "as for"arded to theommission on udit 5(O , (entra% O ce, NueIon (ity.

On 1- October 19G6 the (O (entra% O ce, in its Decision )o. -GG, not on%y denied petitionerJs c%aim for separation pay but a%so disa%%o"edhe other payments made to petitioner. 4t he%d@.

remises considered, and it appearin! that Mr. )una% has been paid bac# sa%aries and other emo%uments in the tota% amount of >9;,-62.96ursuant to the (ompromise !reement, supra, this (ommission hereby directs that any and a%% payments made to Mr. )una% correspondin! tohe period "hen he "as no %on!er in the !overnment service shou%d be disa%%o"ed in audit "ithout preHudice to his ri!ht of recourse a!ainsthe o cia%s persona%%y %iab%e for his un%a"fu% dismissa%. 5pp. 18+16, $o%%o

hus, this recourse by petitioner a%%e!in! !rave abuse of discretion by (O , "hich >etition "e had previous%y dismissed in our $eso%ution of 11May 19GG as heretofore adverted to.

t appearin!, ho"ever, that the (ompromise a!reement "as du%y si!ned by Mayor %vin Dans as Mayor and as >residin! O cer of thean!!unian! Fayan, by the Municipa% Treasurer, and by the >rovincia% &isca% as their %a"yer 5Motion for $econsideration, p. - B that the case

as one for reinstatement and bac#"a!esB and fo%%o"in! the ru%in! of this (ourt in ementiIa vs. (ourt of ppea%s 5 .$. )os. L+*1717+--, 11-($ *77, pri% 12, 19G2 , the Municipa%ity of 4sabe%a shou%d be deemed as imp%eaded in this case, it bein! apparent that the o cia%soncerned had been sued in their o cia% capacity.

t shou%d be noted that before the (ourt be%o", respondents sued petitioner Mayor a%one. o"ever, respondents, too, prayed for a rit ofmandamus to compe% petitioner Mayor to reinstate them "ith bac# sa%aries and dama!es. $espondents, therefore, actua%%y intended to sueetitioner in his o cia% capacity. &ai%ure to imp%ead the Municipa%ity and other municipa% authorities shou%d not deter this (ourt, in the interestsf Hustice and e=uity, from inc%udin! them herein as respondents. 5at p. *GG

he (ompromise !reement, therefore, must be he%d bindin! on the Municipa%ity of 4sabe%a, "hich "as not, in any "ay, deprived of its day inourt 5 abutas vs. (aste%%anes, L+ 17-2-, 1* ($ -76, 0une 2-, 1968 . Thus, the payments to petitioner of the sums of >6G,-G9.28 as bac#a%aries, >21,-G7.71 as tota% accumu%ated vacationEsic# %eaves, >772.78 as (hristmas bonus, and the bac# sa%aries of Mrs. )anie F. )una% inhe sum of >-,;96.;;, have to be uphe%d. 4t %i#e"ise appears that retirement beneAts bad a%so been co%%ected by petitioner on 1 pri% 19G8.

n respect, ho"ever, of the separation pay c%aimed by petitioner, "e upho%d the ru%in! of the (O readin! in part@

nent the second issue, this (ommission be%ieves and so ho%ds that the instant c%aim for separation pay in addition to the retirement beneAtsar%ier received by c%aimant is bereft of any %e!a% basis. (u%%ed from the records is the fact that Mr. )una% "as dismissed from the service onanuary 29, 19G1 and has not been reinstated to the service unti% his position of Municipa% dministrator of 4sabe%a "as abo%ished. 4n otherords, he "as no %on!er in, or had a%ready been separated from, the service "hen the said position "as abo%ished. 'vident%y then, hiseparation from the service "as not attributab%e to the abo%ition of the position but "as due to his dismissa% and, therefore, ection 76 of Fatasambansa F%!. --7 "hich provides

ection 76.+ Abolition of Position. hen the position of an o cia% or emp%oyee under the civi% service is abo%ished by %a" or ordinance, thecia% or emp%oyee so aKected sha%% be reinstated in another vacant position "ithout diminution of sa%ary. hou%d such position not be

vai%ab%e, the o cia% or emp%oyee aKected sha%% be !ranted a separation pay e=uiva%ent to one month sa%ary for every year of service over andbove the monetary privi%e!es !ranted to o cia%s and emp%oyees under e?istin! %a".J

annot be va%id%y invo#ed as %e!a% basis for the c%aim for separation pay. Moreover, the fact remains that as ear%ier seen Mr. )una% has a%readyeen paid his retirement beneAts under the e?istin! retirement %a". is entit%ement, therefore, to separation pay under Fatas >ambansa F%!.7 is oKensive to the !enera% po%icy of the !overnment prohibitin! payment of doub%e retirement beneAts to an emp%oyee. 5p. *, (O

Decision )o. -GGB p. 18, $o%%o

o !rant doub%e !ratuity is un"arranted 5 ee (aHiuat, et a%. vs. Mathay, r., .$. )o. L+-97*-, 12* ($ 71;, eptember 2*, 19G- .

t may be that the matter of separation pay "as inc%uded in the (ompromise !reement. )onethe%ess, it cou%d not be !ranted outri!ht but sti%%ad to be c%aimed and passed in audit, and has been apt%y denied by (O . nd a%thou!h petitioner did A%e suit a!ainst the Municipa%ity foreinstatement, it does not fo%%o" that he "as not eKective%y dismissed such that he cou%d sti%% be considered an incumbent "hose position hadeen abo%ished. dismissed emp%oyee can be considered as not havin! %eft his o ce on%y upon reinstatement and shou%d be !iven aomparab%e position and compensation at the time of reinstatement 5(ristoba% vs. Me%chor, )o. L+*-2;-, 1;1 ($ G87, December 29, 19G; .


6/37

&ina%%y, a "ord on petitionerJs contention that the $eso%ution of this (ourt under date of 11 May 19GG is not in accordance "ith ection 1*,rtic%e /444 of the 19G7 (onstitution, "hich provides@

ec. 1*. )o decision sha%% be rendered by any (ourt "ithout e?pressin! therein c%ear%y and distinct%y the facts and the %a" on "hich it is based.

o petition for revie" or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the (ourt sha%% be refused due course or denied "ithout statin! the %e!a%asis therefor.

n the Arst p%ace, our $eso%ution of 11 May 19GG "as not a Decision "ithin the meanin! of the (onstitutiona% re=uirement. This mandate ispp%icab%e on%y in cases submitted for decision, i.e., !iven due course and after the A%in! of Friefs or Memoranda andEor other p%eadin!s, ashe case may be. 4t is not app%icab%e to an Order or $eso%ution refusin! due course to a >etition for Certiorari . 4n the second p%ace, the assai%edeso%ution does state the %e!a% basis for the dismissa% of the >etition and thus comp%ies "ith the (onstitutiona% provision. 5Tayamura, et a%., vs.

(, et a%., .$. )o. 76-88, May 21, 19G7 Pen bancQB see a%so Nue vs. >eop%e, .$. )os. L+78217+1G, 18* ($ 16;, eptember 21, 19G7 .

t may be added that the rit of certiorari dea%t "ith in $u%e 68 of the $u%es of (ourt is a prero!ative rit, never demandab%e as a matter of!ht, never issued e?cept in the e?ercise of Hudicia% discretion. 5FouvierJs La" Dictionary, -d $ev. PGth ed.QB &rancisco, The $evised $u%es,972 ed., /o%. 4/+ F, pp. *8*6, citin! 1* (.0. ., 121+122 .

((O$D4) L , the $eso%ution of this (ourt of 11 May 19GG is hereby > $T4 LL $'(O) 4D'$'D in that the disa%%o"ance by respondentommission on udit of the amounts ordered paid by the (ourt of &irst 4nstance of Fasi%an, Franch 1, in its Decision dated 12 December 19G*,

hereby 'T 4D', but its disa%%o"ance of petitionerJs c%aim for separation pay of >8*,;92.8;, is hereby : T 4)'D. )o costs.

H ) O)L O0 +H )HILI))IN , plaintif -appellee , vs . MARC LINO A. * GARIN, accused -appellant . M NDO A, J .

This is an appea% from the decision, P1Q dated &ebruary 11, 199-, "hich the $e!iona% Tria% (ourt, Franch 97 of NueIon (ity rendered inrimina% (ases )os. - 92+2G7G8 to G6 and - 92+-1187 to -116;, Andin! accused+appe%%ant Marce%ino Fu!arin !ui%ty of four counts of onsummated rape and one count of attempted rape and sentencin! him as fo%%o"s@

'$'&O$', this (ourt Ands the accused :4LT beyond reasonab%e doubt as char!ed of mu%tip%e 5- (ounts rape and one count of attemptedape, and in accordance "ith rtic%e --8 of the $evised >ena% (ode sentences him to prison terms as fo%%o"s@

&or each of the four counts of the above rape, rec%usion perpetua.

