[G.R. NO.

162808 : April 22, 2008] Region XIII, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG);7 and a
criminal case, docketed as OMB-P-C-02-0109-B for Arbitrary Detention,
FELICIANO GALVANTE, Petitioner, v. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Deputy Illegal Search and Grave Threats, before the Ombudsman.8
Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices,
BIENVENIDO C. BLANCAFLOR, Director, DENNIS L. GARCIA, Graft In the June 21, 2001 Affidavit-Complaint he filed in both cases, petitioner
Investigation and Prosecution Officer, SPO4 RAMIL AVENIDO, PO1 EDDIE narrated how, on May 14, 2001, private respondents aimed their long
DEGRAN, PO1 VALENTINO RUFANO, and PO1 FEDERICO firearms at him, arbitrarily searched his vehicle and put him in detention,
BALOLOT, Respondents. thus:
DECISION 1. That sometime on May 14, 2001 I left my house at around 1:00 o'clock in
the afternoon after having lunch for Sitio Cahi-an, Brgy. Kapatungan, Trento,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Agusan del Sur to meet retired police Percival Plaza and inquire about the
Assailed herein by Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the retirement procedure for policemen;
Rules of Court are the October 30, 2003 Resolution1 of the Office of the 2. That upon arrival at the house of retired police Percival Plaza, together with
Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices - Lorenzo Sanoria, Delfin Ramirez and Pedro Ramas who asked for a ride from
Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) which dismissed for lack of probable
the highway in going to Sitio Cahi-an, I immediately went down of the jeep
cause the criminal complaint, docketed as OMB-P-C-02-0109-B, filed by
but before I could call Mr. Plaza, four policemen in uniform blocked my way;
Feliciano Galvante2 (petitioner) against SPO4 Benjamin Conde, PO1 Ramil
Avenido, PO1 Eddie Degran, PO1 Valentino Rufano, and PO1 Federico Balolot 3. That the four policemen were [private respondents] PO1 Romil Avenido
(private respondents) for arbitrary detention, illegal search and grave threats; PNP, PO1 Valentino Rufano, PNP both member of 142nd Company, Regional
and the January 20, 2004 Ombudsman Order3which denied his motion for Mobile Group and PO1 Eddie Degran PNP and PO1 Federico Balolot PNP
reconsideration. members of 1403 Prov'l Mobile Group, all of Bunawan Brook, Bunawan,
Agusan del Sur; who all pointed their long firearms ready to fire [at] me,
The facts are of record. having heard the sound of the release of the safety lock;
In the afternoon of May 14, 2001 at Sitio Cahi-an, Kapatungan, Trento, 4. That raising my arms, I heard [private respondent] PO1 Avenido saying,
Agusan del Sur, private respondents confiscated from petitioner one colt "ANG IMONG PUSIL, IHATAG" which means "Give me your firearm," to which
pistol super .38 automatic with serial no. 67973, one short magazine, and I answered, "WALA MAN KO'Y PUSIL" translated as "I have no firearm,"
nine super .38 live ammunitions.4 The confiscated materials were covered by showing my waistline when I raised my T-shirt;
an expired Memorandum Receipt dated September 2, 1999.5
5. That my other companions on the jeep also went down and raised their
Consequently, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed against petitioner an arms and showed their waistline when the same policemen and a person in
Information6 for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Relation civilian attire holding an armalite also pointed their firearms to them to which
to Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 3258, docketed as Mr. Percival Plaza who came down from his house told them not to harass
Criminal Case No. 5047, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Prosperidad, me as I am also a former police officer but they did not heed Mr. Plaza's
Agusan del Sur. statements;
Pending resolution of Criminal Case No. 5047, petitioner filed against private 6. That while we were raising our arms [private respondent] SPO4 Benjamin
respondents an administrative case, docketed as Administrative Case No. Conde, Jr. went near my owner type jeep and conducted a search. To which I
IASOB-020007 for Grave Misconduct, before the Internal Affairs Service (IAS), asked them if they have any search warrant;
1
7. That after a while they saw my super .38 pistol under the floormat of my petitioner as the latter, in plain view, was committing a violation of Comelec
jeep and asked me of the MR of the firearm but due to fear that their long Resolutions No. 3258 and No. 3328 by carrying a firearm in his person.
arms were still pointed to us, I searched my wallet and gave the asked [sic]
document; Private respondents Avenido, Degran, Rufano and Balolot filed their Joint-
Affidavit dated March 25, 2002, which contradicts the statements of private
8. That immediately the policemen left me and my companions without respondent Conde, viz:
saying anything bringing with them the firearm;
1. that we executed a joint counter-affidavit dated August 28, 2001 where we
9. That at about 2:30 p.m., I left Mr. Percival's house and went to Trento stated among other things, that "we saw Feleciano "Nani" Galvante armed
Police Station where I saw a person in civilian attire with a revolver tucked on with a handgun/pistol tucked on his waist;"
his waist, to which I asked the police officers including those who searched
my jeep to apprehend him also; 2. that this statement is not accurate because the truth of the matter is that
the said handgun was taken by SPO4 BENJAMIN CONDE, JR., who was acting
10. That nobody among the policemen at the station made a move to as our team leader during the May 14, 2001 Elections, from the jeep of Mr.
apprehend the armed civilian person so I went to the office of Police Chief Galvante after searching the same; andcralawlibrary
Rocacorba who immediately called the armed civilian to his office and when
3. that we noticed the aforementioned discrepancy in our affidavit dated
already inside his office, the disarming was done;
August 28, 2001 after we have already affixed our signatures thereon.13
11. That after the disarming of the civilian I was put to jail with the said person
by Police Chief Rocacorba and was released only at 4:00 o'clock in the Consequently, petitioner filed an Affidavit of Desistance dated March 25,
afternoon of May 16, 2001 after posting a bailbond; 2002 with both the IAS and Ombudsman, absolving private respondents
Avenido, Degran, Rufano and Balolot, but maintaining that private
12. That I caused the execution of this document for the purpose of filing respondent Conde alone be prosecuted in both administrative and criminal
cases of Illegal Search, Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority against cases.14
SPO4 Benjamin Conde, Jr., of Trento Police Station; PO1 Ramil Avenido, PO1
Velantino Rufano, PO1 Federico Balolot and PO1 Eddie Degran.9 On July 17, 2002, the IAS issued a Decision in Administrative Case No. IASOB-
020007, finding all private respondents guilty of grave misconduct but
Petitioner also submitted the Joint Affidavit10 of his witnesses, Lorenzo penalized them with suspension only. The IAS noted however that private
Sanoria and Percival Plaza. respondents were merely being "[enthusiastic] in the conduct of the arrest in
line of duty." 15
Private respondent Conde filed a Counter-Affidavit dated March 20, 2002,
where he interposed the following defenses: Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. 5047, petitioner filed with the RTC a Motion
for Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of or
First, he had nothing to do with the detention of petitioner as it was Chief of Recall the Warrant of Arrest.16 The RTC granted the same in an Order17 dated
Police/Officer-in-Charge Police Inspector Dioscoro Mehos Rocacorba who August 17, 2001. Upon reinvestigation, Prosecutor II Eliseo Diaz, Jr. filed a
ordered the detention. Petitioner himself admitted this fact in his own "Reinvestigation with Motion to Dismiss" dated November 22, 2001,
Complaint-Affidavit;11 and recommending the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 5047 on the ground that
Second, he denies searching petitioner's vehicle,12 but admits that even "the action of the policemen who conducted the warrantless search in spite
though he was not armed with a warrant, he searched the person of of the absence of any circumstances justifying the same intruded into the
privacy of the accused and the security of his property."18 Officer-in-Charge
Prosecutor II Victoriano Pag-ong approved said recommendation.19
2
The RTC granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss in an Order20 dated I. Public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and/or
January 16, 2003. with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when, in their Resolution dated October 30, 2003, public respondents found
Apparently unaware of what transpired in Criminal Case No. 5047, that the incident upon which petitioner's criminal complaint was based
Ombudsman Investigation & Prosecution Officer Dennis L. Garcia issued in stemmed from a valid warrantless arrest and dismissed petitioner's
OMB-P-C-02-0109-B, the October 30, 2003 Resolution, to wit: complaint despite the fact that:
After a careful evaluation, the undersigned prosecutor finds no probable A. Petitioner has clearly shown that the search conducted by the private
cause for any of the offenses charged against above-named respondents. respondents was made without a valid warrant, nor does it fall under any of
The allegations of the complainant failed to establish the factual basis of the the instances of valid warrantless searches.
complaint, it appearing from the records that the incident stemmed from a B. Notwithstanding the absence of a valid warrant, petitioner was arrested
valid warrantless arrest. The subsequent execution of an affidavit of and detained by the private respondents.
desistance by the complainant rendered the complaint even more uncertain
and subject to doubt, especially so since it merely exculpated some but not II. Public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and/or
all of the respondents. These circumstances, coupled with the presumption with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
of regularity in the performance of duty, negates any criminal liability on the when, in their Order dated January 20, 2004, public respondents denied the
part of the respondents. petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a capricious, whimsical, despotic
and arbitrary manner.26
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby recommended that the
above-captioned case be dismissed for lack of probable cause.21 (Emphasis In its Memorandum,27 the Office of the Solicitor General argued that public
supplied)cralawlibrary respondents acted within the bounds of their discretion in dismissing OMB-
P-C-02-0109-B given that private respondents committed no crime in
Upon the recommendation of Director Bienvenido C. Blancaflor, Deputy searching petitioner and confiscating his firearm as the former were merely
Ombudsman for the Military Orlando C. Casimiro (Deputy Ombudsman) performing their duty of enforcing the law against illegal possession of
approved the October 30, 2003 Resolution.22 firearms and the Comelec ban against the carrying of firearms outside of
In his Motion for Reconsideration,23 petitioner called the attention of the one's residence.
Ombudsman to the earlier IAS Decision, the Reinvestigation with Motion to Private respondent Conde filed a Comment28 and a Memorandum for
Dismiss of Prosecutor II Eliseo Diaz, Jr. and the RTC Order, all of which himself.29 Private respondents Avenido, Degran, Rufano and Balolot filed
declared the warrantless search conducted by private respondents their separate Letter-Comment dated June 25, 2004.30
illegal,24 which are contradicted by the October 30, 2003 Ombudsman
Resolution declaring the warrantless search legal. The petition lacks merit.
The Ombudsman denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on the The Constitution vests in the Ombudsman the power to determine whether
ground that the latter offered "no new evidence or errors of law which would there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed
warrant the reversal or modification"25 of its October 30, 2003 Resolution. and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the
corresponding information with the appropriate courts.31 The Court respects
Petitioner filed the present petition, attributing to Deputy Ombudsman the relative autonomy of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute, and
Casimiro, Director Blancaflor and Prosecutor Garcia (public respondents) the refrains from interfering when the latter exercises such powers either directly
following acts of grave abuse of discretion:
3
or through the Deputy Ombudsman,32 except when the same is shown to be To avail of such remedies, petitioner may file against private respondents a complaint
tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 33 for damages with the regular courts38 or an administrative case with the
Grave abuse of discretion is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to PNP/DILG,39 as petitioner did in Administrative Case No. IASOB-020007, and not a
perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when judgment criminal action with the Ombudsman.
rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and Public respondents' dismissal of the criminal complaint for illegal search which
despotism.34 This does not obtain in the present case. petitioner filed with the Ombudsman against private respondents was therefore
It is noted that the criminal complaint which petitioner filed with the Ombudsman proper, although the reasons public respondents cited for dismissing the complaint
