ConstiII8 Otadora Recuerdo

8/17/2019 ConstiII8 Otadora Recuerdo

1/49

G.R. No. L-2154 April 26, 1950

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appellee,

vs.

ANTONIO OTADORA, ET AL., deendants.

HILARIA CARREON, appellant.

Victorino C. Teleron for appellant.

Oce of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres for appellee.

ENG!ON, J."

In August, 1947 in the Court o First Instance o Lete, Antonio !tadora and "ilaria Carreon #ere charged #ith the

$urder o the spouses Leon Castro and Apolonia Carreon. !tadora pleaded guilt, and #as sentenced to lie

i$prison$ent. %ening her guilt, "ilaria Carreon #as tried, ound guilt and sentenced to death and other accessor

penalties. &he court declared that #ith pro$ises o $onetar re#ard, she had induced Antonio !tadora to do the

'illing. (otive or the instigation #as the grudge she )ore against the deceased spouse on account o disputes #ith

the$ over inherited propert. &his #o$an convict appealed in due ti$e.

"er attorne *led here a volu$inous )rie #herein he atte$pted painsta'ingl to )rea' do#n the position o the

prosecution and to e+pound the theor that Antonio !tadora is the onl person responsi)le or the slaing, and that

"ilaria Carreon is ust the unortunate victi$ o a vicious ra$e-up concocted against her. he necessaril had to

ofer a satisactor e+planation or the conduct o !tadora, #ho has pleaded guilt and has declared or the

prosecution against her, e+plaining the circu$stances under #hich she had pro$ised to hi$ co$pensation or

li/uidating the unortunate couple.

&here is no /uestion a)out these acts0

arl in the $orning o 2une 13, 1947, Leon Castro and his #ie Apolonia Carreon #ere shot dead in their house in the

Cit o !r$oc, Lete. In the aternoon o 2une 1, 1947, Antonio !tadora #as arrested in !r$oc Cit #hile preparing to

escape to Ca$otes Island, Ce)u. &he ne+t da he conessed in an e+tra-udicial state$ent 5+hi)it 16 #herein he

i$plicated the herein accused and appellant "ilaria Carreon asserting that, #ith ofers o pecuniar gain, the latter had

induced hi$ to co$$it the cri$e. !n 2une , 1947, a co$plaint or dou)le $urder #as *led against )oth deendants

in the ustice o the peace court o !r$oc, Lete. 8reli$inar investigation #as #aived and the record #as or#arded

to the court o *rst instance, #here on epte$)er , 1947, !tadora pleaded guilt #ith the assistance o counsel.

"ilaria Carreon pleaded not guilt, and as'ed or a separate trial, #hich #as i$$ediatel held, #ith !tadora as the

*rst #itness or the prosecution.

&he evidence presented on )ehal o the 8eople proved that0

516 Apolonia Carreon #as the sister o "ilaria. %ue to a a$il /uarrel, Apolonia *led in August, 1943, a cri$inal

co$plaint or serious threats against "ilaria and her hus)and Francisco :alos 5+hi)it 8-16. &hese #ere arrested and

had to *le a )ond. &he case #as later #ithdra#n ) Apolonia upon the advice o riendl $ediators.

In %ece$)er o 1943, Leon Castro as guardian ad litem o so$e $inors surna$ed Carreon *led a civil co$plaint or

partition o real propert and da$ages against "ilaria Carreon. &his suit #as set or hearing on 2une 4, 1947.

56 Antonio !tadora $et "ilaria Carreon so$eti$e in April, 1947, through A$ando :ar)o. &hereater the converse on

several occasions. In the earl part o (a, 1947, she sa# hi$ going to )arrio (atica-a and then she told hi$ that i he

#ould li/uidate the spouses Leon Castro and Apolonia Carreon she #ould give hi$ 8,;;;. "e did not agree. In the last

#ee' o (a he #as invited to "ilaria


2/49

ou, get up and *ght. As Castro #as a)out to stand up, !tadora *red. Apolonia #as a#a'ened, and e$)raced her

hus)and #ho $eanti$e had allen. !tadora shot her too. &he couple died i$$ediatel o shoc' and he$orrhage.

56 Ater co$$itting the $urders, !tadora returned to )arrio (atica-a intending to go to "ilaria )ut as he #as

nearing the 'itchen, Francisco :alos signalled hi$ to go a#a. 5"e #as seen, crossing the corn*eld near "ilaria

Carreon that it #as he #ho, at the re/uest o "ilaria, secretl delivered 84 in paper )ills o diferent

deno$inations to Antonio !tadora ater the cri$e #as co$$itted.

And 2uanita :ar)o, niece o "ilaria Carreon, con*r$ed the various $eetings o !tadora and "ilaria in the latter that she

re/uested hi$ con*dentiall to get a loc' o hair o Antonio !tadora e+plaining to hi$ that i that hair is )urned

!tadora #ould )eco$e insane, and thereore #ould not )e a)le to declare against her.

Further corro)oration o appellant and the udge ound that it *tted hi$ perectl. &his incident gave

the deense opportunit or e+tended argu$ent that the constitutional protection against sel-incri$ination had )een


3/49


4/49

&he ans#er o respondent ?oard, #hile ad$itting the acts stressed that it could call petitioner-appellee to the #itness

stand and interrogate hi$, the right against sel-incri$ination )eing availa)le onl #hen a /uestion calling or an

incri$inating ans#er is as'ed o a #itness. It urther ela)orated the $atter in the ar$ative deenses interposed,

stating that petitioner-appellee petitioner #ould )e si$ilarl disadvantaged. "e could sufer not the

oreiture o propert )ut the revocation o his license as a $edical practitioner, or so$e an even greater deprivation.

&o the argu$ent that Ca'al . (apunan could thus distinguished, it suces to reer to an A$erican upre$e Court

opinion highl persuasive in character. 1; In the language o 2ustice %ouglas0 e conclude ... that the el-Incri$ination

Clause o the Fith A$end$ent has )een a)sor)ed in the Fourteenth, that it e+tends its protection to la#ers as #ell as

to other individuals, and that it should not )e #atered do#n ) i$posing the dishonor o dis)ar$ent and thedeprivation o a livelihood as a price or asserting it. e reiterate that such a principle is e/uall applica)le to a

proceeding that could possi)l result in the loss o the privilege to practice the $edical proession.

. &he appeal apparentl proceeds on the $ista'en assu$ption ) respondent ?oard and intervenors-appellants that

the constitutional guarantee against sel-incri$ination should )e li$ited to allo#ing a #itness to o)ect to /uestions

the ans#ers to #hich could lead to a penal lia)ilit )eing su)se/uentl incurred. It is true that one aspect o such a

right, to ollo# the language o another A$erican decision, 11 is the protection against an disclosures #hich the

#itness $a reasona)l apprehend could )e used in a cri$inal prosecution or #hich could lead to other evidence that

$ight )e so used. I that #ere all there is then it )eco$es diluted.la)phi*.+et

&he constitutional guarantee protects as #ell the right to silence. As ar )ac' as 19;, #e had occasion to declare0

&he accused has a perect right to re$ain silent and his silence cannot )e used as a presu$ption o his guilt. 1!nl

last ear, in Chae" . Court of Appeals, 1 spea'ing through 2ustice ancheH, #e rear$ed the doctrine ane# that it is

the right o a deendant to orego testi$on, to re$ain silent, unless he chooses to ta'e the #itness stand K #ith

undiluted, unettered e+ercise o his o#n ree genuine #ill.

h it should )e thus is not dicult to discern. &he constitutional guarantee, along #ith other rights granted an

accused, stands or a )elie that #hile cri$e should not go unpunished and that the truth $ust )e revealed, such

desira)le o)ectives should not )e acco$plished according to $eans or $ethods ofensive to the high sense o respect

accorded the hu$an personalit. (ore and $ore in line #ith the de$ocratic creed, the deerence accorded an

individual even those suspected o the $ost heinous cri$es is given due #eight. &o /uote ro$ Chie 2ustice arren,

the constitutional oundation underling the privilege is the respect a govern$ent ... $ust accord to the dignit and

integrit o its citiHens. 14

It is li'e#ise o interest to note that #hile earlier decisions stressed the principle o hu$anit on #hich this right is

predicated, precluding as it does all resort to orce or co$pulsion, #hether phsical or $ental, current udicial opinion

places e/ual e$phasis on its identi*cation #ith the right to privac. &hus according to 2ustice %ouglas0 &he Fith


5/49

A$end$ent in its el-Incri$ination clause ena)les the citiHen to create a Hone o privac #hich govern$ent $a not

orce to surrender to his detri$ent. 1 o also #ith the o)servation o the late 2udge Fran' #ho spo'e o a right to a

private enclave #here he $a lead a private lie. &hat right is the hall$ar' o our de$ocrac. 13 In the light o the

a)ove, it could thus clearl appear that no possi)le o)ection could )e legiti$atel raised against the correctness o

the decision no# on appeal. e hold that in an ad$inistrative hearing against a $edical practitioner or alleged

$alpractice, respondent ?oard o (edical +a$iners cannot, consistentl #ith the sel-incri$ination clause, co$pel

the person proceeded against to ta'e the #itness stand #ithout his consent.

"F!, the decision o the lo#er court o August , 193 is ar$ed. ithout pronounce$ent as to costs.

G.R. No. L-29169 A3+ 19, 196#

ROGER CHA/E!, petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORALE CO'RT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES % THE ARDEN OF THE CIT

(AIL OF $ANILA, respondents.

Estanislao E. Fernande" and Fausto Arce for petitioner.

Oce of the Solicitor General for respondents.

SANCHE!, J.:

&he thrust o petitioner


6/49

&he trial opened #ith the ollo#ing dialogue, #hich or the great )earing it has on this case, is here reproduced0.

C!J&0

&he parties $a proceed.

FICAL :CIA0

Our /rst )itness is &oger Chae" Oone o the accusedP.

A&&. CA?!E OCounsel or petitioner ChaveHP0

I a$ /uite ta'en ) surprise, as counsel or the accused oger ChaveH, #ith this $ove o the Fiscal in presenting hi$

as his #itness. 0 o'1ect.

C!J&0

!n #hat ground, counselB .

A&&. CA?!E0

!n the ground that I have to coner #ith $ client. It is reall surprising that at this stage, #ithout $ )eing noti*ed )

the Fiscal, $ client is )eing presented as #itness or the prosecution. I #ant to sa in passing that it is onl at this

ver $o$ent that I co$e to 'no# a)out this strateg o the prosecution.

C!J& 5&o the Fiscal60

ou are not #ithdra#ing the inor$ation against the accused oger ChaveH ) $a'ing Ohi$ aP state #itnessB.

FICAL :CIA0

I a$ not $a'ing hi$ as state #itness, our "onor.

0 am onl2 presenting him as an ordinar2 )itness.