&or the attempted rape, t"o 52 years and four 5* months in the minimum pena%ty to four 5* years in the ma?imum period and tondemnify the private comp%ainant in the amount of >8;,;;;.;; as mora% dama!es and e?emp%ary dama!es of >8;,;;;.;; to deter se?ua%rimes of the sort committed by accused.

O O$D'$'D .

The comp%ainant, MaryHane Fu!arin, is the dau!hter of accused+appe%%ant. On &ebruary 22, 1992, accompanied by her mother, $e!inau!arin, and her materna% aunt, )ena >adecio, she comp%ained to the (entra% >o%ice District (ommand that she had been repeated%y raped byccused+appe%%ant. 4n her s"orn statement she re%ated ho", on nine diKerent occasions bet"een )ovember 19G9 and 0anuary 17, 1992, herather entered the common s%eepin! area of their house in >ayatas, NueIon (ity and, after ho%din! her #nees and spreadin! her %e!s,ucceeded in insertin! his penis into her va!ina and #issed her breasts. he c%aimed that, on 0anuary 17, 1992, her father mo%ested her by

R#issin! her va!inaS and that on%y by repeated%y #ic#in! him did he desist from mo%estin! her any further.

(omp%ainant "as e?amined on the same date by 'mmanue% 4. ranas, >)> Medico+Le!a% O cer, "ho found that she "as Rin non+vir!inate physica%%y.S P2Q On &ebruary 28, 1992, she returned to the po%ice station to A%e forma% char!es a!ainst her father. The case "as referred to

he O ce of the NueIon (ity >rosecutor "hich found probab%e cause and accordin!%y A%ed char!es for consummated rape and attempted rapey means of force and intimidation committed on December 2-, 1991 and 0anuary 17, 1992 a!ainst accused+appe%%ant Marce%ino Fu!arin. )oai% "as recommended Rconsiderin! that the evidence of !ui%t of the respondent is stron!.S The cases "ere doc#eted as (rimina% (asesos. - 92+2G7G8 and - 92+2G7G6 and ra ed to Franch GG of the NueIon (ity $e!iona% Tria% (ourt.

On May 7, 1992, four more char!es for rape by means of force and intimidation committed on )ovember 19G9, May 199;, 0une 199;,nd March 1*, 1991 "ere A%ed a!ainst accused+appe%%ant. Doc#eted as (rimina% (ases )os. - 92+-1187 to -116;, the additiona% cases "erea ed to Franch 97 of the same court. These cases "ere eventua%%y conso%idated and assi!ned to Franch GG.

The informations in the si? cases a%%e!ed as fo%%o"s@

(rim. (ase )o. 92+-1187
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn1


7/37

hat on or about the month of 0une 199; in NueIon (ity, >hi%ippines, the said accused by means of force and intimidation, did then and there,%fu%%y and fe%onious%y have carna% #no"%ed!e of the undersi!ned M $ 0 )' F: $4) y :)(4O), a minor, 18 years of a!e, "ithout heronsent and a!ainst her "i%%, to the dama!e and preHudice of the %atter.

he crime "as attended by the a!!ravatin! circumstance of re%ationship.

(rim. (ase )o. 92+-118G

hat on or about the month of )ovember, 19G9 in NueIon (ity, >hi%ippines, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then andhere, "i%fu%%y and fe%onious%y have carna% #no"%ed!e "ith the undersi!ned M $ 0 )' F: $4) y :)(4O) "ithout her consent and a!ainster "i%%, to the dama!e and preHudice of the %atter.


(rim. (ase )o. 92+-1189

hat on or about the 1* th day of March, 1991 in NueIon (ity, >hi%ippines, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then andhere, "i%fu%%y and fe%onious%y have carna% #no"%ed!e of the undersi!ned M $ 0 )' F: $4) y :)(4O), a minor, 18 years of a!e, "ithouter consent and a!ainst her "i%%, to the dama!e and preHudice of the %atter.


(rim. (ase )o. 92+-116;

That on or about the month of May 199; in NueIon (ity, >hi%ippines, the said accused by means of force and intimidation, did then andhere "i%fu%%y and fe%onious%y have carna% #no"%ed!e of the undersi!ned M $ 0 )' F: $4) y :)(4O), a minor, 18 years of a!e, "ithouter consent and a!ainst her "i%%, to the dama!e and preHudice of the %atter.

The crime "as attended by the a!!ravatin! circumstance of re%ationship.

(rim. (ase )o. 92+2G7G8

hat on or about the 17 th day of 0anuary, 1992, in NueIon (ity, Metro Mani%a, >hi%ippines, and "ithin the Hurisdiction of this onorab%e (ourt,he above+named accused, "ith %e"d desi!ns and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there "i%fu%%y, un%a"fu%%y and fe%onious%yommence the commission of the crime of $ape direct%y by overt acts, by then and there #issin! the nipp%es and the va!ina of thendersi!ned M $ 0 )' F: $4) :)(4O), a minor, and about to %ay on top of her, a%% a!ainst her "i%%, ho"ever, the said accused did noterform a%% the acts of e?ecution "hich "ou%d have produced the crime of $ape by reason of some causes other than his o"n spontaneousesistance, that is, undersi!ned comp%ainant push him a"ay, to the dama!e and preHudice of the undersi!ned in such amount as may be"arded to her under the provisions of the )e" (ivi% (ode.

(rim. (ase )o. 92+2G7G6

hat on or about the 2- rd day of December, 1991, in NueIon (ity, Metro Mani%a, >hi%ippines, and "ithin the Hurisdiction of this onorab%e (ourt,he above+named accused, "ith %e"d desi!ns and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there "i%fu%%y, un%a"fu%%y and fe%onious%yave se?ua% intercourse "ith the undersi!ned M $ 0 )' F: $4) :)(4O), a minor, "ithout her consent and a!ainst her "i%%, to herama!e and preHudice in such amount as may be a"arded to her under the provisions of the )e" (ivi% (ode.

:pon arrai!nment, accused+appe%%ant p%eaded not !ui%ty in each case, after "hich tria% ensued. :nder =uestionin! by the prosecutor,MaryHane Fu!arin narrated ho" her father se?ua%%y assau%ted her in their fami%yUs common s%eepin! area "hi%e no one "as at home andhreatened her if she to%d anyone about "hat happened.

ccused+appe%%ant denied the char!es a!ainst him. e c%aimed to be od fearin! and mora%%y upri!ht and that his "ife, $e!ina Fu!arin,must have induced their dau!hter to A%e the comp%aints a!ainst him because his "ife b%amed him for Anancia%%y ne!%ectin! their fami%y since

9G9.

4n rebutta%, the prosecution presented $e!ina Fu!arin "ho testiAed that a !ood mother "ou%d not e?pose her chi%d to humi%iation Hust toet bac# at her husband. he further c%aimed that her dau!hter, "ho had been raised proper%y and tau!ht to be honest, cou%d not haveabricated the char!es a!ainst the accused+appe%%ant.

4n a t"o+pa!e decision, promu%!ated on &ebruary 11, 199-, the tria% court, after !ivin! a summary of the testimonies of the comp%ainantnd accused+appe%%ant, %aconica%%y ru%ed@


8/37


9/37

The accused+appe%%ant c%aims that MaryHaneUs testimony contains inconsistencies "hich indicate that the char!es a!ainst him "ereabricated. e points to the fai%ure of comp%ainant on cross+e?amination to state in some instances the e?act date and time she "as a%%e!ed%yaped, and to the fact that it too# comp%ainant t"o years before reportin! the incidents and that the prosecution did not present the medico+

%e!a% o cer "ho e?amined the comp%ainant. ccused+appe%%ant a%so c%aims that no evidence "as adduced to prove that the rape "asommitted by force and intimidation.

The fai%ure of the comp%ainant to state in some cases the e?act date and time of the commission of rape is a minor matter and can be?pected "hen a "itness is recountin! the detai%s of a humi%iatin! e?perience "hich are painfu% and di cu%t to reca%% in open court and in theresence of other peop%e .PGQ 4ndeed, this (ourt has ru%ed that comp%ainantUs fai%ure to reca%% some detai%s of the crime, instead of su!!estin!revarication, precise%y indicates spontaneity and is to be e?pected from a "itness "ho is of tender a!e and unaccustomed to courtroceedin!s.