charges private respondents with warrantless search, arbitrary detention, and grave are rather off the mark because they relied solely on the finding that the warrantless
threats. search conducted by private respondents was valid and that the Affidavit of
The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a Desistance which petitioner executed cast doubt on the veracity of his
warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal complaint.40 Public respondents completely overlooked the fact that the criminal
Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the RPC punishes are only two forms of complaint was not cognizable by the Ombudsman as illegal search is not a criminal
searches: offense. Nevertheless, the result achieved is the same: the dismissal of a groundless
Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those criminal complaint for illegal search which is not an offense under the RPC. Thus, the
legally obtained. - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the Court need not resolve the issue of whether or not public respondents erred in their
commission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period finding on the validity of the search for that issue is completely hypothetical under
to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000.00 the circumstance.
pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a The criminal complaint for abitrary detention was likewise properly dismissed by
search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed public respondents. To sustain a criminal charge for arbitrary detention, it must be
his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same. shown that (a) the offender is a public officer or employee, (b) the offender detained
Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty ofarresto mayor in its the complainant, and (c) the detention is without legal grounds.41 The second
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee element was not alleged by petitioner in his Affidavit-Complaint. As pointed out by
who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other private respondent Conde in his Comment42 and Memorandum,43 petitioner himself
belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or identified in his Affidavit-Complaint that it was Police Chief Rocacorba who caused
in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality. his detention. Nowhere in said affidavit did petitioner allege that private respondents
Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies in his Affidavit- effected his detention, or were in any other way involved in it.44 There was,
Complaint; rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a search on his therefore, no factual or legal basis to sustain the criminal charge for arbitrary
vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is detention against private respondents.
not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC. Finally, on the criminal complaint for grave threats, the Solicitor General aptly
The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle is pointed out that the same is based merely on petitioner's bare allegation that private
civil,35 under Article 32, in relation to Article 221936 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code, respondents aimed their firearms at him.45 Such bare allegation stands no chance
which provides: against the well-entrenched rule applicable in this case, that public officers enjoy a
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or presumption of regularity in the performance of their official function.46 The IAS itself
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the observed that private respondents may have been carried away by their "enthusiasm
following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty."47 Petitioner expressed the same view
damages: when, in his Affidavit of Desistance, he accepted that private respondents may have
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against been merely following orders when they pointed their long firearms at him.
unreasonable searches and seizures; All said, public respondents did not act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be the criminal complaint against private respondents.
adjudicated. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
and/or disciplinary and administrative, under Section 41 of Republic Act No. 6975. 37 No costs.
SO ORDERED.
4
G.R. No. 179080 November 26, 2014 Baleriano Limbag (Baleriano) testified that the crime happened around 10:00
o’clock in the evening of May 14, 1989 inside the house which he already
EDIGARDO GEROCHE, ROBERTO GARDE and GENEROSO MARFIL alias bought from Roberto Mallo. He roused from sleep when petitioners, who
"TAPOL", Petitioners, were not armed with search warrant, suddenly entered the house by
vs. destroying the main door. The petitioners mauled him, striking with a garand
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. rifle, which caused his injuries. They looked for firearms but instead found
DECISION and took away his airgun. Roberto Limbag, Baleriano’s nephew who was
living with him, witnessed the whole incident and corroborated his
PERALTA, J.: testimony.
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated November 18, 2005 and Aside from presenting SPO4 Felomino Calfoforo, the Subpoena and Warrant
Resolution2 dated June 19, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in G.R. CR No. Officer of President Roxas Police Station who testified on the police blotter,
26418, which set aside the November 15, 2001 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Dr. Antonio Cabrera also took the witness stand for the prosecution.
Court (RTC), Branch 17, Kidapawan City, Cotabato. Essentially, he affirmed the medical certificate that he issued. His findings
Petitioners Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde and Generoso Marfil alias indicated that Baleriano suffered hematoma on the left side of the nose, back
"Tapol" were charged with the crime of Violation of Domicile under Article portion of the body at the level of the hip region, and back portion at the right
128 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).4 The Information dated May 3, 1990 side of the scapular region as well as abrasion on the right side of the breast
reads: and left side of the body at the axilliary region.7 Dr. Cabrera opined that the
injuries inflicted would heal from seven to ten days.8 For the defense,
The undersigned accuses EDIGARDO GEROCHE, ROBERTO GARDE AND petitioners denied the crime charged, declaring in unison that they were in
GENEROSO MARFIL Alias "TAPOL" of the crime of Violation of Domicile, their respective houses the entire evening of May 14, 1989. They alleged,
committed as follows: however, that the night before, on May 13, 1989, they conducted a roving
footpatrol, together with other barangay officials, due to the rampant cattle
That at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of May 14, 1989, at Sitio New
rustling in the area. At the time, they recovered a stolen carabao owned by a
Lantawan, Barangay Greenhills, Municipality of President Roxas, Province of
certain Francisco Pongasi9 from three unidentified persons who managed to
Cotabato, Philippines, the above-named accused EDIGARDO GEROCHE, being
escape.
a Barangay Captain and the rest being CAFGUs, hence, persons inauthority,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with On November 15, 2001, the trial court found petitioners guilty beyond
garand rifles, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without reasonable doubt of the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries under the
proper judicial order, entered the house of ROBERTO MALLO by forcibly Article 265 of the RPC. They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of
breaking the door of said house against the will of the occupants thereof, imprisonment of arresto mayor maximum, that is, four (4) months and one
search the effects of the house without the previous consent of the owner (1) day to six (6) months. According to the RTC, the prosecution failed to
and then mauled one of the occupant BARILIANO LIMBAG inflicting injuries prove that petitioners are public officers, which is an essential element of
to the latter. Article 128 of the RPC. It held:
CONTRARY TO LAW.5 The prosecution who has that onus probandifailed to prove one of the
essential elements of the crime; on the issue of whether or not all the accused
During the arraignment on November5, 1990, all the petitioners pleaded not
were public officers; while it is true that accused were named CVO’s and the
guilty.6 Thereafter, trial ensued.
other as a barangay captain and that even if the same were admitted by them
5
during their testimony in open court, such an admission is not enough to An appeal in a criminal case opensthe entire case for review on any question
prove that they were public officers; it is for the prosecution to prove by clear including one not raised by the parties.12 When an accused appeals from the
and convincing evidence other than that of the testimony of witnesses that sentence of the trial court,he or she waives the constitutional safeguard
they werein fact public officers; there exist a doubt of whether or not all the against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the
accused were in fact and in truth public officers; doubts should be ruled in appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law
favorof the accused; that on this lone and essential element the crime and justice dictate.13 An appeal confers upon the appellate court jurisdiction
charged as violation of domicile is ruled out; that degree of moral certainty to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase (or
of the crime charged was not established and proved by convincing evidence reduce) the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.14 The
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; x x x.10 Petitioners elevated the case to the appellate court may, and generally does,look into the entire records to
CA, which, on November 18, 2005, set aside the trial court’s judgment. While ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been overlooked,
it agreed with both parties that petitioners should not be convictedfor Less misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.15
Serious Physical Injuries, the CA still ruled that they are guilty of Violation of
Domicile considering their judicial admissions that they were barangay Thus, when petitioners appealed the trial court’s judgment of conviction for
Less Serious Physical Injuries, they are deemed to have abandoned their right
captain (in the case of Geroche) and part of the Citizen Armed Forces
to invoke the prohibition on doublejeopardy since it becomes the duty of the
Geographical Unit (in the case of Garde and Marfil). The dispositive portion
of the assailed Decision states: appellate court to correct errors as may be found in the assailed judgment.
Petitioners could not have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA set
WHEREFORE, pursuant to applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter and aside the ruling of the RTC by finding them guilty of Violation of Domicile as
the evidence on hand, the appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE and a new charged in the Information instead of Less Serious Physical Injuries.
one entered finding the accused-petitioners GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Violation of Domicile under Article 128 of the Revised The Court adopts the findings of factand conclusions of law of the CA. In their
testimony before the open court as well as in the pleadings they filed, neither
Penal Code and sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty of Four (4)
Months, One (1) Day of arresto mayor maximum to Six (6) Months and One Geroche denied that hewas a barangay captain nor Garde and Marfil refuted
(1) Day of prision [correccional] minimum with the accessory penalty of that they were CAFGU members. In holding such positions, they are
suspension from public office and from the right to follow a professionor considered as public officers/employees.16
calling pursuant to Article 43 of the Revised Penal Code. As to the penalty imposed by the CA, however, We modify the same. Under
SO ORDERED.11 Article 128 of the RPC, the penalty shall be prision correccionalin its medium
and maximum periods (two [2] years, four [4] months and one [1] day to six
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this petition. They [6] years) if Violation of Domicile be committed at nighttime or if any papers
argue that there is double jeopardy since the trial court already acquitted or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately
them of Violation of Domicile and such judgment, being now final and after the search made by the offender. In this case, petitioners barged in the
executory, is res judicata. Petitioners insist that their appeal before the CA is house of Baleriano while they were sleeping at night and, in addition, they
limited to their conviction for the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries, took away with them his airgun.
focusing their arguments and defense for acquittal from said crime, and that
the CA violated their constitutional right to due process when it convicted In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the RPC, the
them for Violation of Domicile. Indeterminate Sentence Law17 requires courts to impose upon the accused
an indeterminate sentence. The maximum term of the prison sentence shall
We deny. be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly

6
imposed under the rules of the said Code.1âwphi1 Yet the penalty prescribed SO ORDERED.
by Article 128 of the RPC is composed of only two, not three, periods. In which
case, Article 65 of the same Code requires the division into three equal
portions the time included in the penalty, forming one period of each of the
three portions. Applying the provision, the minimum, medium and maximum
periods of the penalty prescribed by Article 128 are:
Minimum – 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days
Medium – 3 years, 6 months and 21 days to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days
Maximum – 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years
Thus, applying in this case, the maximum term should be within the medium
period or from 3 years, 6 months and 21 days to 4 years, 9 months and 10
days, in light of the provisions of Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code that if
there are no other mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending the
commission of the crime, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period.
On the other hand, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty
next lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the crime. The penalty next lower
to that prescribed by Article 128 is arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period (or 4 months and 1 day to 2 years
and 4 months).
The foregoing considered, in view of the attending circumstances in this case,
the Court hereby sentences the petitioners to suffer the indeterminate
penalty from two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to four ( 4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of prision
correccional, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated November 18, 2005 and
Resolution dated June 19, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR No.
26418 finding petitioners Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde and Generoso
Marfil alias "Tapol" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Domicile,
penalized under Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code, with the
MODIFICATION that the penalty that should be imposed is an indeterminate
sentence from two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of prision
correccional, as maximum.