A&&. CA?!E0

As a matter of right$ 'ecause it )ill incriminate m2 client$ 0 o'1ect.

C!J&0

&he Court #ill give counsel or oger ChaveH *teen $inutes #ithin #hich to coner and e+plain to his client a)out the

giving o his testi$on.

+ + + + + + + + +

C!J&0 Oater the recessP

Are the parties readB .

FICAL0

e are read to call on our *rst #itness, oger ChaveH.

A&&. CA?!E0

As per understanding, the proceeding #as suspended in order to ena)le $e to coner #ith $ client.

I conerred #ith $ client and he assured $e that he #ill not testi or the prosecution this $orning ater I have

e+plained to hi$ the conse/uences o #hat #ill transpire.

C!J&0

hat he #ill testi to does not necessaril2 incriminate him$ counsel.

And there is the right of the prosecution to as3 an2'od2 to act as )itness on the )itness#stand including the accused.

I there should )e an /uestion that is incri$inating then that is the ti$e or counsel to interpose his o)ection and the

court #ill sustain hi$ i and #hen the court eels that the ans#er o this #itness to the /uestion #ould incri$inate hi$

Counsel has all the assurance that the court #ill not re/uire the #itness to ans#er /uestions #hich #ould incri$inate

hi$.

But surel2$ counsel could not o'1ect to hae the accused called on the )itnessstand.


7/49

A&&. CA?!E0

I su)$it.

+ + + + + + + + +

A&&. CJQ OCounsel or deendants 8ascual and (enesesP0 .

(A I& 8LA &" C!J&0

&his incident o the accused oger ChaveH )eing called to testi or the prosecution is so$ething so sudden that has

co$e to the 'no#ledge o this counsel.

&his representation has )een apprised o the #itnesses e$)raced in the inor$ation.

For #hich reason I pra this court that I )e given at least so$e das to $eet #hatever testi$on this #itness #ill )ring

a)out. I thereore $ove or postpone$ent o toda


8/49

as'ed Lee #hether his car #as or sale. Lee ans#ered ar$ativel and let his address #ith ChaveH. &hen, on

Eove$)er 1, ChaveH $et u$ilang at a )ar)ershop inor$ed hi$ a)out the &hunder)ird. ?ut u$ilang said that he

had changed his $ind a)out )uing a ne# car. Instead, he told ChaveH that he #anted to $ortgage his ?uic' car or

81;,;;;.;; to cover an inde)tedness in 8asa Cit. Jpon the suggestion o ChaveH, the #ent to see Luis Asistio, #ho

he 'ne# #as lending $one on car $ortgages and #ho, on one occasion, alread lent o$eo Gas/ueH 8,;;;.;; on

the sa$e ?uic' car. Asistio ho#ever told the t#o that he had a )etter idea on ho# to raise the $one. "is plan #as to

capitaliHe on o$eo Gas/ueH< reputation as a #ealth $ovie star, introduce hi$ as a )uer to so$eone #ho #as

selling a car and, ater the deed o sale is signed, ) tric'er to run a#a #ith the car. Asistio #ould then register it,

sell it to a third person or a pro*t. ChaveH 'no#n to )e a car agent #as included in the plan. "e urnished the na$e o

2ohnson Lee #ho #as selling his &hunder)ird. *,)ph-*.+t

In the $orning o Eove$)er 14, ChaveH telephoned 2ohnson Lee and arranged or an appoint$ent. o$eti$e in the

aternoon. ChaveH and u$ilang $et Lee in his &hunder)ird on "igh#a 4. u$ilang #as introduced as the

interested )uer. u$ilang


9/49

At ugene


10/49

Jpon the petitions, the return, and the repl, and ater hearing on oral argu$ents, #e no# co$e to grips #ith the $ain

pro)le$ presented.

e concentrate attention on that phase o the issues #hich relates petitioner in

#hich case, these should not )e pursued here.

1. 8etitioner 4; La#. ed., D19, D16. 1 (r. 2ustice (alcol$, in e+pressive language, tells us

that this $a+i$ #as recogniHed in ngland in the earl das in a revolt against the thu$)scre# and the rac'. 1 An

old 8hilippine case O19;4P 14 spea's o this constitutional inunction as older than the :overn$ent o the Jnited

tates> as having its origin in a protest against the in/uisitorial $ethods o interrogating the accused person> and as

having )een adopted in the 8hilippines to #ipe out such practices as or$erl prevailed in these Islands o re/uiring

accused persons to su)$it to udicial e+a$inations, and to give testi$on regarding the ofenses #ith #hich the #ere

charged.

o it is then that this right is not $erel a or$al technical rule the enorce$ent o #hich is let to the discretion o the

court> it is $andator> it secures to a deendant a valua)le and su)stantive right> 1 it is unda$ental to our sche$e o

ustice. 2ust a e# $onths ago, the upre$e Court o the Jnited tates 52anuar 9, 193D6, spea'ing thru (r. 2ustice

"arlan #arned that OtPhe constitutional privilege #as intended to shield the guilt and i$prudent as #ell as the

innocent and oresighted. 13

It is in this conte+t that #e sa that the constitutional guarantee $a not )e treated #ith unconcern. &o repeat, it is

$andator> it secures to ever deendant a valua)le and su)stantive right. &aRada and Fernando 5Constitution o the

8hilippines, 4th ed., vol. I, pp. D-D46 ta'e note o 7.S. s. 5aarro$ supra$ #hich rear$s the rule that the

constitutional proscription #as esta)lished on )road grounds o pu)lic polic and hu$anit> o polic )ecause it #ould

place the #itness against the strongest te$ptation to co$$it perur, and o hu$anit )ecause it #ould )e to e+tort a

conession o truth ) a 'ind o duress ever species and degree o #hich the la# a)hors. 17

&hereore, the court $a not e+tract ro$ a deendant


11/49

8etitioner o)ected and invo'ed the privilege o sel-incri$ination. &his he )roadened ) the clear cut state$ent thathe

)ill not testif2. ?ut petitioner


12/49

constitutional i$$unit ro$ )eing called to testi against hi$sel. And the o)ection $ade at the )eginning is a

continuing one. *,)ph-*.+t

&here is thereore no #aiver o the privilege. &o )e efective, a #aiver $ust )e certain and une!uiocal,

andintelligentl2$ understanda'l2$ and )illingl2 $ade> such #aiver ollo#ing onl #here li'ert2 of choice has )een ull

accorded. Ater a clai$ a #itness cannot properl )e held to have #aived his privilege on vague and uncertain

evidence. D &he teaching in :ohnson s. ;er'st 9 is this0 It has )een pointed out that courts indulge ever

reasona)le presu$ption against #aiver o unda$ental constitutional rights and that #e do not presu$e

ac/uiescence in the loss o unda$ental rights. A #aiver is ordinaril an intentional relin/uish$ent or a)andon$ent o

a 'no#n right or privilege. &enuntiatio non praesumitur.

&he oregoing guidelines, u+taposed #ith the circu$stances o the case heretoore adverted to, $a'e #aiver a sha'

deense. It cannot stand. I, ) his o#n ad$ission, deendant proved his guilt, still, his original clai$ re$ains valid. For

the privilege, #e sa again, is a ra$part that gives protection - een to the guilt2. ;

. &he course #hich petitioner ta'es is correct. 6a'eas corpus is a high prerogative #rit. 1 It is traditionall considered

as an e+ceptional re$ed to release a person #hose li)ert is illegall restrained such as #hen the accused


13/49

G.R. No. 149276. S*p*8*r 27, 2002:

(O/ENCIO LI$ % TERESITA LI$, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE REGIONAL TRIAL

CO'RT OF 'E!ON CIT, RANCH 217, THE CIT PROSEC'TOR OF 'E!ON CIT, AND ILSON

CHA$, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J."

&he constitutionalit o 8% D1D, a decree #hich a$ended Article 1 o the evised 8enal Code ) increasing the

penalties or estaa co$$itted ) $eans o )ouncing chec's, is )eing challenged in this petition or certiorari, or)eing violative o the due process clause, the right to )ail and the provision against cruel, degrading or inhu$an

punish$ent enshrined under the Constitution.

&he antecedents o this case, as gathered ro$ the parties pleadings and docu$entar proos, ollo#.

In %ece$)er 1991, petitioner spouses issued to private respondent t#o postdated chec's, na$el, (etro)an' chec'

no. 4347D dated 2anuar 1, 199 in the a$ount o 83,7; and (etro)an' chec' no. 43474 dated 2anuar ,

199 in the a$ount o 849,;;;. Chec' no. 4347D #as dishonored upon present$ent or having )een dra#n against

insucient unds #hile chec' no. 43474 #as not presented or pa$ent upon re/uest o petitioners #ho pro$ised to

replace the dishonored chec'.

hen petitioners reneged on their pro$ise to cover the a$ount o chec' no. 4347D, the private respondent *led a

co$plaint-adavit )eore the !ce o the Cit 8rosecutor o MueHon Cit charging petitioner spouses #ith the cri$e

o estaa under Article 1, par. 5d6 o the evised 8enal Code, as a$ended ) 8% D1D.

!n Fe)ruar 13, ;;1, the Cit 8rosecutor issued a resolution *nding pro)a)le cause against petitioners and

reco$$ending the *ling o an inor$ation or estaa #ith no )ail reco$$ended. !n the sa$e da, an inor$ation or

the cri$e o estaa #as *led #ith ?ranch 17 o the egional &rial Court o MueHon Cit against petitioners. &he case

#as doc'eted as Cri$inal Case Eo. M-;1-1;174. &hereater, the trial court issued a #arrant or the arrest o herein

petitioners, thus0

0t appearing on the face of the information and from supporting adait of the complaining )itness and its annexes

that pro'a'le cause exists$ that the crime charged )as committed and accused is pro'a'l2 guilt2 thereof$ let a

)arrant for the arrest of the accused 'e issued.

5o Bail &ecommended.

SO O&4E&E4.O1P

!n 2ul 1D, ;;1, petitioners *led an Jrgent (otion to Muash Inor$ation and arrant o Arrest #hich #as denied )

the trial court. Li'e#ise, petitioners $otion or )ail *led on 2ul 4, ;;1 #as denied ) the trial court on the sa$e

da. 8etitioner 2ovencio Li$ #as arrested ) virtue o the #arrant o arrest issued ) the trial court and #as detained

at the MueHon Cit 2ail. "o#ever, petitioner &eresita Li$ re$ained at large.

!n August , ;;1, petitioners *led the instant petition or certiorari i$puting grave a)use o discretion on the part o

the lo#er court and the !ce o the Cit 8rosecutor o MueHon Cit, arguing that 8% D1D violates the constitutional

provisions on due process, )ail and i$position o cruel, degrading or inhu$an punish$ent.