Fesides, the date of the commission of the rape is not an essentia% e%ement of the crime. P9Q The precise time of the crime has noubstantia% bearin! on its commission, P1;Q especia%%y since in this case the date and time of the commission of the crime is not materia% to theccused+appe%%antUs defense. 4ndeed, accused+appe%%antUs contention is on%y that he cou%d not have raped his dau!hter in the commonedroom at ni!httime because the p%ace "here they s%eep is shut oK from the rest of their house by a curtain.

u ce it to state that %ust is no respecter of time and p%ace. P11Q Our cases record instances of rape committed inside fami%y d"e%%in!shen other occupants are as%eep. P12Q 4n the case at bar, MaryHane testiAed that the accused+appe%%ant "as ab%e to rape her by sendin! out herb%in!s to p%ay "ith their nei!hborsU chi%dren, and "hi%e her mother "as at "or# from - p.m. to 11 p.m. (omp%ainant e?p%ained her apparent

nabi%ity to reca%% the e?act dates of the assau%ts upon her, thus@

N- Madam "itness, you mentioned that you "ere raped sometime )ovember 19G9, 0une 199;, December 2*, 19G9, March 1*, 1991,December 2-, 1991, ho" come that you #ne" very "e%% the date as December 2*, March 1*, December 2-B or rather, ho" come that youromp%aint is on%y sometime in the ear%y part of 1991V

- 4 remember because that "as c%osed to the birthday of my brother.

N- o" about March 1*, ho" come you #ne" very "e%% that you "ere mo%ested by your fatherV

- Fecause at that time, our c%ass "i%% a%most end and "e "ere !iven c%earances.

N- hat day is your %ast schoo% dayV

- 4 cannot remember, sir.

N- 4s it usua% that you #ne" very "e%% March 1*, and you do not #no" very "e%% your %ast day of your schoo% dayV

- Fecause March 1* is our c%earance.

)either does the de%ay in ma#in! a crimina% accusation impair the credibi%ity of a "itness if such de%ay is satisfactori%y e?p%ained.-Q 4n People v. Coloma ,P1*Q "here the comp%ainant "as a%so on%y 1- years o%d "hen Arst mo%ested by her father, the (ourt adverted to the

atherUs mora% and physica% contro% over the youn! comp%ainant in e?p%ainin! the de%ay of ei!ht years before the comp%aint a!ainst her fatheras made. 4n this case, MaryHane must have been over"he%med by fear and confusion, and shoc#ed that her o"n father had deA%ed her. fter%%, she had been very c%ose to him. he a%so testiAed that she "as afraid to te%% her mother because the %atter mi!ht be an!ered, so that she

Ana%%y conAded to her aunt. 4ndeed, a survey conducted by the :niversity of the >hi%ippines (enter for omenUs tudies sho"ed that victimsf rape committed by their fathers too# much %on!er in reportin! the incidents to the authorities than did other victims. Many factors accountor this diKerence@ the fact that the father %ives "ith the victim and constant%y e?erts mora% authority over her, the threat he mi!ht ma#eainst her, the victimUs fear of her mother and other re%atives.

)or is it entire%y true that no evidence of force and intimidation had been adduced durin! the tria%. MaryHane testiAed that she tried toesist her fatherUs advances but, on severa% occasions, she "as overpo"ered by him. he "as embraced and thus prevented from escapin!.8Q t other times she "as intimidated by menacin! %oo#s cast on her P16Q and by threats of harm. P17Q 4ndeed, even if there "as no vio%ence or

orce emp%oyed a!ainst her, the mora% inCuence of accused+appe%%ant over the comp%ainant su ced to ma#e the crime rape. P1GQ

)or is a medica% e?amination an indispensab%e e%ement in prosecutions for rape. P19Q That the prosecution did not present the medico+%e!a%cer is, therefore, not an obstac%e to a Andin! of !ui%t in this case.

e thin# the evidence in this case proves beyond a%% reasonab%e doubt that MaryHane had been raped on four occasions by accused+ppe%%ant@ )ovember 19G9, 0une 199;, March 1*, 1991, and December 2-, 1991. (omp%ainant has no motive to incriminate her father. Tohe contrary, she testiAed that she "as c%ose to him. The absence of a motive %ends !reater credence to her testimony. P2;Q )either does her

mother have any reason to fa%se%y accuse Marce%ino Fu!arin. $e!ina Fu!arin suspected her husband of havin! an aKair "ith her sister in 19G;nd confronted him, but she continued to %ive "ith him. This fact ma#es it un%i#e%y that she "ou%d use her dau!hter to destroy her husband

more than ten years %ater. mother "ou%d not e?pose her chi%d to pub%ic tria%, if the char!es she ma#es are not true . P21Q
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm#_edn21


10/37


11/37

emporal , as minimum to T"enty 52; years of reclusion temporal , as ma?imum and to pay the oKended party $emedios de Leon in themount of >18;,;;;.;; correspondin! to the va%ue of He"e%ries embeII%ed and unreturned and to pay the costsB (rim. (ase )o. 22+G7, fortafa, he is hereby ordered sentenced for an indeterminate prison term of T"e%ve 512 years and one 51 day of reclusion temporal , as

minimum to T"enty 52; years of reclusion temporal . as ma?imum and to pay the oKended party $emedios de Leon in the amount of1;;,;;;.;; for the va%ue of the He"e%ries embeII%ed and to pay the costsB (rim. (ase )o. 2-+G7, /io%ation of F> 22, he is hereby sentenced toi!ht 5G months of prision correccional and to pay the costsB (rim. (ase )o. 28+G7, for 'stafa, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminaterison term of from T"e%ve 512 years and one 51 day of reclusion temporal , as minimum to T"enty 52; years of reclusion temporal , as

ma?imum and to pay the oKended party $emedios de Leon in the amount of >28;,;;;.;; for the va%ue of the He"e%ries embeII%ed and to payhe costsB (rim. (ase )o. 26+G7, for /io%. of F> 22, he is hereby sentenced to ei!ht 5G months of prision correccional and to pay the costsBim. (ase )o. 27+G7, for 'stafa, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of from T"e%ve 512 years and one 51 dayf reclusion temporal , as minimum to t"enty 52; years of reclusion temporal , as ma?imum and to pay the oKended party $emedios de Leon inhe amount of >2G;,;;;.;; for the va%ue of He"e%ries embeII%ed and to pay the costsB (rim. (ase )o. 2G+G7, for 'stafa, he is hereby sentencedo an indeterminate prison term of from t"e%ve 512 years and one 51 day of reclusion temporal , as minimum to t"enty 52; years of reclusemporal , as ma?imum and to pay the oKended party $emedios de Leon in the amount of >1;;,;;;.;; va%ue of the He"e%ries embeII%ed ando pay the costsB (rim. case )o. 29+G7, for /io%. of F> 22, he is hereby sentenced to ei!ht 5G months of prision correccional , and to pay theosts 5 Rollo , pp. *9+8; .

t appears that sometime in u!ust 19G6, petitioner "as introduced to $emedios de Leon by his aunt, as one en!a!ed in the business ofuyin! and se%%in! He"e%ry 5T ), March 17, 19G7, pp. 1G, 2; .

n their Arst transaction, petitioner paid in cash the severa% pieces of He"e%ry "hich he bou!ht from de Leon. 4n their subse=uent dea%in!s,etitioner either paid in cash or by "ay of postdated chec#s 5T ), March 17, 19G7, pp. 22+2- . On one occasion, petitioner issued post+datedhec#s "ith the a!!re!ate amount of >278,;;;.;;. These chec#s bounced. o"ever, upon notice of dishonor by the dra"ee ban#s concerned,etitioner paid de Leon cash in e?chan!e for the dishonored chec#s. ome chec#s "ere %i#e"ise e?chan!ed "ith cash even prior to their dueate 5T ), March 17, 19G7, pp. --, -7 .

evera% days before October 2;, 19G6, petitioner to%d de Leon that he "as interested in buyin! some more pieces of He"e%ry 5T ), March 17,9G7, p. 6; . On that date, at around 1;@;; .M., petitioner, to!ether "ith his common+%a" "ife, $osemarie $odri!ueI, and t"o otherompanions, "ent to the house of de Leon in (avite (ity 5T ), March 17, 19G7, p. 7; . >etitioner se%ected a pair of 2+carat diamond earrin!sorth >18;,;;;.;; for "hich he issued F>4 (hec# )o. 79G2*6 payab%e to cash in the said amount and post+dated it to October 26, 19G6. Themount of the chec# "as A%%ed in by $osemarie $odri!ueI and petitioner a ?ed his si!nature as dra"er 5T ), March 17, 19G7, p. 69 .

etitioner and $odri!ueI returned to de LeonJs house at about 7@;; >.M. and bou!ht one cho#er "ith 2; diamond stones and one brace%et "ith6 diamond stones, for "hich he issued F>4 (hec# )o. 79G2*7 payab%e to cash in the amount of >28;,;;;.;; and postdated it to October 27,9G6. >etitioner speciAca%%y instructed de Leon to !ive him one "ee# to confer "ith his buyer before de Leon ne!otiates the chec#. The chec#as a%so prepared by $odri!ueI and si!ned by petitioner 5T ), March 17, 19G7, pp. 7-+79 .

n the evenin! of October 22, 19G6, petitioner a!ain "ent to the house of de Leon and bou!ht one heart+shaped diamond set. 4n paymenthereof, he issued F>4 (hec# )o. 79G2*G payab%e to cash in the amount of >2G;,;;;.;; and post+dated it to )ovember 9, 19G6 5T ), March7, 19G7, pp. G*+G9 .