7
G.R. No. 164007 August 10, 2006 such as the graft and corruption in the military, the illegal sale of arms and
ammunition to the "enemies" of the State, and the bombings in Davao City
LT. (SG) EUGENE GONZALES, LT. (SG) ANDY TORRATO, LT. (SG) ANTONIO intended to acquire more military assistance from the US government. They
TRILLANES IV, CPT. GARY ALEJANO, LT. (SG) JAMES LAYUG, CPT. GERARDO declared their withdrawal of support from their Commander-in-Chief and
GAMBALA, CPT. NICANOR FAELDON, LT. (SG) MANUEL CABOCHAN, ENS. demanded that she resign as President of the Republic. They also called for
ARMAND PONTEJOS, LT. (JG) ARTURO PASCUA, and 1LT. JONNEL the resignation of her cabinet members and the top brass of the AFP and PNP.
SANGGALANG, Petitioners,
vs. About noontime of the same day, President Arroyo issued Proclamation No.
GEN. NARCISO ABAYA, in his capacity as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces 427 declaring a state of rebellion, followed by General Order No. 4 directing
of the Philippines, and B. GEN. MARIANO M. SARMIENTO, JR., in his the AFP and PNP to take all necessary measures to suppress the rebellion
capacity as the Judge Advocate General of the Judge Advocate General’s then taking place in Makati City. She then called the soldiers to surrender
Office (JAGO), Respondents. their weapons at five o’clock in the afternoon of that same day.
DECISION In order to avoid a bloody confrontation, the government sent negotiators to
dialogue with the soldiers. The aim was to persuade them to peacefully
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: return to the fold of the law. After several hours of negotiation, the
For our resolution is the Petition for Prohibition (with prayer for a temporary government panel succeeded in convincing them to lay down their arms and
restraining order) filed by the above-named members of the Armed Forces of defuse the explosives placed around the premises of the Oakwood
the Philippines (AFP), herein petitioners, against the AFP Chief of Staff and Apartments. Eventually, they returned to their barracks.
the Judge Advocate General, respondents. A total of 321 soldiers, including petitioners herein, surrendered to the
The facts are: authorities.