In a resolution dated Fe)ruar 3, ;;, this Court granted the petition o 2ovencio Li$ to post )ail pursuant to

%epart$ent o 2ustice Circular Eo. 74 dated Eove$)er 3, ;;1 #hich a$ended the ;;; ?ail ?ond :uide involving

estaa under Article 1, par. 5d6, and /uali*ed thet. aid Circular speci*call provides as ollo#s0

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn1


14/49

+++ +++ +++

=> ?here the amount of fraud is %=@$. or oer in )hich the imposa'le penalt2 is reclusion te$poral to reclusion

perpetua$ 'ail shall 'e 'ased on reclusion te$poral maximum$ pursuant to %ar. @ a> of the @ Bail Bond Guide$

multiplied '2 %@$.$ plus an additional of %@$. for eer2 %*$. in excess of %@@$. %roided$

ho)eer$ that the total amount of 'ail shall not exceed %D$..

In vie# o the aore$entioned resolution, the $atter concerning )ail shall no longer )e discussed. &hus, this decision

#ill ocus on #hether or not 8% D1D violates ections 1 and 19 o Article III o the Constitution, #hich respectivel

provide0

ection 1. Eo person shall )e deprived o lie, li)ert or propert #ithout due process o la#, nor shall an person )edenied the e/ual protection o the la#s.

+ + +

ection 19 516 +cessive *nes shall not )e i$posed, nor cruel, degrading or inhu$an punish$ent in@icted. + + +.

e shall deal *rst #ith the issue o #hether 8% D1D #as enacted in contravention o ection 19 o Article III o the

Constitution. In this regard, the i$pugned provision o 8% D1D reads as ollo#s0

C&I!E 1. An person #ho shall deraud another ) $eans o alse pretenses or raudulent acts as de*ned in

paragraph 5d6 o Article 1 o the evised 8enal Code, as a$ended ) epu)lic Act Eo. 4DD, shall )e punished )0

*st . The penalt2 of reclusion te$poral if the amount of the fraud is oer *@$ pesos 'ut does not exceed @@$

pesos$ and if such amount exceeds the later sum$ the penalt2 proided in this paragraph shall 'e imposed in its

maximum period$ adding one 2ear for each additional *$ pesos 'ut the total penalt2 )hich ma2 'e imposed shallin no case exceed thirt2 2ears. 0n such cases$ and in connection )ith the accessor2 penalties )hich ma2 'e imposed

under the &eised %enal Code$ the penalt2 shall 'e termedreclusion perpetua

@nd. The penalt2 of prision $aor in its maximum period$ if the amount of the fraud is oer D$ pesos 'ut does not

exceed *@$ pesos.

=rd. The penalt2 of prision $aor in its medium period$ if such amount is oer @ pesos 'ut does not exceed D$

pesos and

4th. B2 prision $aor in its minimum period$ if such amount does not exceed @ pesos.

8etitioners contend that, inas$uch as the a$ount o the su)ect chec' is 83,7;, the can )e penaliHed

#ith reclusion perpetua or ; ears o i$prison$ent. &his penalt, according to petitioners, is too severe and

disproportionate to the cri$e the co$$itted and inringes on the e+press $andate o Article III, ection 19 o theConstitution #hich prohi)its the in@iction o cruel, degrading and inhu$an punish$ent.

ettled is the rule that a punish$ent authoriHed ) statute is not cruel, degrading or disproportionate to the nature o

the ofense unless it is @agrantl and plainl oppressive and #holl disproportionate to the nature o the ofense as to

shoc' the $oral sense o the co$$unit. It ta'es $ore than $erel )eing harsh, e+cessive, out o proportion or severe

or a penalt to )e o)no+ious to the Constitution.OP ?ased on this principle, the Court has consistentl overruled

contentions o the deense that the penalt o *ne or i$prison$ent authoriHed ) the statute involved is cruel and

degrading.

In %eople s. Tong3o,OP this Court held that the prohi)ition against cruel and unusual punish$ent is generall ai$ed at

the or$ or character o the punish$ent rather than its severit in respect o its duration or a$ount, and applies to

punish$ents #hich never e+isted in A$erica or #hich pu)lic senti$ent regards as cruel or o)solete. &his reers, or

instance, to those in@icted at the #hipping post or in the pillor, to )urning at the sta'e, )rea'ing on the #heel,

dise$)o#eling and the li'e. &he act that the penalt is severe provides insucient )asis to declare a la#

unconstitutional and does not, ) that circu$stance alone, $a'e it cruel and inhu$an.

8etitioners also argue that #hile 8% D1D increased the i$posa)le penalties or estaa co$$itted under Article 1, par

5d6 o the evised 8enal Code, it did not increase the a$ounts corresponding to the said ne# penalties. &hus, the

original a$ounts provided or in the evised 8enal Code have re$ained the sa$e not#ithstanding that the have

)eco$e negligi)le and insigni*cant co$pared to the present value o the peso.

&his argu$ent is #ithout $erit. &he pri$ar purpose o 8% D1D is e$phaticall and categoricall stated in the

ollo#ing0

?6E&EAS$ reports receied of late indicate an upsurge of estafa s)indling> cases committed '2 means of 'ouncing

chec3s

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn3


15/49

?6E&EAS$ if not chec3ed at once$ these criminal acts )ould erode the peoples con/dence in the use of negotia'le

instruments as a medium of commercial transaction and conse!uentl2 result in the retardation of trade and commerce

and the undermining of the 'an3ing s2stem of the countr2

?6E&EAS$ it is itall2 necessar2 to arrest and cur' the rise in this 3ind of estafa cases '2 increasing the existing

penalties proided therefor.

Clearl, the increase in the penalt, ar ro$ )eing cruel and degrading, #as $otivated ) a lauda)le purpose, na$el,

to efectuate the repression o an evil that under$ines the countrs co$$ercial and econo$ic gro#th, and to serve as

a necessar precaution to deter people ro$ issuing )ouncing chec's. &he act that 8% D1D did not increase the

a$ounts corresponding to the ne# penalties onl proves that the a$ount is i$$aterial and inconse/uential. hat the

la# sought to avert #as the prolieration o estaa cases co$$itted ) $eans o )ouncing chec's. &a'ing into account

the salutar purpose or #hich said la# #as decreed, #e conclude that 8% D1D does not violate ection 19 o Article

III o the Constitution.

(oreover, #hen a la# is /uestioned )eore the Court, the presu$ption is in avor o its constitutionalit. &o usti its

nulli*cation, there $ust )e a clear and un$ista'a)le )reach o the Constitution, not a dou)tul and argu$entative oneO4P &he )urden o proving the invalidit o a la# rests on those #ho challenge it. In this case, petitioners ailed to

present clear and convincing proo to deeat the presu$ption o constitutionalit o 8% D1D.

ith respect to the issue o #hether 8% D1D inringes on ection 1 o Article III o the Constitution, petitioners clai$

that 8% D1D is violative o the due process clause o the Constitution as it #as not pu)lished in the !cial :aHette.&his

clai$ is incorrect and $ust )e reected. 8u)lication, )eing an indispensa)le part o due process, is i$perative to the

validit o la#s, presidential decrees and e+ecutive orders.OP 8% D1D #as pu)lished in the !cial :aHette on %ece$)er

1, 197.O3P

ith the oregoing considerations in $ind, this Court upholds the constitutionalit o 8% D1D.

HEREFORE, the petition is here) %I(I%.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 152#95 (* 15, 2004

OFELIA /. ARCETA, petitioner,

vs.

T;* Hoor%l* $A. CELESTINA C. $ANGROANG, Pr*+ii3 (3*, r% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >

G.R. No. 15?151 (* 15, 2004

GLORIA S. D, 8etitioner,

vs.

T;* Hoor%l* EDIN . RA$I!O, Pr*+ii3 (3*, r%


16/49

*. G.&. 5o. *@HI

&he Cit 8rosecutor o Eavotas, (etro (anila charged !elia G. Arceta #ith violating ?.8. ?lg. in an Inor$ation,

#hich #as doc'eted as Cri$inal Case Eo. 199-C. &he accusator portion o said Inor$ation reads0

&hat on or a)out the 13th da o epte$)er 199D, in Eavotas, (etro (anila, and #ithin the urisdiction o this

"onora)le Court, the a)ove-na$ed accused, did then and there #ilull, unla#ull and eloniousl $a'e or dra# and

issue to !CA . CA&!, to appl on account or or value the chec' descri)ed )elo#0

Chec' Eo.0 ;;;D7;

%ra#n Against0 &he egion ?an'

In the A$ount o0 874;,;;;.;;

%ate0 %ece$)er 1, 199D

8aa)le to0 Cash

said accused #ell-'no#ing that at the ti$e o issue !elia G. Arceta did not have sucient unds or credit #ith the

dra#ee )an' or the pa$ent, #hich chec' #hen presented or pa$ent #ithin ninet 59;6 das ro$ the date thereo

#as su)se/uentl dishonored ) the dra#ee )an' or reason %AE A:AIE& IEJFFICIE& FJE%, and despite

receipt o notice o such dishonor, the accused ailed to pa said paee #ith the ace a$ount o said chec' or to $a'e

arrange$ent or ull pa$ent thereo #ithin *ve 56 )an'ing das ater receiving notice.

C!E&A &! LA.

Arceta did not $ove to have the charge against her dis$issed or the Inor$ation /uashed on the ground that ?.8. ?lg.

#as unconstitutional. he reasoned out that #ith the o"ano doctrine still in place, such a $ove #ould )e an

e+ercise in utilit or it #as highl unli'el that the trial court #ould grant her $otion and thus go against prevailing

urisprudence.

!n !cto)er 1, ;;,4 Arceta #as arraigned and pleaded not guilt to the charge. "o#ever, she $aniested that her

arraign$ent should )e #ithout preudice to the present petition or to an other actions she #ould ta'e to suspend

proceedings in the trial court.

Arceta then *led the instant petition.

@. G.&. 5o. *=**

&he !ce o the Cit 8rosecutor o Caloocan *led a charge sheet against :loria . % or violation o the ?ouncing

Chec's La#, doc'eted ) the (e&C o Caloocan Cit as Cri$inal Case Eo. 11D. % allegedl co$$itted the ofense

in this #ise0

&hat on or a)out the $onth o 2anuar ;;; in Caloocan Cit, (etro (anila, 8hilippines and #ithin the urisdiction o

this "onora)le Court, the a)ove-na$ed accused, did then and there #ilull, unla#ull and eloniousl $a'e and issue

Chec' Eo. ;;;;9; dra#n against 8J%E&IAL ?AE in the a$ount o8,;;,;;;.;; dated 2anuar 19, ;;; to

appl or value in avor o AEI&A C"JA #ell 'no#ing at the ti$e o issue that she has no sucient unds in or credit

#ith the dra#ee )an' or the pa$ent o such chec' in ull upon its present$ent #hich chec' #as su)se/uentl

dishonored or the reason ACC!JE& CL!% and #ith intent to deraud ailed and still ails to pa the said

co$plainant the a$ount o 8,;;,;;;.;; despite receipt o notice ro$ the dra#ee )an' that said chec' has )een

dishonored and had not )een paid.