On October 2-, 19G6, petitioner made a %on!+distance ca%% to de Leon and in=uired "hether she sti%% had He"e%ry for sa%e. hen she said thathe did, petitioner made an appointment "ith her. >etitioner arrived at de LeonJs house at around 2@-; >.M. The t"o "ent to a restaurant,here petitioner se%ected a set of earrin!s and a rin!, each piece "ith a 1+carat diamond 5T ), March -1, 19G7, pp. 18+16 . 4n payment for theet, petitioner issued to de Leon F>4 (hec# )o. 79G28; payab%e to cash in the amount of >1;;,;;;.;; and dated that same day 5October 2-,992 . >etitioner to%d de Leon that the chec# "as funded and that she cou%d even "ithdra" the amount on that day. De Leon did not encashhe chec# for the ban# "as c%osed 5T ), March -1, 19G7, pp. 16, 19 .

n the evenin! of October 2*, 19G6, petitioner "ith $odri!ueI "ent to de LeonJs house and bou!ht a 8+carat diamond piece. 4n paymenthereof, petitioner indorsed to de Leon F (hec# )o. 2*896* in the amount of >18;,;;;.;; post+dated to )ovember 1;, 19G6 and issued byne 'nri=ue raneta 5T ), March -1, 19G7, pp. 21+26 .

>4 (hec#s )os. 79G2*6, 79G2*7 and 79G28; "ere dra"n a!ainst insu cient funds, "hi%e F>4 (hec# no. 79G2*G and F (hec# )o. 2*896*ere dra"n a!ainst a c%osed account.

etitioner "as char!ed in nine informations "ith estafa and vio%ation of F.>. F%!. 22.

t his arrai!nment, petitioner p%eaded not !ui%ty to the char!es 5 Rollo , pp. 16+17 .

fter a Hoint tria%, petitioner "as convicted of the nine char!es in a Hoint decision.

On appea% to the (ourt of ppea%s, the conviction of petitioner "as a rmed as to (rimina% (ases nos. 22+G7, 2-+G7, 2*+G7, 28+G7, 26+G7, 27+G7, 2G+G7 and 29+G7, and reversed as to (rimina% (ase )o. 21+G7.


12/37

n this petition, petitioner c%aims that his conviction of nine distinct oKenses subHect of nine separate informations in a sin!%e Hud!ment iseversib%e error, This contention is untenab%e.

he case of United States v . anjuatco , 1 >hi%. 116, re%ied upon by petitioner, is distin!uishab%e from the instant case. 4n anjuatco , "e he%dhat the tria% court improper%y rendered a sin!%e Hud!ment for t"o oKenses in one of the t"o crimina% cases, in the absence of a conso%idationf the t"o cases. 4n the case at bench, the tria% court rendered a Hud!ment for each of the nine separate informations, a%beit in the sameecision.

e further stated in anjuatco that the tria% court vio%ated an essentia% ri!ht of the accused, inasmuch as he is entit%ed, a%thou!h accused ofo oKenses, to a tria% in each of the t"o cases upon the proofs adduced in each individua% case, and upon the a%%e!ations set forth in each

nformation. 4t is not permissib%e to ta#e into account or consider in one case the facts proved in the other, and vice versa 5at pp. 117+11G .

he tria% of the nine crimina% cases "as conducted Hoint%y "ithout any obHection from petitioner. 'ven had he si!niAed his opposition to the Hointai%, such opposition "ou%d have been unavai%in!. conso%idation of trai%s, at the courtJs discretion, is a%%o"ed in char!es for oKenses foundedn the same facts, or formin! part of a series of oKenses of simi%ar character 519G8 $u%es on (rimina% procedure, $u%e 119, ec. 1* .

etitioner a%so comp%ains that "hi%e he assi!ned ei!ht errors, the (ourt of ppea%s did not ma#e a comp%ete Andin!s of fact as to the %ast t"ossi!ned errors 5 Rollo , pp. 11+12 .

n the %ast t"o assi!ned errors, petitioner c%aims that the tria% court erred@

/44

) &4)D4) T ' ((: 'D :4LT F' O)D $' O) FL' DO:FT 4) ($4M4) L ( ' )O . 21+G7 TO 29+G7 )OT 4T T )D4) F ')(' O&)(:L> TO$ '/4D')(' )D >$' ')(' O& ):M'$O: >$OO& )' T4) T ' O:)D)' O& :( /'$D4(T.

/444

) >$O)O:)(4) T ' ((: 'D, T $O: 4) L' 0:D M')T, :4LT O& LL T ' )4)' D4 T4)(T O&&') ' (O/'$'D F T ' )4)''> $ T' 4)&O$M T4O) :F0'(T M TT'$ O& ($4M4) L ( ' )O . 21+G7 TO 29+G7, 4)(L: 4/' 5 Rollo , p. 86 .

Obvious%y, the (ourt of ppea%s did not deem it necessary to ma#e a separate Andin!s of fact for said assi!ned errors, because they "ere Husthe necessary conse=uences of the previous, assi!ned errors.

etitioner ne?t =uestions@ 5i as vio%ative of the constitutiona% mandate that decisions sha%% contain the facts and the %a" on "hich they areased 519G7 (onstitution, rt. /444, sec. 1*, par. 1 , the decision of the (ourt of ppea%s "hich mere%y adopted the statement of facts of theo%icitor !enera% in the appe%%eeJs brief, and 5ii as vio%ative of the constitutiona% mandate re=uirin! that any denia% of a motion for

econsideration must state the %e!a% basis thereof 519G7 (onstitution, rt. /444, ec. 1*, par. 2 , the denia% of his motion of reconsideration onhe basis of a comparison of said motion "ith the comment thereon 5 Rollo , pp. 1;+12 .

n its decision the (ourt of ppea%s mere%y stated@ The facts of the case as summariIed in the ppe%%eeJs Frief are as fo%%o"s@ and the =uotedn fu%% the statement of facts of the o%icitor enera% 5 Rollo , p. 2; . ccordin! to petitioner, the (ourt of ppea%s did not ma#e its o"nindependent Hudicia% opinion by such act of adoptin! the statement of facts made by the advance party 5 Rollo , p. 11 .

hat the (ourt of ppea%s, in eKect, said "as that it found the facts as presented by the o%icitor enera% as supported by the evidence. Theonstitutiona% mandate on%y re=uires that the decision shou%d state the facts on "hich it is based. There is no proscription made in the briefs or

memoranda of the parties, instead of re"ritin! the same in its o"n "ords.

recise%y briefs or memoranda are re=uired in order to aid the courts in the "ritin! of decisions.

e note that aside from adoptin! the statement of facts of the o%icitor enera%, the (ourt of ppea%s a%so made Andin!s of facts in the coursef its discussion of the assi!nment of errors.

s to the denia% of the motion for reconsideration, the (ourt of ppea%s stated in its $eso%ution dated March -;, 1992@

ctin! on the motion for reconsideration A%ed by the accused+appe%%ant of the decision dated December 1-, 1991 and the comment thereon ofhe o%icitor enera%, the (ourt Ands no co!ent reason that cou%d Hustify a modiAcation or reversa% of the decision sou!ht to be reconsidered.

ccordin!%y, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby D')4'D for %ac# of merit 5 Rollo , p. -8 .

he denia%, therefore, "as based on the !round that the (ourt of ppea%s did not And any co!ent reason that cou%d Hustify a modiAcation oreversa% of the decision sou!ht to be reconsidered.