On July 26, 2003, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo received intelligence The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) investigated the incident and
reports that some members of the AFP, with high-powered weapons, had recommended that the military personnel involved be charged with coup
abandoned their designated places of assignment. Their aim was to d’etat defined and penalized under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code,
destabilize the government. The President then directed the AFP and the as amended. On July 31, 2003, the Chief State Prosecutor of the Department
Philippine National Police (PNP) to track and arrest them. of Justice (DOJ) recommended the filing of the corresponding Information
against them.
On July 27, 2003 at around 1:00 a.m., more than 300 heavily armed junior
officers and enlisted men of the AFP – mostly from the elite units of the Meanwhile, on August 2, 2003, pursuant to Article 70 of the Articles of War,
Army’s Scout Rangers and the Navy’s Special Warfare Group – entered the respondent General Narciso Abaya, then AFP Chief of Staff, ordered the
premises of the Oakwood Premier Luxury Apartments on Ayala Avenue, arrest and detention of the soldiers involved in the Oakwood incident and
Makati City. They disarmed the security guards and planted explosive devices directed the AFP to conduct its own separate investigation.
around the building. On August 5, 2003, the DOJ filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati
Led by Navy Lt. (SG) Antonio Trillanes IV, the troops sported red armbands City an Information for coup d’etat 2against those soldiers, docketed as
emblazoned with the emblem of the "Magdalo" faction of Criminal Case No. 03-2784 and eventually raffled off to Branch 61, presided
the Katipunan. 1 The troops then, through broadcast media, announced their by Judge Romeo F. Barza. 3 Subsequently, this case was consolidated with
grievances against the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo,
8
Criminal Case No. 03-2678, involving the other accused, pending before recommending that, following the "doctrine of absorption," those charged
Branch 148 of the RTC, Makati City, presided by Judge Oscar B. Pimentel. with coup d’etatbefore the RTCshould not be charged before the military
tribunal for violation of the Articles of War.
On August 13, 2003, the RTC directed the DOJ to conduct a reinvestigation of
Criminal Case No. 03-2784. For its part, the RTC, on February 11, 2004, issued an Order 8 stating that "all
charges before the court martial against the accused…are hereby declared
On the same date, respondent Chief of Staff issued Letter Order No. 625 not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance of the alleged
creating a Pre-Trial Investigation Panel tasked to determine the propriety of crime of coup d’etat." The trial court then proceeded to hear petitioners’
filing with the military tribunal charges for violations of the Articles of War applications for bail.
under Commonwealth Act No. 408, 4 as amended, against the same military
personnel. Specifically, the charges are: (a) violation of Article 63 for In the meantime, Colonel Julius A. Magno, in his capacity as officer-in-charge
disrespect toward the President, the Secretary of National Defense, etc., (b) of the JAGO, reviewed the findings of the Pre-Trial Investigation Panel. He
violation of Article 64 for disrespect toward a superior officer, (c) violation of recommended that 29 of the officers involved in the Oakwood incident,
Article 67 for mutiny or sedition, (d) violation of Article 96 for conduct including petitioners, be prosecuted before a general court martial for
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and (e) violation of Article 97 for violation of Article 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of
conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. the Articles of War.
Of the original 321 accused in Criminal Case No. 03-2784, only 243 (including On June 17, 2004, Colonel Magno’s recommendation was approved by the
petitioners herein) filed with the RTC, Branch 148 an Omnibus Motion praying AFP top brass. The AFP Judge Advocate General then directed petitioners to
that the said trial court assume jurisdiction over all the charges filed with the submit their answer to the charge. Instead of complying, they filed with this
military tribunal. They invoked Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7055. 5 Court the instant Petition for Prohibition praying that respondents be
ordered to desist from charging them with violation of Article 96 of the
On September 15, 2003, petitioners filed with the Judge Advocate General’s Articles of War in relation to the Oakwood incident. 9
Office (JAGO) a motion praying for the suspension of its proceedings until
after the RTC shall have resolved their motion to assume jurisdiction. Petitioners maintain that since the RTC has made a determination in its Order
of February 11, 2004 that the offense for violation of Article 96 (conduct
On October 29, 2003, the Pre-Trial Investigation Panel submitted its Initial unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of War is not service-
Report to the AFP Chief of Staff recommending that the military personnel connected, but is absorbed in the crime of coup d’etat, the military tribunal
involved in the Oakwood incident be charged before a general court martial cannot compel them to submit to its jurisdiction.
with violations of Articles 63, 64, 67, 96, and 97 of the Articles of War.
The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, counters that R.A. No.
Meanwhile, on November 11, 2003, the DOJ, after conducting a 7055 specifies which offenses covered by the Articles of War areservice-
reinvestigation, found probable cause against only 31 (petitioners included) connected. These are violations of Articles 54 to 70, 72 to 92, and 95 to 97.
of the 321 accused in Criminal Case No. 03-2784. Accordingly, the prosecution The law provides that violations of these Articles are properly cognizable by
filed with the RTC an Amended Information. 6 the court martial. As the charge against petitioners is violation of Article 96
In an Order dated November 14, 2003, the RTC admitted the Amended which, under R.A. No. 7055 is a service-connected offense, then it falls under
Information and dropped the charge of coup d’etat against the 290 accused. the jurisdiction of the court martial.