Contrar to La#.

Li'e Arceta, % $ade no $ove to dis$iss the charges against her on the ground that ?.8. ?lg. #as unconstitutional.

% li'e#ise )elieved that an $ove on her part to /uash the indict$ent or to dis$iss the charges on said ground

#ould ail in vie# o the o"ano ruling. Instead, she *led a petition #ith this Court invo'ing its po#er o udicial revie#

to have the said la# voided or Constitutional in*r$it.

?oth Arceta and % raise the ollo#ing identical issues or our resolution0

OaP %oes section 1 reall penaliHe the act o issuing a chec' su)se/uentl dishonored ) the )an' or lac' o undsB

O)P hat is the efect i the dishonored chec' is not paid pursuant to section o ?8 B

OcP hat is the efect i it is so paidB


17/49

OdP %oes section $a'e ?8 a de)t collecting la# under threat o i$prison$entB

OeP %oes ?8 violate the constitutional proscription against i$prison$ent or non-pa$ent o de)tB

OP Is ?8 a valid e+ercise o the police po#er o the stateB3

Ater $inute scrutin o petitionersS su)$issions, #e *nd that the )asic issue )eing raised in these special civil actions

or certiorari, prohi)ition, and $anda$us concern the unconstitutionalit or invalidit o ?.8. ?lg. . !ther#ise put,

the petitions constitute an o)li/ue attac' on the constitutionalit o the ?ouncing Chec's La#, a $atter alread passed

upon ) the Court through 2ustice 5later Chie 2ustice6 8edro ap al$ost t#o decades ago. 8etitioners add, ho#ever,

a$ong the pertinent issues one )ased on the o)serva)le )ut #orriso$e transor$ation o certain $etropolitan trial

courts into see$ing collection agencies o creditors #hose co$plaints no# clog the court doc'ets.

?ut let us return to )asics. hen the issue o unconstitutionalit o a legislative act is raised, it is the esta)lished

doctrine that the Court $a e+ercise its po#er o udicial revie# onl i the ollo#ing re/uisites are present0 516 an

actual and appropriate case and controvers e+ists> 56 a personal and su)stantial interest o the part raising the

constitutional /uestion> 56 the e+ercise o udicial revie# is pleaded at the earliest opportunit> and 546 the

constitutional /uestion raised is the ver lis mota o the case.7 !nl #hen these re/uisites are satis*ed $a the Court

assu$e urisdiction over a /uestion o unconstitutionalit or invalidit o an act o Congress. ith due regard to

counselSs spirited advocac in )oth cases, #e are una)le to agree that the a)ovecited re/uisites have )een ade/uatel

$et.

8erusal o these petitions reveals that the are pri$aril anchored on ule 3, ection 1D o the 1997 ules o Civil

8rocedure. In a special civil action o certiorari the onl /uestion that $a )e raised is #hether or not the respondent

has acted #ithout or in e+cess o urisdiction or #ith grave a)use o discretion.9 et no#here in these petitions is there

an allegation that the respondent udges acted #ith grave a)use o discretion a$ounting to lac' or e+cess o urisdiction. A special civil action or certiorari #ill prosper onl i a grave a)use o discretion is $aniested.1;

Eote#orth, the instant petitions are conspicuousl devoid o an attach$ents or anne+es in the or$ o a cop o an

order, decision, or resolution issued ) the respondent udges so as to place the$ understanda)l #ithin the a$)it o

ule 3. hat are appended to the petitions are onl copies o the Inor$ations in the respective cases, nothing else.

videntl, these petitions or a #rit o certiorari, prohi)ition and $anda$us do not /uali as the actual and

appropriate cases conte$plated ) the rules as the *rst re/uisite or the e+ercise o this CourtSs po#er o udicial

revie#. For as the petitions clearl sho# on their aces petitioners have not co$e to us #ith sucient cause o action.

Instead, it appears to us that herein petitioners have placed the cart )eore the horse, *gurativel spea'ing. i$pl

put, the have ignored the hierarch o courts outlined in ule 3, ection 411 o the 1997 ules o Civil 8rocedure.

ee'ing udicial revie# at the earliest opportunit does not $ean i$$ediatel elevating the $atter to this Court.

arliest opportunit $eans that the /uestion o unconstitutionalit o the act in /uestion should have )een

i$$ediatel raised in the proceedings in the court )elo#. &hus, the petitioners should have $oved to /uash theseparate indict$ents or $oved to dis$iss the cases in the proceedings in the trial courts on the ground o

unconstitutionalit o ?.8. ?lg. . ?ut the records sho# that petitioners ailed to initiate such $oves in the proceedings

)elo#. Eeedless to e$phasiHe, this Court could not entertain /uestions on the invalidit o a statute #here that issue

#as not speci*call raised, insisted upon, and ade/uatel argued.1 &a'ing into account the earl stage o the trial

proceedings )elo#, the instant petitions are patentl pre$ature.

Eor do #e *nd the constitutional /uestion herein raised to )e the ver lis mota presented in the controvers )elo#.

ver la# has in its avor the presu$ption o constitutionalit, and to usti its nulli*cation, there $ust )e a clear and

une/uivocal )reach o the Constitution, and not one that is dou)tul, speculative or argu$entative.1 e have

e+a$ined the contentions o the petitioners careull> )ut the still have to persuade us that ?.8. ?lg. ) itsel or in

its i$ple$entation transgressed a provision o the Constitution. ven the thesis o petitioner % that the present

econo$ic and *nancial crisis should )e a )asis to declare the ?ouncing Chec's La# constitutionall in*r$ deserves

)ut scant consideration. As #e stressed in o"ano, it is precisel during tring ti$es that there e+ists a $ost

co$pelling reason to strengthen aith and con*dence in the *nancial sste$ and an practice tending to destrocon*dence in chec's as currenc su)stitutes should )e deterred, to prevent havoc in the trading and *nancial

co$$unities. Further, #hile indeed the $etropolitan trial courts $a )e )urdened i$$ensel ) )ouncing chec's

cases no#, that act is i$$aterial to the alleged invalidit o the la# )eing assailed. &he solution to the clogging o

doc'ets in lo#er courts lies else#here.

HEREFORE, the instant petitions are DIS$ISSED or utter lac' o $erit.

SO ORDERED.


18/49

G.R. No. 15655# (* 14, 2004

GEORGE /INCO,1 petitioner,

vs.HON. CO'RT OF APPEALS % PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

% C I I ! E

P'NO, J.:

&his is a petition or revie# o the %ecision dated %ece$)er ;, ;; o the Court o Appeals in CA-:.. C Eo.

413 ar$ing that o the egional &rial Court o 8asig, ?ranch 3D, in Cri$inal Case Eo. 114 *nding petitioner

:eorge Ginco guilt )eond reasona)le dou)t o estaa under Art. 1, par. 5a6 o the evised 8enal Code.

&he Inor$ation reads0


19/49

!n or a)out (arch 14, 1993, in 8asig Cit, and #ithin the urisdiction o this "onora)le Court, the accused, ) $eans o

deceit and alse pretenses e+ecuted to or si$ultaneousl #ith the co$$ission o the raud, did, then and there

#illull, unla#ull and eloniousl deraud LiHah C. Ci$aranca and olando Flores, in the ollo#ing $anner, to #it0

the said accused represented that he could $o)iliHe thirt 5;6 du$p truc's and t#o 56 paloaders or use o the

co$plainantOsP su)ect to the pa$ent o 83;;,;;;.;; $o)iliHation und and, )elieving this representation to )e true,

the said co$plainants paid and delivered the said a$ount to the accused at ?anco de !ro ?an', 8asig Cit ?ranch,

#hich representation accused 'ne# #ell to )e alse and raudulent and #ere 5sic6 onl $ade to induce the

co$plainants to give and deliver as in act the gave and delivered the said a$ount o 83;;,;;;.;; to the respondent

5sic6, and accused once in possession o said a$ount, $isappropriated, $isapplied and converted the sa$e to his o#n

personal use and )ene*t, to the da$age and preudice o the co$plainants, LiHah C. Ci$aranca and olando Flores, in

the a$ount o83;;,;;;.;;.

8asig Cit, (a D, 1997.

8etitioner pleaded not guilt to the charge. "ence, trial ensued.

&he prosecution evidence esta)lished that private co$plainants olando Flores and LiHah Ci$aranca are )usiness

partners and contractors. &he approached petitioner :eorge Ginco, proprietor o %elco Industries 8hils., Inc., in

(arch 1993 or du$p truc's and paloaders #hich the needed to haul silica in ?ulacan. 8etitioner represented that he

could $o)iliHe thirt 5;6 du$p truc's and t#o 56 paloaders upon pa$ent o a 83;;,;;;.;; $o)iliHation und )

co$plainants at 8;,;;;.;; per du$p truc'. 8ursuant to their ver)al agree$ent, private co$plainants paid an

initial 8;;,;;;.;; cash to the petitioner on (arch 9 or 1;, 1993 or #hich the #ere issued a receipt ) the petitioner.

&o pa the )alance o 84;;,;;;.;;, co$plainant olando Flores, #ith the help o his #ie Carolina, )orro#ed ro$ a

client o ?anco de !ro, 8asig Cit ?ranch, o #hich his #ie #as the (anager. Carolina personall guaranteed the loan.

For the purpose, olando )ought a $anagerSs chec' ro$ ?anco de !ro #hich issued to hi$ (anagerSs Chec' Eo.;114 or 84;;,;;;.;;. !n (arch 14, 1993, olando, LiHah, and petitioner #ent to the )an' to encash the chec'.

Ater olando encashed the chec', Carolina Flores personall handed over the proceeds to petitioner. 8etitioner issued

!cial eceipt Eo. ;D )ut #rote therein the a$ount o 83;;,;;;.;;, not 84;;,;;;.;;, to include the 8;;,;;;.;;

#hich he previousl received ro$ the co$plainants. &he previous receipt or the8;;,;;;.;; #as thus cancelled.

%espite the pa$ent, onl one 516 du$p truc' #as delivered in the evening o (arch 14, 1993. 8rivate co$plainants

de$anded the return o their $one )ut the #ere either ignored or reused entr at petitionerSs oce pre$ises. Ater

so$e ti$e, petitioner ofered to co$plainants 8CI?an' Chec' Eo. ;17;A as rei$)urse$ent. &he chec' #as

or 871,;;;.;; issued ) one LuHvi$inda "ernandeH paa)le to cash and=or to %elco Industries. It #as understood

that the diference #ould )e turned over to petitioner. ager to have their $one )ac' and pa their o)ligation to their

creditor, private co$plainants accepted the chec' and returned !cial eceipt Eo. ;D #hich petitioner re/uested.