13/37

etitioner c%aims that the decision of the tria% court is not supported by the evidence, "hich is contrary to the Andin!s of the (ourt of ppea%shat said decision is in accordance "ith %a" and the evidence 5 Rollo , p. 12 . e points out that the appe%%ate court shou%d not have be%ievedhe tria% courtJs conc%usion that the so%e testimony of the oKended party "ou%d have su ced to sustain her assertions 5 Rollo , p. *7 . e c%aihat se%f+servin! dec%arations of a party favorab%e to himse%f are not admissib%e and that none of the a%%e!ed "itnesses to the transactions "ereresented.

he common obHection #no"n as se%f+servin! is not correct because a%most a%% testimonies are se%f+servin!. The proper basis for obHection ishearsay 5 en#e, Ma#in! and Meetin! ObHections, 69 .

etitioner fai%s to ta#e into account the distinction bet"een se%f+servin! statements and testimonies made in court. e%f+servin! statements arehose made by a party out of court advocatin! his o"n interestB they do not inc%ude a partyJs testimony as a "itness in court 5)ationa%

Deve%opment (o. v. or#menJs (ompensation (ommission, 19 ($ G61 P1967Q .

e%f+servin! statements are inadmissib%e because the adverse party is not !iven the opportunity for cross+e?amination, and their admissionou%d encoura!e fabrication of testimony. This cannot be said of a partyJs testimony in court made under oath, "ith fu%% opportunity on theart of the opposin! party for cross+e?amination.

t is not true that none of the a%%e!ed "itnesses to the transactions "as presented in court 5 Rollo , p. 1- . o%anda De%a $osa, an eye+"itness toome of the transactions, testiAed for the prosecution. ssumin! that De%a $osa "as not presented as a "itness, the testimony of de Leonu ced to sustain the conviction of petitioner. The conviction of an accused may be on the basis of the testimony of a sin!%e "itness 5>eop%e v.umera%, 2;; ($ 19* P1991Q . 4n determinin! the va%ue and credibi%ity of evidence, "itnesses are to be "ei!hed, not counted 5>eop%e v.%%a%obos, 2;9 ($ -;* P1992Q .

etitioner a%so contends that "hi%e he "as condemned by the tria% court to pay civi% indemnity, no evidence "as actua%%y presented in court to

rove the e?istence, o"nership and "orth of the pieces of He"e%ry other than the chec#s 5 Rollo , p. 1* .

he e?istence of the He"e%ry "as estab%ished by de Leon herse%f, "ho testiAed that petitioner even se%ected the pieces of He"e%ry before buyin!hem.

s to the o"nership of the He"e%ry, "e he%d in People v . !y , 1;9 ($ *;; P19G1Q that@

O"nership is not a necessary e%ement of the crime of estafa, . . . 4n estafa, the person preHudiced or then immediate victim of the fraud needot be the o"ner of the !oods. This, rtic%e -18 of the $evised >ena% (ode provides that ny person "ho sha%% defraud anot"er 5it does sayo"nerJ by any means mentioned herein be%o" sha%% be punished . . . . %% that is necessary is that the %oss shou%d have fa%%en on someonether than the perpetrators of the crime. . . . 5at p. *;G .

he tria% court based the civi% indemnity on the actua% price of the He"e%ry as a!reed upon by petitioner and de Leon at the time of the

ansactions and this is reCected by the face va%ue of the chec#s.

etitioner further contends that the tria% court erred in admittin! the chec#s in evidence "ithout the prosecution Arst provin! that his si!naturen the chec#s "ere authentic 5 Rollo , pp. 1-+1* . 4f petitioner c%aims that his si!natures on the chec#s "ere for!ed, the burden is on him torove such fact. e "ho a%%e!es must prove his a%%e!ations.

n the tria% court, petitioner presented a certiAcation issued by the an 0uan >o%ice tation to the eKect that he reported as %ost severa% b%an#hec#s, to "it@ F>4 (hec#s )os. 79G2*6, 79G2*7, 79G2*G, 79G2*9, and 79G28;, and F (hec# )o. 2*896*. e a!ree "ith the tria% court "hen!ave %itt%e "ei!ht to the certiAcation. Li#e the tria% court, "e "onder "hy petitioner never A%ed a crimina% case a!ainst de Leon, if said chec#s

ere rea%%y sto%en.

ast%y, petitioner contends that because the amounts covered by the chec#s "ere deposited by the oKended party in her savin!s accountth the >rudentia% Fan#, it becomes the %iabi%ity of the ban# by its acceptance to pay for the amounts of the chec#s 5 Rollo , pp. 1*+18 .

he case of #anco de $ro v . %&uitable #an'ing Corporation , 187 ($ 1GG 519GG cited by petitioner as authority, dea%t "ith the ne!%i!ence ofco%%ectin! ban# "hich faci%itated the payment by the dra"ee ban# of the va%ue of a chec# "ith a for!ed endorsement and si!nature of theayee. )o such issue is invo%ved in the case at bench.

'$'&O$', the petition is D')4'D and the decision of the (ourt of ppea%s is &&4$M'D. (osts de o(cio .

G.R. No. 132428 Oc!o'er 24, 2 G ORG AO, petitioner, vs. HON. CO R+ O0 A)) AL , a$( +H ) O)L O0 +HHILI))IN , respondents. DAVID , /R., J .


14/37

n this petition for revie" on certiorari , eor!e ao 5hereafter O assai%s the 28 pri% 1998 $eso%ution of the (ourt of ppea%s in ( + .$. )o.6G9- "hich dismissed his appea% and ordered the remand of the records of the case to the Metropo%itan Tria% (ourt, Franch 82, (a%oocan Xty 5hereafter MeT( for e?ecution. O "as convicted by said MeT( for unfair competition.

OJs %e!a% di%emma commenced in 0une 199; "hen the >hi%ippine '%ectrica% Manufacturin! (ompany 5hereafter >'M(O noticed thero%iferation %oca%%y of enera% '%ectric 5 ' %amp starters. s the on%y %oca% subsidiary of '+: , >'M(O #ne" that it "as a hi!h%y un%i#e%y

mar#et situation considerin! that no ' starter "as %oca%%y manufactured or imported since 19G-. >'M(O commissioned ardsmar#s, 4nc. toonduct a mar#et survey. ardsmar#s, 4nc., thru its trademar# specia%ist, Martin $emandaman, discovered that thirty 5-; commercia%stab%ishments so%d ' starters. %% these estab%ishments pointed to Trade"ay (ommercia% (orporation 5hereafter T(( as their source.emandaman "as ab%e to purchase from T(( Afty 58; pieces of Cuorescent %amp starters "ith the ' %o!o and desi!n. ssessin! that theseroducts "ere counterfeit, >'M(O app%ied for the issuance of a search "arrant. This "as issued by the MeT(, Franch *9, (a%oocan (ity. 'i!ht

o?es, each containin! 18,6-; starters, "ere thereafter seiIed from the T(( "arehouse in (a%oocan (ity.

ndicted before the MeT(, Franch 82, (a%oocan (ity for unfair competition under rtic%e 1G9 of the $evised >ena% (ode "ere O, "ho "as((Js >resident and enera% Mana!er, and %fredo $o?as, a member of T((Js Foard of Directors. The indictment 1 char!ed O and $o?as ofavin! mutua%%y and in conspiracy so%d Cuorescent %amp starters "hich have the enera% '%ectric 5 ' %o!o, desi!n and containers, ma#in!hem appear as !enuine ' Cuorescent %amp startersB and inducin! the pub%ic to be%ieve them as such, "hen they "ere in fact counterfeit.he case "as doc#eted as (rimina% (ase )o. (+18871-.

oth accused p%eaded not !ui%ty. t the tria%, the prosecution presented evidence tendin! to estab%ish the fore!oin! narration of facts. &urther,he tate presented "itnesses tty. oA%ena of the (asti%%o Laman Tan and >anta%eon La" O ces "ho under"ent a fami%iariIation seminarom >'M(O in 199; on ho" to distin!uish a !enuine ' starter from a counterfeit, and %%an de %a (ruI, >'M(OJs mar#etin! mana!er. Fothescribed a !enuine ' starter as havin! a stenci%ed si%#+screen printin! "hich inc%udes the ' %o!o . . . bac# to bac# around the starter, arum%i#e !%o"bu%b and a condenserEcapacitor shaped %i#e an M3M candy "ith the numbers .;;6. They then compared and e?amined randomamp%es of the seiIed starters "ith the !enuine ' products. They conc%uded that the seiIed starters did not possess the fu%% desi!n

omp%ement of a ' ori!ina%. They a%so observed that some of the seiIed starters did not have capacitors or if they possessed capacitors,hese "ere not shaped %i#e M3M. ti%% others mere%y had stic#er Hac#ets "ith prints of the ' %o!o. Mr. de %a (ruI added that on%y an#u# tarsf Yorea manufactured ' starters and if these "ere imported by >'M(O, they "ou%d cost >7.;; each %oca%%y. s T((Js starters cost >1.6;ach, the "itnesses a!reed that the !%arin! diKerences in the pac#a!in!, desi!n and costs indisputab%y proved that T((Js ' starters "ereounterfeit.