Subsequently, or on December 12, 2003, the Pre-Trial Investigation Panel Subsequently, petitioners filed with this Court a Supplemental Petition raising
submitted its Final Pre-Trial Investigation Report 7 to the JAGO, the additional issue that the offense charged before the General Court
9
Martial has prescribed. Petitioners alleged therein that during the pendency subject to military law" or "persons subject to military law," whenever used
of their original petition, respondents proceeded with the Pre-Trial in these articles:
Investigation for purposes of charging them with violation of Article 96
(conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of War; that (a) All officers and soldiers in the active service of the Armed Forces of the
the Pre-Trial Investigation Panel then referred the case to the General Court Philippines or of the Philippine Constabulary, all members of the reserve
Martial; that "almost two years since the Oakwood incident on July 27, 2003, force, from the dates of their call to active duty and while on such active duty;
only petitioner Lt. (SG) Antonio Trillanes was arraigned, and this was done all trainees undergoing military instructions; and all other persons lawfully
under questionable circumstances;" 10 that in the hearing of July 26, 2005, called, drafted, or ordered into, or to duty or for training in the said service,
herein petitioners moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that from the dates they are required by the terms of the call, draft, or order to
they were not arraigned within the prescribed period of two (2) years from obey the same.
the date of the commission of the alleged offense, in violation of Article 38 of Upon the other hand, Section 1 of R.A. No. 7055 reads:
the Articles of War; 11 that "the offense charged prescribed on July 25,
2005;" 12 that the General Court Martial ruled, however, that "the SEC. 1. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other persons
prescriptive period shall end only at 12:00 midnight of July 26, 2005;" 13 that subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed Forces
"(a)s midnight of July 26, 2005 was approaching and it was becoming Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the
apparent that the accused could not be arraigned, the prosecution suddenly Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local government
changed its position and asserted that 23 of the accused have already been ordinances, regardless of whether or not civilians are co-accused, victims, or
arraigned;" 14 and that petitioners moved for a reconsideration but it was offended parties, which may be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried by
denied by the general court martial in its Order dated September 14, 2005. 15 the proper civil court, except when the offense, as determined before
arraignment by the civil court, is service-connected, in which case, the
In his Comment, the Solicitor General prays that the Supplemental Petition offense shall be tried by court-martial, Provided, That the President of the
be denied for lack of merit. He alleges that "contrary to petitioners’ Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before
pretensions, all the accused were duly arraigned on July 13 and 18, arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil
2005." 16 The "(r)ecords show that in the hearing on July 13, 2005, all the 29 courts.
accused were present" and, "(o)n that day, Military Prosecutor Captain Karen
Ong Jags read the Charges and Specifications from the Charge Sheet in open As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or offenses shall be limited
court (pp. 64, TSN, July 13, 2005)." 17 to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97
of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended.
The sole question for our resolution is whether the petitioners are entitled to
the writ of prohibition. In imposing the penalty for such crimes or offenses, the court-martial may
take into consideration the penalty prescribed therefor in the Revised Penal
There is no dispute that petitioners, being officers of the AFP, are subject to Code, other special laws, or local government ordinances.
military law. Pursuant to Article 1 (a) of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as
amended, otherwise known as the Articles of War, the term "officer" is Section 1 of R.A. No. 7055, quoted above, is clear and unambiguous. First, it
"construed to refer to a commissioned officer." Article 2 provides: lays down the general rule that members of the AFP and other persons
subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed Forces
Art. 2. Persons Subject to Military Law. – The following persons are subject to Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the
these articles and shall be understood as included in the term "any person Revised Penal Code (like coup d’etat), other special penal laws, or local
ordinances shall be tried by the proper civil court. Next, it provides the
10
exception to the general rule, i.e., where the civil court, before arraignment, incumbent duly-elected and legitimate President by force and violence,
has determined the offense to be service-connected, then the offending seriously disturbing the peace and tranquility of the people and the nation
soldier shall be tried by a court martial. Lastly, the law states an exception to they are sworn to protect, thereby causing dishonor and disrespect to the
the exception, i.e., where the President of the Philippines, in the interest of military profession, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, in
justice, directs before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried violation of AW 96 of the Articles of War.
by the proper civil court.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Underscoring ours)
The second paragraph of the same provision further identifies the "service-
connected crimes or offenses" as "limited to those defined in Articles 54 to Article 96 of the Articles of War 21 provides:
70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97" of the Articles of War. Violations ART. 96. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman. – Any officer,
of these specified Articles are triable by court martial. This delineates the member of the Nurse Corps, cadet, flying cadet, or probationary second
jurisdiction between the civil courts and the court martial over crimes or lieutenant, who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a
offenses committed by military personnel. gentleman shall be dismissed from the service. (Underscoring ours)
Such delineation of jurisdiction by R.A. No. 7055 is necessary to preserve the We hold that the offense for violation of Article 96 of the Articles of War is
peculiar nature of military justice system over military personnel charged service-connected. This is expressly provided in Section 1 (second paragraph)
with service-connected offenses. The military justice system is disciplinary in of R.A. No. 7055. It bears stressing that the charge against the petitioners
nature, aimed at achieving the highest form of discipline in order to ensure concerns the alleged violation of their solemn oath as officers to defend the
the highest degree of military efficiency. 18 Military law is established not Constitution and the duly-constituted authorities.Such violation
merely to enforce discipline in times of war, but also to preserve the allegedly caused dishonor and disrespect to the military profession. In short,
tranquility and security of the State in time of peace; for there is nothing more the charge has a bearing on their professional conduct or behavior as
dangerous to the public peace and safety than a licentious and undisciplined military officers. Equally indicative of the "service-connected" nature of the
military body. 19 The administration of military justice has been universally offense is the penalty prescribed for the same – dismissal from the service
practiced. Since time immemorial, all the armies in almost all countries of the – imposable only by the military court.Such penalty is purely disciplinary in
world look upon the power of military law and its administration as the most character, evidently intended to cleanse the military profession of misfits and
effective means of enforcing discipline. For this reason, the court martial has to preserve the stringent standard of military discipline.
become invariably an indispensable part of any organized armed forces, it
being the most potent agency in enforcing discipline both in peace and in Obviously, there is no merit in petitioners’ argument that they can no longer
war. 20 be charged before the court martial for violation of Article 96 of the Articles
of War because the same has been declared by the RTC in its Order of
Here, petitioners are charged for violation of Article 96 (conduct unbecoming February 11, 2004 as "not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in
an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of War before the court martial, furtherance of the alleged crime of coup d’etat," hence, triable by said court
thus: (RTC). The RTC, in making such declaration, practically amended the law
which expressly vests in the court martial the jurisdiction over "service-
All persons subject to military law, did on or about 27 July 2003 at Oakwood
Hotel, Makati City, Metro Manila, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously violate connected crimes or offenses." What the law has conferred the court should
their solemn oath as officers to defend the Constitution, the law and the not take away. It is only the Constitution or the law that bestows jurisdiction
duly-constituted authorities and abused their constitutional duty to protect on the court, tribunal, body or officer over the subject matter or nature of an
the people and the State by, among others, attempting to oust the action which can do so. 22 And it is only through a constitutional amendment
or legislative enactment that such act can be done. The first and fundamental
11
duty of the courts is merely to apply the law "as they find it, not as they like Art. 67. Mutiny or Sedition.