&he chec', ho#ever, #as dishonored upon present$ent or pa$ent. 8rivate co$plainants again de$anded the return

o their $one )ut petitioner could no longer )e contacted. As a result, Carolina Flores #as ter$inated ro$ her o) as

(anager o ?anco de !ro, 8asig Cit ?ranch, or guaranteeing her hus)andSs loan.

In (a 1993, LiHah Ci$aranca *led a co$plaint or estafa against petitioner #ith the !ce o the Cit 8rosecutor o

8asa Cit doc'eted as I.. Eo. 93-1943. It #as, ho#ever, dis$issed in a esolution dated August 1, 1993 on the

ground that petitionerSs o)ligation #as purel civil in nature and or co$plainantSs ailure to attend the hearings.4 !n

!cto)er D, 1993, LiHah Ci$aranca, oined ) olando Flores, re-*led the co$plaint charging the sa$e ofense against

petitioner #ith the !ce o the Cit 8rosecutor o 8asig Cit #hich *led the corresponding inor$ation in court, root o

the present petition.

8etitioner denied that he received 83;;,;;;.;; ro$ the private co$plainants. "e alleged that he #as onl given a

?anco de !ro (anagerSs Chec' or 84;;,;;;.;; #hich #as not even issued in his na$e. Failing to notice that the

chec' #as not in his na$e, he issued !cial eceipt Eo. ;D or 83;;,;;;.;;, not 84;;,;;;.;;, to include the

overprice or co$plainantsS co$$ission in the a$ount o 8;;,;;;.;;. hen he noticed that the chec' #as issued in

the na$e o co$plainant olando Flores, he arranged or his driver to return the chec' to co$plainants or

encash$ent and to ta'e )ac' !.. Eo. ;D. As a result, his transaction #ith the private co$plainants #as cancelled

)ecause the did not turn over the proceeds o the chec' to hi$.

&he trial court sustained the version o the prosecution. &he trial udge ound incredi)le petitionerSs aver$ent that he

ailed to notice that the chec' in /uestion #as not issued in his na$e. 8etitioner #as a seasoned )usiness$an. A

udg$ent o conviction #as rendered on Fe)ruar , ;;;, the dispositive portion o #hich reads0

"F!, pre$ises considered, the Court *nds the accused :!: GIE:C! guilt )eond reasona)le dou)t o

the cri$e o &AFA de*ned and penaliHed under Art. 1 o the evised 8enal Code and here) sentences hi$ to

sufer the penalt o i$prison$ent ro$ ourteen 5146 ears, eight 5D6 $onths and one 516 da to t#ent 5;6 ears

o &eclusion Temporal in its $ediu$ and $a+i$u$ period 5sic6 and to inde$ni the ofended part in the a$ount

o 83;;,;;;.;;. ith costs.

! !%%.3


20/49

Accused appealed to the Court o Appeals to no avail.7 "ence, this petition or revie#.

8etitioner insists that his guilt has not )een proven )eond reasona)le dou)t. "e contends that the trial court and the

Court o Appeals erred in concluding that he received pa$ent ro$ the private co$plainants considering that !cial

eceipt Eo. ;D #as ad$ittedl returned to hi$ and $ar'ed cancelled #hile 8CI?an' Chec' Eo. ;17;A

or 871,;;;.;; #as not presented and $ar'ed as an e+hi)it and #as onl surreptitiousl included as +h. ? during

the prosecutionSs or$al ofer o evidence. "e also argues that his identit #as not even esta)lished since his

pictures,D although presented and $ar'ed as +hs. ?, ?-1 and ?-, #ere not included in the prosecutionSs or$al

ofer o evidence. Further, he points out that the dis$issal o the previous co$plaint or estaa *led ) LiHah

Ci$aranca ) the Cit 8rosecutorSs !ce o 8asa Cit supports his ac/uittal.

8etitionerSs contentions are not #ell-ta'en. &he act that his pictures #ere not or$all ofered as evidence although

the #ere presented and $ar'ed as e+hi)its, is not atal to the prosecutionSs cause. &here is no /uestion as to

petitionerSs identit as the accused. "e hi$sel ad$itted that he transacted #ith the private co$plainants although

the transaction #as cancelled or ailure o co$plainants to pa the $o)iliHation und. &his ad$ission that he

personall dealt #ith the co$plainants in regard to the transaction in /uestion renders his identi*cation a non-issue.

&he dis$issal o a si$ilar co$plaint or estafa *led ) LiHah Ci$aranca )eore the Cit 8rosecutorSs !ce o 8asa

Cit #ill not e+culpate the petitioner. &he case cannot )ar petitionerSs prosecution. It is settled that the dis$issal o a

case during its preli$inar investigation does not constitute dou)le eopard9 since a preli$inar investigation is not

part o the trial and is not the occasion or the ull and e+haustive displa o the partiesS evidence )ut onl such as

$a engender a #ell-grounded )elie that an ofense has )een co$$itted and accused is pro)a)l guilt thereo.1;For

this reason, it cannot )e considered e/uivalent to a udicial pronounce$ent o ac/uittal. "ence, petitioner #as properl

charged )eore the !ce o the Cit 8rosecutor o 8asig Cit #hich is not )ound ) the deter$ination $ade ) the

8asa Cit 8rosecutor #ho $a have had )eore hi$ a diferent or inco$plete set o evidence than that su)se/uentlpresented )eore the 8asig Cit 8rosecutor.

Lastl, #hether or not petitioner indeed received pa$ent ro$ private co$plainants is a /uestion o act )est let to

the deter$ination o the trial court. e /uote #ith approval the ollo#ing o)servations o the trial court, i" 0

+ + + + + + + + +

&hat pa$ent #as indeed received ) accused can not 5sic6 )e denied as he hi$sel issued a receipt to evidence such

receipt o pa$ent. &he receipt, a +ero+ cop o #hich, #as $ar'ed as evidence ) accused 5+hi)it 46 indicated

that the pa$ent, as e+plained ) the #itness (s. Carolina Flores 5&E, (a 7, 199D, pp. 1D-;6 #as actuall received

in cash as the a$ount #ritten in the receipt is 83;;,;;;.;; and not84;;,;;;.;;. &hat the nu$)er o the (anagers

5sic6 chec' #hich #as or 84;;,;;;.;; #as #ritten on the receipt ) #a o reerence onl. &his Court gives ull

credence to the testi$on o (s. Flores #ho #as eventuall ter$inated ro$ the )an' #here she #or'ed ) reason o

her guaranteeing (r. FloresS loan ro$ a custo$er o the )an'. It is clear that cash #as actuall paid out and the

contention o the accused that he #as onl given a $anagers 5sic6 chec' #hich, according to hi$, he eventuallreturned can not 5sic6 )e sustained. For #h #ould he issue a receipt in his o#n hand#riting i he did not receive the

cash. &he receipt is a unilateral ad$ission o a part that he got paid. &he receipt, as ad$itted ) accused (r. Ginco

#as issued ) hi$ 5&E, (a 7, 1999, pp. 7-D6 #hen he received the cashiers 5sic6 chec'. &hat he had the cashiers

5sic6 chec' returned or encash$ent as it #as not $ade paa)le to his co$pan. ?eing a )usiness$an, he #ould have

i$$ediatel noticed the act that the $anagers 5sic6 chec' #as $ade out in the na$e o olando Flores and

i$$ediatel returned the chec' #ithout issuing a receipt or he could have issued a provisional receipt i indeed #hat

#as used as pa$ent #as a chec'. It is highl inconceiva)le that he #ould receive the chec', issue a receipt then

realiHe that the chec' is not $ade paa)le to his co$pan. Further$ore, t#o diferent copies o the sa$e receipts #ere

presented. 8rosecution presented a cop o !cial eceipt ;D #ithout the $ar'ing cancelled #hile accused

presented a cop o the sa$e !cial eceipt #ith cancelled #ritten on its ace.

As testi*ed to ) co$plainant, he returned the original o the !cial eceipt upon receipt o a chec' endorsed )

accused. &hus it is not i$pro)a)le that the #ord cancelled #as #ritten on said ocial receipt ) the accused onl

upon its return to hi$. &he testi$onies o prosecution #itnesses as to the cronolog 5sic6 o events are $ore credi)le

and is thus given $ore #eight ) this Court )ecause $ere denial o the accused can not prevail over the positive

testi$onies o the prosecutionSs #itnesses. (oreover, private co$plainant clearl e+plained that accused ca$e into

possession o the original ocial receipt #hen accused Gingco endorsed and turned over to hi$ a chec' $ade

paa)le to cash and or %elco Industries ) one LuHvi$inda "ernandeH or 871,;;;.;;. "o#ever, #hen said chec' #as

presented or pa$ent it #as dishonored or the reason ACC!JE& CL!%.

+ + + + + + + + +

&his actual *nding o the trial court, ar$ed ) the Court o Appeals, that petitioner indeed received pa$ent ro$

the private co$plainants in the or$ o the $o)iliHation und, deserves great #eight and respect.


21/49

(oreover, the act that 8CI?an' Chec' Eo. ;17;A or 871,;;;.;; #as not presented and $ar'ed as an e+hi)it

during the trial, hence, could not have )een or$all ofered as evidence,11 is not atal to the prosecutionSs cause. As

#ell pointed out ) the !ce o the olicitor :eneral 5!:6, petitioner #as prosecuted not or issuing a #orthless

chec', )ut or deceiving co$plainants into parting #ith their 83;;,;;;.;; on the pro$ise that he #ould provide the$

du$p truc's and paloaders.

IN /IE HEREOF, the petition is DENIED. &he /uestioned %ecision dated %ece$)er ;, ;; o the Court o

Appeals in CA-:.. C Eo. 413 ar$ing that o the egional &rial Court o 8asig, ?ranch 3D, in Cri$inal Case Eo.

114, is AFFIR$ED.

SO ORDERED.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.

THE CIT CO'RT OF $ANILA, RANCH )I % FRANCISCO GAPA & $ALLARES, respondents.


22/49

R E S O L ' T I O N

RELO/A, J:

&his is a petition to revie# the order, dated Eove$)er 17, 197, o the Cit Court o (anila, ?ranch NI, dis$issing the

inor$ation or ho$icide thru rec'less i$prudence *led against private respondent, Francisco :apa (allares, in

Cri$inal Case Eo. -;3 on the ground o dou)le eopard. espondent court held that the private respondent

having )een previousl tried and convicted o serious phsical inuries thru rec'less i$prudence or the resulting death

o the victi$ #ould place the accused in dou)le eopard.