he defense presented O as its %one "itness. O admitted that as !enera% mana!er, he has overa%% supervision of the dai%y operation of theompany. s such, he has the Ana% "ord on the particu%ar brands of products that T(( "ou%d purchase and in turn so%d. e a%so admitted that(( is not an accredited distributor of ' starters. o"ever, he disc%aimed %iabi%ity for the crime char!ed since 51 he had no #no"%ed!e or

nformation that the ' starters supp%ied to T(( "ere fa#eB 52 he had not attended any seminar that he%ped him determine "hich T((roducts "ere counterfeitB 5- he had no participation in the manufacture, brandin!, stenci%in! of the ' names or %o!o in the startersB 5*((Js supp%iers of the starters de%ivered the same a%ready branded and bo?edB and 58 he on%y discussed "ith the supp%iers matters re!ardin!ricin! and pea#+vo%ume items.

n its 1-+pa!e 2; October 199- decision , 2 the MeT( ac=uitted $o?as but convicted O. 4n ac=uittin! $o?as, the tria% court dec%ared that therosecution fai%ed to prove that he "as sti%% one of the Foard of Directors at the time the !oods "ere seiIed. 4t anchored its conviction of On the fo%%o"in!@ 51 OJs admission that he #ne" that the starters "ere not part of 'Js %ine products "hen he app%ied "ith >'M(O for T((Jsccreditation as distributorB 52 the prosecutionJs evidence 5'?hibit +7 , a de%ivery receipt dated 28 May 19G9 issued by (ountry upp%ierenter, on "hich a T(( personne% noted that the 2;;; starters de%ivered "ere ' starters despite the statement therein that they "ere (hinaartersB this fact !ave rise to a presumption that the T(( personne% #ne" of the anoma%y and that O as !enera% mana!er and overa%%

upervisor #ne" and perpetrated the deception of the pub%icB 5- the fact that no !enuine ' starter cou%d be so%d from 19G6 "hether %oca%%ymanufactured or imported or at the very %east in such %ar!e commercia% =uantity as those seiIed from T((B and 5* presence of the e%ementsf unfair competition.

he dispositive portion of the decision reads as fo%%o"s@

&or the fai%ure of the prosecution to prove the !ui%t of the accused, %fredo $o?as, of :nfair (ompetition under rtic%e 1G9 51 of the $evised

ena% (ode . . . i.e., to prove that he "as (hairman of the Foard of the Trade"ay (ommercia% (orporation on October 1;, 199;, as "e%% as toave him identiAed in open court durin! the tria%, he is ac&uitted of the same.

ut because the prosecution proved the !ui%t of the other accused, eor!e ao, beyond reasonab%e doubt as principa% under the said rtic%eG9 51 for :nfair (ompetition, he is convicted of the same. 4n the absence of any a!!ravatin! or miti!atin! circumstances a%%e!edEproven,nd considerin! the provisions of the 4ndeterminate entence La", he is sentenced to a minimum of four 5* months and t"enty+one 521 daysf arresto mayor to a ma?imum of one 51 year and Ave 58 months of prision correccional .

his case "as prosecuted by the %a" o ces of (asti%%o Laman Tan and >anta%eon for . . . >'M(O . . . (onsiderin! that no document "asubmitted by the private comp%ainant to sho" ho" the c%aim of -;;,;;; for conse=uentia% dama!es "as reached andEor computed, the court

not in a position to ma#e a pronouncement on the "ho%e amount. o"ever, the oKender, eor!e ao, is directed to pay >'M(O the amountf >2;,;;; by "ay of conse=uentia% dama!es under rtic%e 22;2 of the )e" (ivi% (ode, and to pay the %a" o ces of (asti%%o, Laman Tan andanta%eon the amount of another >2;,;;;.;; as >'M(OJs attorneyJs fees under rtic%e 22;G 511 of the same.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt2


15/37

his decision shou%d have been promu%!ated in open court on 0u%y 2G, 199- but the promu%!ation "as reset for u!ust -1, 199- in vie" of thebsence of partiesB it "as a!ain re+set for today.

romu%!ated this 2;th day of October, 199- in Ya%oo#an (ity, >hi%ippines. -

O A%ed a motion for reconsideration, "hich the MeT( denied in its order * of 7 March 199*.

O appea%ed to the $e!iona% Tria% (ourt of (a%oocan (ity 5$T( . The appea% "as doc#eted as (rimina% (ase )o. (+*728859* and "as assi!nedo Franch 121 of the court.

On 2* May 199*, >residin! 0ud!e doracion . n!e%es of Franch 121 issued an order 8 directin! the parties to A%e their respective memoranda.

On * 0u%y 199* O A%ed his ppea% Memorandum. 6

ithout "aitin! for the Memorandum on ppea% of the prosecution, "hich "as A%ed on%y on 2; August )**+ ,7 0ud!e doracion n!e%esendered on 27 0u%y 199* a one+pa!e Decision G "hich a rmed in toto the MeT( decision. 4n so doin!, she mere%y =uoted the dispositive portionf the MeT( and stated that PaQfter !oin! over the evidence on record, the (ourt Ands no co!ent reason to disturb the Andin!s of the

Metropo%itan Tria% (ourt.

O A%ed a motion for reconsideration 9 and assai%ed the decision as vio%ative of ection 2, $u%e 2; of the $u%es of (ourt. 1; 4n its order 11 of 2Geptember 199*, the $T( denied the motion for reconsideration as devoid of merit and reiterated that the Andin!s of the tria% court arentit%ed to !reat "ei!ht on appea% and shou%d not be disturbed on appea% un%ess for stron! and co!ent reasons.

On * October 199*, O appea%ed to the (ourt of ppea%s by A%in! a notice of appea%. 12

he appea%ed case "as doc#eted as ( + .$. ($ )o. 16G9-. 4n its $eso%ution 1- of 2G &ebruary 1998, the (ourt of ppea%s !ranted O an?tension of t"enty 52; days from 1; &ebruary or unti% 12 March 1998 "ithin "hich to A%e the ppe%%antJs Frief. o"ever, on 28 pri% 1998 theourt of ppea%s promu%!ated a $eso%ution 1* dec%arin! that PtQhe decision rendered on 0u%y 27, 199* by the $e!iona% Tria% (ourt, Franch 121,as %on! become Ana% and e?ecutory and orderin! the records of the case remanded to said court for the proper e?ecution of Hud!ment. Theertinent portion of the $eso%ution reads@

n Our reso%ution, dated &ebruary 2G, 1998, accused+appe%%ant "as !ranted an e?tension of t"enty 52; days from &ebruary 1;, 1998, or unti%March 12, 1998 "ithin "hich to A%e appe%%antJs brief.

o date, no appe%%antJs brief has been A%ed.

&rom the Manifestation, A%ed on March 2*, 1998, by (ity >rosecutor abrie% ). de%a (ruI, Ya%oo#an (ity, it "ou%d appear that@

??? ??? ???

. eor!e ao received a copy of the $T(Js decision on u!ust 16, 199*, and A%ed a motion for reconsideration on u!ust -;, 199*. OnOctober -, 199*, eor!e ao received a copy of the $T(Js order, dated eptember 2G, 199*, denyin! his motion for reconsideration.

On October *, 199*, eor!e ao A%ed a notice of appea% by re!istered mai%.

e "i%% assume from the said Manifestation that the decision of the $T( and the order denyin! OJs motion for reconsideration "ere sent tond received by OJs counse%.

roceedin! from said assumption, ao had Afteen 518 days from u!ust 16, 199* to e%evate his case to this (ourt. On u!ust -;, 199*, or

ourteen 51* days thereafter, ao A%ed a motion for reconsideration. hen he received the Order denyin! his aforesaid motion on October -,99*, he had one more day %eft to e%evate his case to this (ourt by the proper mode of appea%, "hich is by petition for revie". ao, ho"ever,n October *, 199*, A%ed a notice of appea% by re!istered mai% informin! the $T( that he is appea%in! his conviction to the (ourt of ppea%s. Fyhen, the Afteen 518 day period had a%ready e%apsed.

hat not"ithstandin!, the Franch (%er# of (ourt, $T(, Franch 121, transmitted to this (ourt the entire records of the case, thru a transmitta%%etter, dated October 1-, 199*, and received by the (rimina% ection of this (ourt on October 2G, 199*. OJs counse%, on &ebruary 2;, 1998,A%ed "ith this (ourt, a motion for e?tension of period to A%e brief for accused+appe%%ant "hich "as !ranted in Our reso%ution mentioned in thepenin! para!raph of this reso%ution.

etitions for revie" sha%% be A%ed "ithin the period to appea%. This period has a%ready e%apsed even "hen ao A%ed a notice of appea% bye!istered mai%, "ith the $T( of Ya%oo#an (ity. orse, the notice of appea% is procedura%%y inArm.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt14