it to be." 23 Evidently, such declaration by the RTC constitutes grave abuse of Art. 68. Failure to Suppress Mutiny or Sedition.
discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and is, therefore, void.
Art. 69. Quarrels; Frays; Disorders.
24
In Navales v. Abaya., this Court, through Mr. Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Art. 70. Arrest or Confinement.
held:
Articles 72 to 92:
We agree with the respondents that the sweeping declaration made by the Art. 72. Refusal to Receive and Keep Prisoners.
RTC (Branch 148) in the dispositive portion of its Order dated February 11,
Art. 73. Report of Prisoners Received.
2004 that all charges before the court-martial against the accused were not
service-connected, but absorbed and in furtherance of the crime of coup Art. 74. Releasing Prisoner Without Authority.
d’etat, cannot be given effect. x x x, such declaration was made without or in Art. 75. Delivery of Offenders to Civil Authorities.
excess of jurisdiction; hence, a nullity.
Art. 76. Misbehavior Before the Enemy.
The second paragraph of the above provision (referring to Section 1 of R.A. Art. 77. Subordinates Compelling Commander to Surrender.
No. 7055) explicitly specifies what are considered "service-connected crimes
Art. 78. Improper Use of Countersign.
or offenses" under Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended, also known as
the Articles of War, to wit: Art. 79. Forcing a Safeguard.

Articles 54 to 70: Art. 80. Captured Property to be Secured for Public Service.

Art. 54. Fraudulent Enlistment. Art. 81. Dealing in Captured or Abandoned Property.

Art. 55. Officer Making Unlawful Enlistment. Art. 82. Relieving, Corresponding With, or Aiding the Enemy.

Art. 56. False Muster. Art. 83. Spies.

Art. 57. False Returns. Art. 84. Military Property.–Willful or Negligent Loss, Damage

Art. 58. Certain Acts to Constitute Desertion. or wrongful Disposition.

Art. 59. Desertion. Art. 85. Waste or Unlawful Disposition of Military Property

Art. 60. Advising or Aiding Another to Desert. Issued to Soldiers.

Art. 61. Entertaining a Deserter. Art. 86. Drunk on Duty.

Art. 62. Absence Without Leave. Art. 87. Misbehavior of Sentinel.

Art. 63. Disrespect Toward the President, Vice-President, Art. 88. Personal Interest in Sale of Provisions.

Congress of the Philippines, or Secretary of National Art. 88-A. Unlawful Influencing Action of Court.

Defense. Art. 89. Intimidation of Persons Bringing Provisions.

Art. 64. Disrespect Toward Superior Officer. Art. 90. Good Order to be Maintained and Wrongs Redressed.

Art. 65. Assaulting or Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer. Art. 91. Provoking Speeches or Gestures.

Art. 66. Insubordinate Conduct Toward Non-Commissioned Officer. Art. 92. Dueling.