&he /uestion presented in this case is #hether a person #ho has )een prosecuted or serious phsical inuries thru

rec'less i$prudence and convicted thereo $a )e prosecuted su)se/uentl or ho$icide thru rec'less i$prudence ithe ofended part dies as a result o the sa$e inuries he had sufered.

In (elo vs. 8eople, D 8hil. 733, this Court held that #here ater the *rst prosecution a ne# act supervenes or #hich

the deendant is responsi)le, #hich changes the character o the ofense and, together #ith the acts e+isting at a

ti$e, constitutes a ne# and distinct ofense, the accused cannot )e said to )e in second eopard i indicted or the

second ofense. "o#ever, the trial court held that the doctrine o (elo vs. 8eople does not appl in the case at )ar in

vie# o this Court


23/49

sucient to sustain a *nding that the tate #as denied due process 5C. ilvestre v. (ilitar Co$$ission Eo. 1, D

CA 1;6.

&he incident happened on !cto)er 17, 197. &he inor$ation or serious phsical inuries through rec'less i$prudence

#as *led on !cto)er 1D, 197. &he victi$ o the accident died on the sa$e da.

no#ing the volu$e o the case load in the Cit Court o (anila and the inevita)l slo# pace o #or' even #hen

urgenc is dictated ) the nature o cases #ith the Fiscal or )eore the various salas, it is $ost surprising that the

accused could have )een arraigned on !cto)er ;, 197 or the charge o serious phsical inuries onl three das

ater the incident, t#o das ater the *ling o the inor$ation, and t#o das ater the death o the victi$. &he accused

does not appear to have )een a detention prisoner necessitating his i$$ediate arraing$ent right ater the *ling o the

inor$ation. &he onl sensi)le conclusion to dra# ro$ the a)ove circu$stances is that the accused #as hastil $ade

to plead guilt to serious phsical inuries to oreclose a charge or ho$icide even )eore it could )e *led. In such a

case, there #ould )e a tri@ing #ith the processes o ustice and a collusive efort a$ounting to raud or deceit to

deprive the tate o its authorit to prosecute an accused or the correct ofense. hile this conclusion is $ost li'el, it

re$ains speculative, ho#ever, )ecause #e have a cri$inal case )eore us. &he records ail to sho# #hat #ere the

results o an investigation, i an #as conducted to ascertain #h the assistant cit *scal


24/49

G.R. No. 7?996 A3+ 2#, 19#9

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appellee,

vs.

DANILO TAGLE, %li%+ @D%& T%3l*,@ accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plainti8#appellee.

Guillermo . %asion for accused#appellant.

CR'!, J.:

&he Court is not convinced that the guilt o the accused has )een proved )eond reasona)le dou)t. &he prosecution

has ailed to overco$e the constitutional presu$ption o innocence. &he prisoner $ust )e ac/uitted.

&he accused #as a -ear old $an #ith a #ie and our children at the ti$e o the alleged ofense. &he co$plaining

#itness #as 19 ears old and un$arried #hen she clai$s she #as raped ) %anilo &agle.

As ound ) the trial court 1 on the )asis o the testi$on o the prosecution #itnesses, the cri$e #as co$$itted on

!cto)er 9, 19D, at a)out ten o


25/49

0nternal ExaminationJ

La)ia-(aora K *r$ and #ell rounded

La)ia-(inora K sot, pin'ish and not in close apposition #ith one another.

"$en K healed laceration at 3 o that could )e ta$pered.

M I #ill sho# ou again +hi)it C, #ill ou *nd out i there is the erasureB

A &here is so$ething applied in this part, our "onor.

M ou did not erase that )eore ou signed it, %octorB

A Eo, our "onor. &here is the duplicate o the one I issued.


26/49

M o, ou #ant to i$press the court that regarding +hi)it C it should )e healed lacerationB

A It should )e healed laceration, our "onor. 4

As or the length o the healing period, the doctor testi*ed as ollo#s0

C!J&0

M hen did ou e+a$ine the patientB

A !cto)er 1, 19D, our "onor.

M hat #as the nature o the #ound, the laceration #ound at si+ o


27/49

&he trial udge dis$issed the $atter o the ruptured h$en and noted that virginit is not an essential ele$ent o the

cri$e o rape. Citing urisprudence, he said even prostitutes could )e raped. &hat is true enough. ?ut #hat he ailed to

consider is that the phsical evidence o the healed laceration re@ected on Arcelie


28/49

co$$itted ) the prisoner on the doc' as charged. ?ut that proo, i it is to prevail, $ust )e strong enough to dispel all

dou)t and sustain the deendant


29/49

inde$nit there sought to )e recovered #as )eond the urisdiction o the ?atangas Cit Court to a#ard. In an order

dated 3 April 1973, the ?atangas Cit Court granted the $otion to dis$iss on the ground o prescription, it appearing

that the ofense charged #as a light elon #hich prescri)es t#o $onths ro$ the ti$e o discover thereo, and it

appearing urther that the inor$ation #as *led ) the *scal $ore than nine $onths ater discover o the ofense

charged in Fe)ruar 197.

Fourteen 5146 das later, on ; April 1973, the Acting Cit Fiscal o ?atangas Cit *led )eore the Court o First

Instance o ?atangas, ?ranch 11, another inor$ation against (anuel !pulencia, this ti$e or thet o electric po#er

under Article ;D in relation to Article ;9, paragraph 516, o the evised 8enal Code. &his inor$ation read as ollo#s0

&he undersigned Acting Cit Fiscal accuses (anuel !pulencia Lat o the cri$e o thet, de*ned and penaliHed )

Article ;D, in relation to Article ;9, paragraph 516 o the evised 8enal Code, co$$itted as ollo#s0

&hat on, during, and )et#een the $onth o Eove$)er, 1974, and the 1st da o Fe)ruar, 197, at u$intang, l)a)a,

?atangas Cit, 8hilippines, and #ithin the urisdiction o this "onora)le Court, the a)ove-na$ed accused, #ith intent o

gain and #ithout the 'no#ledge and consent o the ?atangas lectric Light ste$, did then and there, #ilull,

unla#ull and eloniousl ta'e, steal and appropriate electric current valued in the total a$ount o F!& !E

&"!JAE%, IN& &! 8! AE% IN&E CE&AG! 5841,;3.136 8hilippine Currenc, to the da$age and

preudice o the said ?atangas lectric Light ste$, o#ned and operated ) the Cit :overn$ent o ?atangas, in the

aore$entioned su$ o 841,;3.13.

&he a)ove inor$ation #as doc'eted as Cri$inal Case Eo. 33 )eore the Court o First Instance o ?atangas, ?ranch II

?eore he could )e arraigned thereon, (anuel !pulencia *led a (otion to Muash, dated (a 1973, alleging that he

had )een previousl ac/uitted o the ofense charged in the second inor$ation and that the *ling thereo #as

violative o his constitutional right against dou)le eopard. ? !rder dated 13 August 1973, the respondent 2udge

granted the accused


30/49

5)6 &he #or' and installation in the houses and )uilding and their connection #ith the lectrical ste$ shall )e done

either ) the e$ploee o the sste$ dul authoriHed ) its uperintendent or ) persons adept in the $atter dul

authoriHed ) the %istrict ngineer. Applicants or electrical service per$itting the #or's o installation or connection

#ith the sste$ to )e underta'en ) the persons not dul authoriHed thereor shall )e considered guilt o violation o

the ordinance.

#ould sho# that0

&he principal purpose or 5sic6 such a provision is to ensure that electrical installations on residences or )uildings )e

done ) persons dul authoriHed or adept in the $atter, to avoid *res and accidents due to ault electrical #irings. It

is pri$aril a regulator $easure and not intended to punish or cur) thet o electric @uid #hich is alread covered )

the evised 8enal Code. 5

&he gist o the ofense under the Cit !rdinance, the petitioner

. &hat the personal propert 5ta'en6 )elongs to another>

. &hat the ta'ing )e done #ith intent o gain>

4. &hat the ta'ing )e done #ithout the consent o the o#ner> and

. &hat the ta'ing )e acco$plished #ithout violence against or inti$idation o persons or orce upon things. 6

&he petitioner also alleges, correctl, in our vie#, that thet o electricit can )e efected even #ithout illegal or

unauthoriHed installations o an 'ind ), or instance, an o the ollo#ing $eans0

1. &urning )ac' the dials o the electric $eter>

. Fi+ing the electric $eter in such a $anner that it #ill not register the actual electrical consu$ption>

. Jnder-reading o electrical consu$ption> and

4. ? tightening the scre# o the rotar )lade to slo# do#n the rotation o the sa$e. 7

&he petitioner concludes that0

&he unauthoriHed installation punished ) the ordinance Oo ?atangas CitP is not the same as thet o electricit

Ounder the evised 8enal CodeP> that the second o8ense is not an attempt to co$$it the *rst or a frustration

thereof and that the second ofense is not necessaril2 included in the o8ense charged in the /rst inforrnation #

&he a)ove argu$ents $ade ) the petitioner are o course correct. &his is clear )oth ro$ the e+press ter$s o the

constitutional provision involved K #hich reads as ollo#s0

Eo person shall )e t#ice put in eopard o punish$ent for the same o8ense. I an act is punished ) a la# and an

ordinance, conviction or ac/uittal under either shall constitute a )ar to another prosecution or the sa$e act.

5$phasis supplied> Article IG 56, 197 Constitution6 9

and ro$ our case la# on this point. 10 &he )asic dicult #ith the petitioner


31/49

Iloilo. &he inor$ation charged hi$ #ith having #ilull, unla#ull and eloniousl driveOnP and operateOdP an

auto$o)ile K rec'lessl and #ithout reasona)le caution there) endangering other vehicles and pedestrians passing

in said street. &hree $onths later, ap #as again charged in Cri$inal Case Eo. 1344 o the sa$e (unicipal Court,

this ti$e #ith serious phsical inuries through rec'less i$prudence. &he inor$ation charged hi$ #ith violation o the

evised (otor Gehicle La# 5Act Eo. 99 as a$ended ) epu)lic Act Eo. D76 co$$itted ) driving and operating an

auto$o)ile in a rec'less and negligent $anner and as a result thereo in@icting inuries upon an unortunate

pedestrian. ap $oved to /uash the second inor$ation upon the ground that it placed hi$ t#ice in eopard o

punish$ent or the sa$e act. &his $otion #as denied ) the respondent $unicipal udge. (eanti$e, another

$unicipal udge had ac/uitted ap in Cri$inal Case Eo. 13;4. ap then instituted a petition or certiorari in the Court

o First Instance o Iloilo to set aside the order o the respondent $unicipal udge. &he Court o First Instance o Iloilo

having reversed the respondent $unicipal udge and having directed hi$ to desist ro$ continuing #ith Cri$inal CaseEo. 1344, the respondent 2udge )rought the case to the upre$e Court or revie# on appeal. In ar$ing the decision

appealed ro$ and holding that the constitutional protection against dou)le eopard #as availa)le to petitioner ap,

then Associate 2ustice and later Chie 2ustice o)erto Concepcion #rote0

&o )egin #ith, the cri$e o da$age to propert through rec'less driving K #ith #hich %iaH stood charged in the court

o *rst instance K is a violation o the evised 8enal Code 5third paragraph o Article 36, not the Auto$o)ile La# 5Act

Eo. 99, as a$ended ) epu)lic Act Eo. D76. "ence, %iaH #as not t#ice accused o a violation o the same la).

econdl, rec'less driving and certain cri$es co$$itted through rec'less driving are punisha)le under di8erent

proisions o said Auto$o)ile La#. "ence K ro$ the vie# point o Cri$inal La#, as distinguished ro$ political or

Constitutional La# K the constitute, strictl, diferent ofenses, although under certain conditions, one ofense $a

include the other, and, accordingl, once placed in eopard or one, the plea o dou)le eopard $a )e in order as

regards the other, as in the %iaH case. 5$phases in the original6

&hirdl, our ?ill o ights deals #ith t)o 56 'inds o dou)le eopard. &he *rst sentence o clause ;, section 1, ArticleIII o the Constitution, ordains that no person shall )e t#ice put in eopard o punish$ent or the sa$e o8ense.