16/37

O A%ed an :r!ent Motion to et side 'ntry of 0ud!ment contendin! that the 28 pri% 1998 reso%ution did not speciAca%%y dismiss the appea%,or "hich reason, there "as no 0ud!ment on "hich an entry of Hud!ment cou%d be issued. e a%so ar!ued that the attendant procedura%nArmities in the appea%, if any, "ere cured "ith the issuance of the 2G &ebruary 1998 reso%ution !rantin! him t"enty 52; days from 1;

&ebruary 1998 or unti% 12 March 1998 "ithin "hich to A%e an appe%%antJs brief and in comp%iance thereto, conse=uent%y A%ed his appe%%antJsrief on 2 March 1998. 18

n its $eso%ution 16 of 26 0anuary 199G, the (ourt of ppea%s denied the :r!ent Motion to et side the 'ntry of 0ud!ment for %ac# of merit. 4tonsidered the 28 pri% 1998 reso%ution as havin! in eKect dismissed the appea%, PhenceQ the 'ntry of 0ud!ment issued on May 26, 1998. . .as proper.

n this petition for revie" on certiorari , O reiterates the ar!uments he raised in his :r!ent Motion to et side the 'ntry of 0ud!ment of the

ourt of ppea%s, thus@ 51 that the entry of Hud!ment "as improvident%y issued in the absence of a Ana% reso%ution speciAca%%y dismissin! theppea%B 52 the procedura% inArmity in the appea%, if any, has been curedB and 5- the (ourt of ppea%s committed !rave abuse of discretionmountin! to %ac# of Hurisdiction in denyin! him 5 O due process of %a".

n support of his Arst ar!ument, O cites ection 1, $u%e 11 of the $evised 4nterna% $u%es of the (ourt of ppea%s, thus@

'(T4O) 1. %ntry of udgment :n%ess a motion for reconsideration is A%ed or an appea% is ta#en to the upreme (ourt, Hud!ments and Ana%eso%utions of the (ourt of ppea%s sha%% be entered upon the e?piration of Afteen 518 days after notice to parties.

O c%aims that the 28 pri% 1998 reso%ution of the (ourt of ppea%s "as not a Hud!ment on his appea% nor "as it a Ana% reso%utionontemp%ated in the 4nterna% $u%es since it did not speciAca%%y dismiss his appea%. A fortiori , the entry of Hud!ment "as improvident%y issued for

%ac# of %e!a% basis.

O a%so repeats his ar!ument that any procedura% inArmity in the appea% "as cured "hen the $T( !ave due course to the appea%, e%evatedhe records to the (ourt of ppea%s "hich in turn issued on 1- December 199* a notice to A%e his ppe%%antJs Frief and !ranted him unti% 12

March 1998 "ithin "hich to A%e the appe%%antJs brief.

&ina%%y, O asserts that he "as denied due process considerin! that 51 none of the e%ements of unfair competition are present in this caseB2 he A%ed his appea% to the (ourt of ppea%s "ithin the re!%ementary periodB and 5- not"ithstandin! his A%in! of a notice of appea% 5insteadf a petition for revie" , it "as a mere procedura% %apse, a technica%ity "hich shou%d not bar the determination of the case based on intrinsic

merits. O then invo#es the p%ethora of Hurisprudence "herein the upreme (ourt in the e?ercise of e=uity Hurisdiction decided to disre!ardechnica%ities B decided Pthe caseQ on merits and not on technica%ities B found manifest in the petition stron! considerations of substantia%ustice necessitatin! the re%a?in! of the strin!ent app%ication of technica% ru%es, or heeded petitionerJs cry for Hustice because the basic

merits of the case "arrant so, as "here the petition embodies Hustifyin! circumstances B discerned not to sacriAce Hustice to technica%ity Biscovered that the app%ication of res judicata and estoppe% by Hud!ment amount to a denia% of Hustice andEor a bar to a vindication of a

%e!itimate !rievance. 17

n its (omment, the O ce of the o%icitor enera% prays that the petition shou%d be dismissed for %ac# of merit. 4t maintains that a%thou!h the8 pri% 1998 reso%ution did not speciAca%%y state that the appea% "as bein! dismissed, the intent and import are c%ear and une=uivocab%e. 4tsserts that the appea% "as obvious%y dismissed because the $T( decision has %on! become Ana% and e?ecutory. O fai%ed to cha%%en!e theT( decision, "ithin the re!%ementary period, by A%in! a petition for revie" of the same "ith the (ourt of ppea%s pursuant to ection 1 of $u%e2 of the $u%es of (ourt. 4nstead, he A%ed an ordinary appea% by "ay of a notice of appea%. ence, the period to A%e the correct procedura%emedy had %apsed.

here is no dispute that O avai%ed of the "ron! procedura% remedy in assai%in! the $T( decision. 4t is c%ear from the records that Oeceived a copy of the adverse $T( Hud!ment on 16 u!ust 199*. e has Afteen 518 days or unti% -1 u!ust 199* "ithin "hich to A%e either a

motion for reconsideration or a petition for revie" "ith the (ourt of ppea%s. &ourteen 51* days thereafter or on -; u!ust 199*, O opted toA%e a motion for reconsideration the pendency of "hich to%%ed the runnin! of the period. e received a copy of the $T(Js order denyin! themotion for reconsideration on - October 199*. e had therefore, on%y one day %eft, * October 199* as the %ast day, "ithin "hich to A%e "ith theourt of ppea%s a petition for revie" . 1G o"ever, on said date, O A%ed a notice of appea%. e pa%pab%y avai%ed of the "ron! mode of appea%.nd since he never instituted the correct one, he %ost it.

he ri!ht to appea% is not a constitutiona%, natura% or inherent ri!ht. 4t is a statutory privi%e!e of statutory ori!in and, therefore, avai%ab%e on%y ifanted or provided by statute. 19 ince the ri!ht to appea% is not a natura% ri!ht nor a part of due process, it may be e?ercised on%y in the

manner and in accordance "ith the provisions of %a". 2; (oro%%ari%y, its re=uirements must be strict%y comp%ied "ith.

hat an appea% must be perfected in the manner and "ithin the period A?ed by %a" is not on%y mandatory but Hurisdictiona%. 21 )on+comp%iancth such %e!a% re=uirements is fata%, 22 for it renders the decision sou!ht to be appea%ed Ana% and e?ecutory , 2- "ith the end resu%t that no courtan e?ercise appe%%ate Hurisdiction to revie" the decision. 2*

n the %i!ht of these procedura% precepts, OJs petition appears to be patent%y "ithout merit and does not deserve a second %oo#. ence, theeasons he enumerated to persuade this (ourt to !rant his petition and reinstate his appea% are obvious%y frivo%ous if not do"nri!ht trivia%.hey need not even be discussed here.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt24


17/37

n the norma% and natura% course of events, "e shou%d dismiss the petition outri!ht, if not for an important detai% "hich au!urs "e%% for O andou%d !rant him a reprieve in his %e!a% batt%e. The decision of the $T( a rmin! the conviction of O pa%pab%y trans!ressed ection 1*, rtic%e444 of the (onstitution, "hich states@

'(T4O) 1*. )o decision sha%% be rendered by any court "ithout e?pressin! therein c%ear%y and distinct%y the facts and the %a" on "hich it isased.

??? ??? ???

et us =uote in fu%% the $T( Hud!ment@

his is an appea% from the decision of the Metropo%itan Tria% (ourt, Franch 82, Ya%oo#an (ity, in (rim. (ase )o. (+18871-, the dispositiveortion of "hich reads as fo%%o"s@

??? ??? ???

ut because the prosecution proved the !ui%t of the other accused, eor!e ao, beyond reasonab%e doubt as principa% under the said rtic%eG9 51 for :nfair (ompetition, he is convicted of the same. 4n the absence of any a!!ravatin! or miti!atin! circumstances a%%e!edEproven,nd considerin! the provisions of the 4ndeterminate entence La", he is sentenced to a minimum of four 5* months and t"enty+one 521 daysf arresto mayor to a ma?imum of one 51 year and Ave 58 months of prision correccional .

??? ??? ???

fter !oin! over the evidence on record, the (ourt Ands no co!ent reason to disturb the Andin!s of the Metropo%itan Tria% (ourt.

'$'&O$', this (ourt a rms in toto the decision of the Metropo%itan Tria% (ourt dated October 2;, 199-.