5$phasis in the original6 &he second sentence o said clause provides that i an act is punisha)le ) a la# and an

ordinance, conviction or ac/uittal under either shall constitute a )ar to another prosecution or the sa$e act. Thus$

the /rst sentence prohi'its dou'le 1eopard2 of punishment for the same o8ense$ )hereas the second contemplates

dou'le 1eopard2 of punishment for the same act. 7nder the /rst sentence$ one ma2 'e t)ice put in 1eopard2 of

punishment of the same act proided that he is charged )ith di8erent o8enses$ or the o8ense charged in one case is

not included in or does not include$ the crime charged in the other case. The second sentence applies$ een if the

o8enses charged are not the same$ o)ing to the fact that one constitutes a iolation of an ordinance and the other a

iolation of a statute. 0f the t)o charges are 'ased on one and the same act coniction or ac!uittal under either the

la) or the ordinance shall 'ar a prosecution under the other. 12 Incidentall, such conviction or ac/uittal is not

indispensa)le to sustain the plea o dou)le eopard o punish$ent or the sa$e ofense. o long as eopard has

attached under one o the inor$ations charging said ofense, the deense $a )e availed o in the other case

involving the sa$e ofense, even i there has )een neither conviction nor ac/uittal in either case.

&he issue in the case at )ar hinges, thereore, on #hether or not, under the inor$ation in case Eo. 1344, petitioner

could K i he ailed to plead dou)le eopard K )e convicted o the sa$e act charged in case Eo. 13;4, in #hich he

has alread )een ac/uitted. &he inor$ation in case Eo. 13;4 alleges, su)stantiall, that on the date and in the place

therein stated, petitioner herein had #ilull, unla#ull and eloniousl driven and operated rec'lessl and #ithout

reasona)le caution an auto$o)ile descri)ed in said inor$ation. Jpon the other hand, the inor$ation in case Eo.

1344, si$ilarl states that, on the sa$e date and in the sa$e place, petitioner drove and operated the

aore$entioned auto$o)ile in a rec'less and negligent $anner at an e+cessive rate o speed and in violation o the

evised (otor Gehicle La# 5Act Eo. 996, as a$ended ) epu)lic Act Eo. D7, and e+isting cit ordinances. &hus, i

the theories $entioned in the second inor$ation #ere not esta)lished ) the evidence, petitioner could )e convicted

in case Eo. 1344 o the ver sa$e violation o $unicipal ordinance charged in case Eo. 13;4, unless he pleaded

dou)le eopard.

It is clear, thereore, that the lo#er court has not erred eventuall sustaining the theor o petitioner herein.

8ut a little diferentl, #here the ofenses charged are penaliHed either ) diferent sections o the sa$e statute or )

diferent statutes, the i$portant in/uir relates to the identit2 of o8enses chargeJ the constitutional protection against

dou)le eopard is availa)le onl #here an Identit is sho#n to e+ist )et#een the earlier and the su)se/uent ofenses

charged. In contrast, #here one ofense is charged under a $unicipal ordinance #hile the other is penaliHed ) a

statute, the critical in/uir is to the identit2 of the acts #hich the accused is said to have co$$itted and #hich are

alleged to have given rise to the t#o ofenses0 the constitutional protection against dou)le eopard is availa)le so

long as the acts #hich constitute or have given rise to the *rst ofense under a $unicipal ordinance are the sa$e acts

#hich constitute or have given rise to the ofense charged under a statute.

&he /uestion $a )e raised #h one rule should e+ist #here t#o ofenses under t#o diferent sections o the sa$e

statute or under diferent statutes are charged, and another rule or the situation #here one ofense is charged under

a $unicipal ordinance and another ofense under a national statute. I the second sentence o the dou)le eopard


32/49

provision had not )een #ritten into the Constitution, conviction or ac/uittal under a $unicipal ordinance #ould never

constitute a )ar to another prosecution or the sa$e act under a national statute. An ofense penaliHed ) $unicipal

ordinance is, ) de*nition, diferent ro$ an ofense under a statute. &he t#o ofenses #ould never constitute the

sa$e ofense having )een pro$ulgated ) diferent rule-$a'ing authorities K though one )e su)ordinate to the other

K and the plea o dou)le eopard #ould never lie. &he discussions during the 194-19 Constitutional Convention

sho# that the second sentence #as inserted precisel or the purpose o e+tending the constitutional protection

against dou)le eopard to a situation #hich #ould not other#ise )e covered ) the *rst sentence. 1?

&he /uestion o Identit or lac' o Identit o ofenses is addressed ) e+a$ining the essential ele$ents o each o the

t#o ofenses charged, as such ele$ents are set out in the respective legislative de*nitions o the ofenses involved.

&he /uestion o Identit o the acts #hich are clai$ed to have generated lia)ilit )oth under a $unicipal ordinance anda national statute $ust )e addressed, in the *rst instance, ) e+a$ining the location o such acts in ti$e and space.

hen the acts o the accused as set out in the t#o inor$ations are so related to each other in ti$e and space as to )e

reasona)l regarded as having ta'en place on the sa$e occasion and #here those acts have )een $oved ) one and

the sa$e, or a continuing, intent or voluntar design or negligence, such acts $a )e appropriatel characteriHed as

an integral #hole capa)le o giving rise to penal lia)ilit si$ultaneousl under diferent legal enact$ents 5a $unicipal

ordinance and a national statute6.

In Map, the Court regarded the ofense o rec'less driving under the Iloilo Cit !rdinance and serious phsical inuries

through rec'less i$prudence under the evised (otor Gehicle La# as derived ro$ the sa$e act or sets o acts K that

is, the operation o an auto$o)ile in a rec'less $anner. &he additional technical ele$ent o serious phsical inuries

related to the phsical conse/uences o the operation o the auto$o)ile ) the accused, i.e., the i$pact o the

auto$o)ile upon the )od o the ofended part. Clearl, such conse/uence occurred in the sa$e occasion that the

accused operated the auto$o)ile 5rec'lessl6. &he $oral ele$ent o negligence per$eated the acts o the accused

throughout that occasion.

In the instant case, the relevant acts too' place #ithin the sa$e ti$e ra$e0 ro$ Eove$)er 1974 to Fe)ruar 197.

%uring this period, the accused (anuel !pulencia installed or per$itted the installation o electrical #iring and devices

in his ice plant #ithout o)taining the necessar per$it or authoriHation ro$ the $unicipal authorities. &he accused

conceded that he efected or per$itted such unauthoriHed installation or the ver purpose o reducing electric po#er

)ill. &his corrupt intent #as thus present ro$ the ver $o$ent that such unauthoriHed installation )egan. &he

i$$ediate phsical efect o the unauthoriHed installation #as the in#ard @o# o electric current into !pulencia e$phases supplied6

? the sa$e to'en, acts o a person #hich phsicall occur on the sa$e occasion and are inused ) a co$$on intent

or design or negligence and thereore or$ a $oral unit, should not )e seg$ented and sliced, as it #ere, to produce

as $an diferent acts as there are ofenses under $unicipal ordinances or statutes that an enterprising prosecutor

can *nd

It re$ains to point out that the dis$issal ) the ?atangas Cit Court o the inor$ation or violation o the ?atangas

Cit !rdinance upon the ground that such ofense had alread prescri)ed, a$ounts to an ac/uittal o the accused o

that ofense. Jnder Article D9 o the evised 8enal Code, prescription o the cri$e is one o the grounds or total

e+tinction o cri$inal lia)ilit. Jnder the ules o Court, an order sustaining a $otion to /uash )ased on prescription is

a )ar to another prosecution or the sa$e ofense. 15


33/49

It is not #ithout reluctance that #e den the people


34/49

CR'!, J.:

It is the interesting co$)ination o dou)le eopard and dea$ation that has )rought this case all the #a up and

directl to this Court.

In three separate co$plaints *led #ith the oce o the provincial *scal o urigao del ur, Cipriana ?. &ran/uilan

accused (aria L. MuiHada o having spo'en o her, on the occasions therein $entioned, as ollo#s0

i Eanie 'a eat, )oring, )ardot, 'a)iga-on 'a)it sa a'ong )ana, #hich #ords #hen translated into nglish $ean0

Eanie is a #o$an o ill repute, she has a love relationship #ith $ hus)and, she has ta'en ro$ $e $ hus)and thatis the reason #h she did not get $arried )ecause she is a #o$an o )ad reputation. 1

i Eanie )oring, )ardal 'a eat, )iga-on, dili na na$inggo, nagtan-an sa sine, gi'u$ot and iang toto sa a'ong )ana,

#hich #ords #hen translated into nglish $ean0 Eanie is a #o$an o ill repute, she #ill not get $arried, she #ent to

the sho# and her nipples had )een s/ueeHed ) $ hus)and. 2

i Eanie )oring, )ardal 'a eat, )iga-on dill na na$inggo, nagtan-an sa sine, gi'u$ot ang iang toto sa a'ong )ana,

#hich #ords #hen translated into nglish $ean0 Eanie is a #o$an o ill repute, she #ill not get $arried, she #ent to

the sho# and her nipples had )een s/ueeHed ) $ hus)and. ?