O O$D'$'D.

hat is a%% there is to it.

e have sustained decisions of %o"er courts as havin! substantia%%y or su cient%y comp%ied "ith the constitutiona% inHunction not"ithstandin!he %aconic and terse manner in "hich they "ere "ritten and even if there 5"as %eft much to be desired in terms of 5their c%arity, coherencend comprehensibi%ity provided that they eventua%%y set out the facts and the %a" on "hich they "ere based, 28 as "hen they stated the %e!a%ua%iAcations of the oKense constituted by the facts proved, the modifyin! circumstances, the participation of the accused, the pena%ty

mposed and the civi% %iabi%ityB 26 or discussed the facts comprisin! the e%ements of the oKense that "as char!ed in the information, andccordin!%y rendered a verdict and imposed the correspondin! pena%tyB 27 or =uoted the facts narrated in the prosecutionJs memorandum but

made their o"n Andin!s and assessment of evidence, before Ana%%y a!reein! "ith the prosecutionJs eva%uation of the case. 2G

e have a%so sanctioned the use of memorandum decisions , 29 a specie of succinct%y "ritten decisions by appe%%ate courts in accordance "ithhe provisions of ection *;, F.>. F%!. 129 -; on the !rounds of e?pediency, practica%ity, convenience and doc#et status of our courts. e have%so dec%ared that memorandum decisions comp%y "ith the constitutiona% mandate. -1

n &rancisco v. >erms#u%, -2 ho"ever, "e %aid do"n the conditions for the of va%idity of memorandum decisions, thus@

he memorandum decision, to be va%id, cannot incorporate the Andin!s of fact and the conc%usions of %a" of the %o"er court on%y by remoteeference, "hich is to say that the cha%%en!ed decision is not easi%y and immediate%y avai%ab%e to the person readin! the memorandumecision. &or the incorporation by reference to be a%%o"ed, it must provide for direct access to the facts and the %a" bein! adopted, "hich muste contained in a statement attached to the said decision. 4n other "ords, the memorandum decision authoriIed under ection *; of F.>. F%!.29 shou%d actua%%y embody the Andin!s of fact and conc%usions of %a" of the %o"er court in an anne? attached to and made an indispensab%eart of the decision.

t is e?pected that this re=uirement "i%% a%%ay the suspicion that no study "as made of the decision of the %o"er court and that its decision "asmere%y a rmed "ithout a proper e?amination of the facts and the %a" on "hich it is based. The pro?imity at %east of the anne?ed statementhou%d su!!est that such an e?amination has been underta#en. 4t is, of course, a%so understood that the decision bein! adopted shou%d, toe!in "ith, comp%y "ith rtic%e /444, ection 1* as no amount of incorporation or adoption "i%% rectify its vio%ation.

he (ourt Ands necessary to emphasiIe that the memorandum decision shou%d be sparin!%y used %est it become an addictive e?cuse forudicia% s%oth. 4t is an additiona% condition for the va%idity that this #ind of decision may be resorted to on%y in cases "here the facts are in the

main accepted by both parties and easi%y determinab%e by the Hud!e and there are no doctrina% comp%ications invo%ved that "i%% re=uire an?tended discussion of the %a"s invo%ved. The memorandum decision may be emp%oyed in simp%e %iti!ations on%y, such as ordinary co%%ectionases, "here the appea% is obvious%y !round%ess and deserves no more than the time needed to dismiss it.

??? ??? ???
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132428_2000.html#fnt32


18/37

enceforth, a%% memorandum decisions sha%% comp%y "ith the re=uirements herein set forth both as to the form prescribed and the occasionshen they may be rendered. ny deviation "i%% summon the strict enforcement of rtic%e /444, ection 1* of the (onstitution and stri#e do"nhe Ca"ed Hud!ment as a %a"%ess disobedience.

ested a!ainst these standards, "e And that the $T( decision at bar miserab%y fai%ed to meet them and, therefore, fe%% short of theonstitutiona% inHunction. The $T( decision is brief indeed, but it is star#%y ha%%o", otiose%y "ritten, vacuous in its content and trite in its form. 4tchieved nothin! and attempted at nothin!, not even at a simp%e summation of facts "hich cou%d easi%y be done. 4ts inade=uacy spea#s forse%f.

e cannot even consider or a rm said $T( decision as a memorandum decision because it fai%ed to comp%y "ith the measures of va%idity %aido"n in &rancisco vs. >erms#u%. 4t mere%y a rmed in toto the MeT( decision "ithout sayin! more. decision or reso%ution, especia%%y one

eso%vin! an appea%, shou%d direct%y meet the issues for reso%utionB other"ise, the appea% "ou%d be point%ess.--

e therefore reiterate our admonition in )icos 4ndustria% (orporation v. (ourt of ppea%s, -* in that "hi%e "e conceded that brevity in the "ritin!f decisions is an admirab%e trait, it shou%d not and cannot be substituted for substanceB and a!ain in &rancisco v. >erms#u%, -8 "here "eautioned that e?pediency a%one, no matter ho" compe%%in!, cannot e?cuse non+comp%iance "ith the constitutiona% re=uirements.

his is not to discoura!e the %o"er courts to "rite abbreviated and concise decisions, but never at the e?pense of scho%ar%y ana%ysis, and more!niAcant%y, of Hustice and fair p%ay, %est the fears e?pressed by 0ustice &eria as the ponente in $omero v. (ourt of ppea%s -6 come true, i.e., ifn appe%%ate court fai%ed to provide the appea% the attention it ri!htfu%%y deserved, said court deprived the appe%%ant of due process since heas not accorded a fair opportunity to be heard by a fair and responsib%e ma!istrate. This situation becomes more ominous in crimina% cases,s in this case, "here not on%y property ri!hts are at sta#e but a%so the %iberty if not the %ife of a human bein!.

&aithfu% adherence to the re=uirements of ection 1*, rtic%e /444 of the (onstitution is indisputab%y a paramount component of due process and

air p%ay.-7

4t is %i#e"ise demanded by the due process c%ause of the (onstitution.-G

The parties to a %iti!ation shou%d be informed of ho" it "asecided, "ith an e?p%anation of the factua% and %e!a% reasons that %ed to the conc%usions of the court. The court cannot simp%y say thatud!ment is rendered in favor of and a!ainst and Hust %eave it at that "ithout any HustiAcation "hatsoever for its action. The %osin! party isntit%ed to #no" "hy he %ost, so he may appea% to the hi!her court, if permitted, shou%d he be%ieve that the decision shou%d be reversed. ecision that does not c%ear%y and distinct%y state the facts and the %a" on "hich it is based %eaves the parties in the dar# as to ho" it "aseached and is precise%y preHudicia% to the %osin! party, "ho is unab%e to pinpoint the possib%e errors of the court for revie" by a hi!heribuna% . -9 More than that, the re=uirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reachin! Hud!ment, the Hud!e did so throu!h the processes of

%e!a% reasonin!. 4t is, thus, a safe!uard a!ainst the impetuosity of the Hud!e, preventin! him from decidin! ipse di?it. /ouchsafed neither the"ord nor the purse by the (onstitution but nonethe%ess vested "ith the soverei!n prero!ative of passin! Hud!ment on the %ife, %iberty orroperty of his fe%%o"men, the Hud!e must u%timate%y depend on the po"er of reason for sustained pub%ic conAdence in the Hustness of hisecision .*;

hus the (ourt has struc# do"n as void, decisions of %o"er courts and even of the (ourt of ppea%s "hose care%ess disre!ard of theonstitutiona% behest e?posed their sometimes cava%ier attitude not on%y to their ma!isteria% responsibi%ities but %i#e"ise to their avo"ed fea%ty

o the (onstitution.

hus, "e nu%%iAed or deemed to have fai%ed to comp%y "ith ection 1*, rtic%e /444 of the (onstitution, a decision, reso%ution or order "hich@ontained no ana%ysis of the evidence of the parties nor reference to any %e!a% basis in reachin! its conc%usionsB contained nothin! more than aummary of the testimonies of the "itnesses of both parties B*1 convicted the accused of %ibe% but fai%ed to cite any %e!a% authority or princip%eo support conc%usions that the %etter in =uestion "as %ibe%ous *2 B consisted mere%y of one 51 para!raph "ith most%y s"eepin! !enera%iIationsnd fai%ed to support its conc%usion of parricide *- B consisted of Ave 58 pa!es, three 5- pa!es of "hich "ere =uotations from the %abor arbiterJsecision inc%udin! the dispositive portion and bare%y a pa!e 5t"o P2Q short para!raphs of t"o P2Q sentences each of its o"n discussion oreasonin!s ** B "as mere%y based on the Andin!s of another court sans transcript of steno!raphic notesB *8 or fai%ed to e?p%ain the factua% and

%e!a% bases for the a"ard of mora% dama!es. *6

n the same vein do "e stri#e do"n as a nu%%ity the $T( decision in =uestion.

n sum, "e a!ree "ith O that he "as denied due process but not on the !rounds he ardent%y invo#ed but on the reasons a%ready e?tensive%yiscussed above. hi%e he indeed resorted to

Last Cases

Documents

Transcript of Last Cases