!n the )asis o these co$plaints, and ater preli$inar investigation, the assistant provincial *scal *led in the Court o

First Instance o urigao del ur, on epte$)er 14,19D1, three separate inor$ations or grave oral dea$ation against

MuiHada or having disparaged &ran/uilan in the ollo#ing language0

i Eanie 'a eat, )oring, )ardot, 'a)iga-on, 'a)it sa a'ong )ana, nangilog sa a'ing )ana ugsa #ala na na$inggo 'ahuga# na )a)ae, #hich #ords #hen translated into the nglish language $ean0 Eanie is a @irt, a prostitute, a #hore,

a para$our o $ hus)and, she gra))ed $ hus)and ro$ $e, that


35/49

on the three cri$inal co$plaints earlier *led ) &ran/uilan #ith the *scal


36/49

G.R. No. L-?7#?7 A3+ 24, 19#4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.

HON. LEODEGARIO L. $OGOL, %+ (3* o= ;* Cor o= Fir+ I+%


37/49

#as sta))ed our ti$es, t#o o #hich hit the victi$ K one, on the a)do$inal region and another penetrating and

perorating the posterior a)do$inal #all cutting the ter$inal portion o the 1;th ri)> that this #as at a)out 70;;

o that the victi$ #as alone, and

that the attac' #as sudden and treacherous.

It has also )een sho#n that the 'nie used ) the assonant $easures a)out 3 inches in length> that the victi$ #as not

a)le to #al' ) hi$sel ater having )een sta))ed )ut that he had to )e carried to the hospital and that #hile there,

the victi$ al$ost lost consciousness. ? the $edical certi*cate issued ) a phsician o the hospital 5(agsasa

(e$orial "ospital, LopeH, MueHon6 the duration o treat$ent has )een placed at ; das.

&he Court )elieves that the oregoing evidence #ould support pri$a acie a co$plaint or the cri$e o rustrated

$urder and, as stated, prevents it ro$ rendering udg$ent in this case. It cannot even rule that the parties have

#aived the /uestion o urisdiction having proceeded #ith the trial o the case up to its ter$ination as this #ould )e

legall erroneous.

&he proceedings in the case, ho#ever, $a not )e considered to have )een rendered useless )ecause ) it $ore than

) a $ere preli$inar investigation, the court has arrived at a )etter supported *nding that the proper co$plaint

should have )een or rustrated $urder> that the cri$e o rustrated $urder has )een co$$itted and that there is

reason to )elieve that the accused dgardo Ca)allas $ight have )een the one #ho had co$$itted the sa$e.

IE GI !F ALL &" F!:!IE:, this case is here) dis$issed to give #a to the *ling o a co$plaint or rustrated

$urder. ince the proceedings ro$ the preli$inar e+a$ination up to the conclusion o the trial hereo has a$ounted

to a co$pliance #ith the re/uire$ents o a preli$inar investigation *rst and second stage, let the records hereo )e

or#arded to the Court o First Instance at Calauag, MueHon, under the urisdiction o #hich court the case or

rustrated $urder pertains, through the oce o the 8rovincial Fiscal so that the latter $a act on this case and *le the

corresponding co$plaint as a)ove-reco$$ended. 7

In co$pliance #ith the oregoing !rder, the 8rovincial Fiscal o MueHon on 2une 3, 197 *led #ith the respondent Court,

the Court o First Instance o MueHon, ?ranch IG, an Inor$ation or rustrated $urder against the sa$e accused

dgardo Ca)allas, #hich alleges0

&hat on or a)out the 1st da o %ece$)er, 1971, in the (unicipalit o LopeH, 8rovince o MueHon, 8hilippines, and

#ithin the urisdiction o this "onora)le Court, the said accused, dgardo Ca)allas, ar$ed #ith a 'nie, #ith intent to

'ill and #ith evident pre$editation and treacher, did then and there #ilull, unla#ull and eloniousl attac', assault

and sta) #ith the said 'nie one E&! AE%!GAL, there) in@icting upon the latter the ollo#ing inuries, to #it0

1. ound, sta))ed, 1 c$. long, penetrating and perorating a)do$inal cavit, 1 c$. to right side o the +phoid

process, non-involve$ent o the internal organs.

. ound, sta))ed, c$. long, penetrating and perorating posterior a)do$inal #all, cutting the ter$inal portion othe 1;th ri), along the posterior a+illar line, let.

thus peror$ing all the acts o e+ecution #hich should have produced the cri$e o $urder as a conse/uence, )ut

#hich nevertheless did not produce it ) reason o causes independent o his #ill, that is, ) the ti$el and a)le

$edical attendance rendered to said rnesto andoval #hich prevented his death. #

!n !cto)er , 197, the accused $oved to /uash the a)ove-/uoted Inor$ation on the ground o dou)le eopard.

&he (otion #as granted ) respondent Court ruling that the Inor$ation or Frustrated (urder is essentiall )arred )

the rules on dou)le eopard as de*ned in ule 117, ection 9 o the evised ules o Court, or the reason that0

... accused dgardo Ca)allas had )een placed in ull eopard or the cri$e o erious 8hsical Inuries under the

Co$plaint $ar'ed as +hi)it 1 previousl *led )eore the (unicipal Court o LopeH, MueHon #hich #as dis$issed and

other#ise ter$inated ) the 8residing 2udge o said Court ater the accused had actuall )een arraigned and ater the

evidence ) the prosecution and the deense have all )een su)$itted to the Court and at a ti$e #hen the parties

have su)$itted the case or decision. uch )eing the case a ne# prosecution o the accused dgardo Ca)allas under

the present inor$ation or Frustrated (urder #hich necessaril includes the cri$e o erious 8hsical Inuries as held

) the upre$e Court in a long line o decisions, #ould inevita)l place the accused dgardo Ca)allas in second

eopard or an ofense or #hich he had )een previousl eopardiHed. 9

&he oregoing !rder is no# sought to )e revie#ed ) the instant 8etition *led ) the !ce o the olicitor :eneral.

&he sole issue raised is #hether or not the dis$issal ) the (unicipal Court o LopeH, MueHon, o the co$plaint or

serious phsical inuries against the accused dgardo Ca)allas is a dis$issal #hich )ars the *ling o the inor$ation or

rustrated $urder in the Court o First Instance against the sa$e accused on the ground o dou)le eopard.

&he principle, ounded upon reason, ustice and conscience, that memo de'et 'is puniri pro uno delicto is e$)odied in

the 8hilippine Constitution as one o the )asic rights o the citiHens. 10 It is ordained in the ?ill o ights, Article IG, o

the 197 Constitution that0


38/49

ec. . Eo person shall )e t#ice put in eopard o punish$ent or the sa$e ofense. I an act is punished ) a la#

and an ordinance, coniction or ac!uittal under either shall constitute a )ar to another prosecution or the sa$e act.

5$phasis supplied.6

&he sa$e provision is ound in Article III, ection 1 5;6 o the Constitution o 19. &his constitutional $andate is

restated in ule 117 o the evised ules o Court, thus0

ec. 9. Former coniction or ac!uittal or former 1eopard2 . K hen a deendant shall have )eenconicted or ac!uitted$

or the case against him dismissed or other)ise terminated )ithout the express consent of the defendant ) a court o

co$petent urisdiction, upon a valid co$plaint or inor$ation or other or$al charge sucient in or$ and su)stance

to sustain a conviction, and ater the deendant had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or ac/uittal o the deendant

or the dis$issal o the case shall )e a )ar to another prosecution or the ofense charged, or or an atte$pt to co$$it

the sa$e or rustration thereo, or or an ofense #hich necessaril includes or is necessaril included in the ofense

charged in the or$er co$plaint or inor$ation. 5$phasis supplied.6

Co$$enting on the dou)le eopard protection e$)odied in the ules o Court, Chie 2ustice nri/ue (. Fernando, in

his )oo' &he ?ill o ights, $a'es the ollo#ing signi*cant co$$entar and e /uote0 It is to )e noted that the

ules o Court in providing or a $otion to /uash, did e+tend urther the reach o the dou)le eopard protection. I the

literal language o the constitutional provision #ere ollo#ed, either a previous ac/uittal or conviction is necessar

)eore such a plea #ould lie. As alread noted, the ules adopted an e+pensive vie# #ith the $ention o the

ter$ination or dis$issal o the prosecution #ithout the e+press consent o the deendant, a stage short o either

ac/uittal or conviction. In speciing the grounds o a $otion to /uash, it #as e+plicitl set orth therein that even prior

to such a disposition o the case as a)ove indicated, once eopard has attached, a $otion to /uash #ould lie.11

In the $ind o the Court, the resolution o the instant 8etition depends on the correct and proper interpretation and

application o the phrase dis$issed or other#ise ter$inated #ithout the e+press consent o the deendant in ection

9, ule 117, ules o Court.

&he olicitor :eneral, in his (e$orandu$ or the 8etitioner, contends that the aore$entioned provision conte$plates

a dis$issal #hich *nall ter$inates and de*nitel disposes o a case, not a provisional or conditional dis$issal such as

that order ) the (unicipal Court in the case at )ar. &he :overn$ent counsel argues that #hile the (unicipal Court

dis$issed the co$plaint or serious phsical inuries, the ver !rder o dis$issal sho#s that it #as to )e #ithout

preudice, to give #a to the *ling o a co$plaint or rustrated $urder in the Court o First Instance. uch a

dis$issal, it is su)$itted, is not #ithin the purvie# o the dou)le eopard provision hereina)ove cited. &he olicitor

:eneral concludes that the !rder o the Court o First Instance in /uestion granting the (otion to /uash *led ) the

deense is erroneous, invalid, and a nullit, or it deprived the tate o its da in court and its dut to prosecute the

accused dgardo Ca)allas. 12

!n the other hand, the thrust o private respondent &epu'lic s.

Agoncillo$ et al., L-77, August 1, 1971, 4; CA 79, D7> and %eople s. 6on. Surtida$ et al.$ L-44;, 2anuar 3,

197, 4 CA 9, 7. (oreover, as stated in the aore$entioned case o &epu'lic s. Agoncillo$ et al.5supra$ p. DD60

... the authoritative pronounce$ent in the ... case o 8eople vs. !)sania

5L-4447, 2une 9, 193D, CA 1496, #ith 2ustice Castro as ponente, had $ade clear )eond dou)t that or

dis$issal to )e a )ar under the eopard clause o the Constitution, it $ust have the efect o an ac/uittal &hus0 &he


39/49

appealed order o dis$issal in this case no# under consideration did not ter$inate the action on the $erits, #hereas

in Clori)el and in the other related cases the dis$issal a$ounted to an ac/uittal )ecause the ailure to prosecute

presupposed that the :overn$ent did not have a case against the accused, #ho in the *rst place, is presu$ed

innocent.

&here can )e no /uestion, as indeed it is /uite clear, that in the case at )ar, the !rder o dis$issal issued ) the

(unicipal Court did not actuall ter$inate or put an end to the prosecution against herein private respondent or the

elonious act he #as alleged to have co$$itted. !n the contrar, the dispositive portion o said !rder e+pressl

directed that the records o the case )e or#arded to the Court o Fi

Documents

ConstiII8 Otadora Recuerdo