12
Articles 95 to 97: This Court has recognized that courts-martial are instrumentalities of the Executive
Art. 95. Frauds Against the Government. to enable the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to effectively command, control,
and discipline the armed forces (see Ruffy v. Chief of Staff, 75 Phil. 875 [1946], citing
Art. 96. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman. Winthrop’s Military Law and Precedents, 2nd edition, p. 49). In short, courts-martial
Art. 97. General Article. form part of the disciplinary system that ensures the President’s control, and thus
civilian supremacy, over the military. At the apex of this disciplinary system is the
Further, Section 1 of Rep. Act No. 7055 vests on the military courts the jurisdiction President who exercises review powers over decisions of courts-martial (citing Article
over the foregoing offenses. x x x. 50 of the Articles of War; quoted provisions omitted).
It is clear from the foregoing that Rep. Act No. 7055 did not divest the military courts xxx
of jurisdiction to try cases involving violations of Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92,
and Articles 95 to 97 of the Articles of War as these are considered "service- While the Court had intervened before in courts-martial or similar proceedings, it did
connected crimes or offenses." In fact, it mandates that these shall be tried by the so sparingly and only to release a military personnel illegally detained (Ognir v.
court-martial. Director of Prisons, 80 Phil. 401 [1948] or to correct objectionable procedures
(Yamashita v. Styer, 75 Phil. 563 [1945]). The Court has never suppressed court-
Moreover, the observation made by Mr. Justice Antonio T. Carpio during the martial proceedings on the ground that the offense charged ‘is absorbed and in
deliberation of this case is worth quoting, thus: furtherance of’ another criminal charge pending with the civil courts. The Court may
now do so only if the offense charged is not one of the service-connected offenses
The trial court aggravated its error when it justified its ruling by holding that the
specified in Section 1 of RA 7055. Such is not the situation in the present case.
charge of Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman is ‘absorbed and in
furtherance to the alleged crime of coup d’etat.’ Firstly, the doctrine of ‘absorption With respect to the issue of prescription raised by petitioners in their Supplemental
of crimes’ is peculiar to criminal law and generally applies to crimes punished by the Petition, suffice it to say that we cannot entertain the same. The contending parties
same statute, 25unlike here where different statutes are involved. Secondly, the are at loggerheads as to (a) who among the petitioners were actually arraigned, and
doctrine applies only if the trial court has jurisdiction over both offenses. Here, (b) the dates of their arraignment. These are matters involving questions of fact, not
Section 1 of R.A. 7055 deprives civil courts of jurisdiction over service-connected within our power of review, as we are not a trier of facts. In a petition for prohibition,
offenses, including Article 96 of the Articles of War. Thus, the doctrine of absorption such as the one at bar, only legal issues affecting the jurisdiction of the tribunal, board
of crimes is not applicable to this case. or officer involved may be resolved on the basis of the undisputed facts. 26
Military law is sui generis (Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 [1975]), applicable only to Clearly, the instant petition for prohibition must fail. The office of prohibition is to
military personnel because the military constitutes an armed organization requiring prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of authority and is directed against
a system of discipline separate from that of civilians (see Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 proceedings that are done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
U.S. 83 [1953]). Military personnel carry high-powered arms and other lethal discretion, there being no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
weapons not allowed to civilians. History, experience, and the nature of a military ordinary course of law. 27 Stated differently, prohibition is the remedy to prevent
organization dictate that military personnel must be subjected to a separate inferior courts, corporations, boards, or persons from usurping or exercising a
disciplinary system not applicable to unarmed civilians or unarmed government jurisdiction or power with which they have not been vested by law. 28
personnel.
In fine, this Court holds that herein respondents have the authority in convening a
A civilian government employee reassigned to another place by his superior may court martial and in charging petitioners with violation of Article 96 of the Articles of
question his reassignment by asking a temporary restraining order or injunction from War.
a civil court. However, a soldier cannot go to a civil court and ask for a restraining or
injunction if his military commander reassigns him to another area of military WHEREFORE, the instant petition for prohibition is DISMISSED.
operations. If this is allowed, military discipline will collapse.
SO ORDERED.
xxx
13
G.R. No. 201565, October 13, 2014 That on or about April 5, 2004, at Celera Elementary School, Brgy. Villa Inocencio,
Municipality of Placer, Province of Masbate, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO, of the Honorable Court of Masbate, the above-named accused EX-MAYOR CARLOS
SR., MAYOR REINARIO �REY� ESTONILO, EDELBRANDO ESTONILO A.K.A. �EDEL ESTONILO, SR. and MAYOR REINARIO �REY� ESTONILO, conspiring and
ESTONILO,� EUTIQUIANO ITCOBANES A.K.A. �NONONG ITCOBANES,� NONOY confederating together and helping one another, with intent to kill, and with evident
ESTONILO-AT LARGE, TITING BOOC-AT LARGE, GALI ITCOBANES-AT LARGE, premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
ORLANDO TAGALOG MATERDAM A.K.A. �NEGRO MATERDAM,� AND CALVIN induce their co-accused, EDELBRANDO ESTONILO AL[I]AS �EDEL ESTONILO[,]�
DELA CRUZ A.K.A. �BULLDOG DELA CRUZ,� Accused, EUTIQUIANO ITCOBANES AL[I]AS �NONONG ITCOBANES[,]� NONOY ESTONILO,
TITING BOOC, GALI ITCOBANES, ORLANDO MATERDAM Y TAGALOG ALIAS �NEGRO
EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO, SR., MAYOR REINARIO �REY� ESTONILO, MATERDAM[,]� [and] CALVIN DELA CRUZ AL[I]AS �BULLDOG DELA CRUZ[,]� who
EDELBRANDO ESTONILO A.K.A. �EDEL ESTONILO,� EUTIQUIANO ITCOBANES were all armed with firearms, to attack, assault and use personal violence upon the
A.K.A. �NONONG ITCOBANES,� AND CALVIN DELA CRUZ A.K.A. �BULLDOG DELA person of one FLORO A. CASAS, while in the performance of his duty being a District
CRUZ,� Accused-Appellants. Supervisor of public schools, by then and there shooting the latter, hitting said FLORO
A. CASAS on the different parts of his body which were the direct and immediate
DECISION
cause of his death thereafter.9ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

In this appeal, accused-appellants Ex-Mayor Carlos Estonilo, Sr. (Carlos, Sr.), Mayor When they were arraigned on November 9, 2005, the accused-appellants pleaded
Reinario Estonilo (Rey), Edelbrando Estonilo (Edel), Eutiquiano Itcobanes (Nonong), not guilty to the crime charged.� On the same date, the RTC issued a pre-trial order
and Calvin Dela Cruz (Bulldog) seek liberty from the judgment1 of conviction which stated, among others:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Manila, which found them
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Murder with Direct Assault a) Upon request by the prosecution, the defense admitted the following:
in Criminal Case No. 05-238607. 1. The identities of the five (5) accused present;

The above-named accused-appellants, along with four others, namely: Nonoy 2. As to the jurisdiction of this Court, there was an Order from the
Estonilo (Nonoy),2 Titing Booc (Titing),3 and Gali Itcobanes (Gali),4 and Orlando Honorable Supreme Court as to the transfer of venue;
Tagalog Materdam (Negro)5 were all charged in an Information dated July 30, 2004
3. The fact of death of Floro A. Casas;
that reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
4. That the victim Floro A. Casas at the time of his death was a District
That on or about April 5, 2004 at 8:00 o�clock in the evening thereof, at Celera
Supervisor of the Department of Education.�����
Elementary School,6 Brgy. Villa Inocencio, Municipality of Placer, Province of
Masbate, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- b) However, upon request by the defense, the prosecution did not admit that Ex-
named accused, with intent to kill, armed with firearms, conspiring, confederating Mayor Carlos Estonilo, Sr. and Mayor Reinario Estonilo were not at the scene of
and mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, did the incident during the incident.10
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one
FLORO A. CASAS, while in the performance of his duty being the District Supervisor
of public schools, hitting the latter on the different parts of his body which caused his The prosecution presented nine witnesses, namely: Elsa Q. Casas (Elsa),� the
instantaneous death.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary victim�s wife; Felix Q. Casas (Felix), the victim�s son; Dr. Ulysses P. Francisco (Dr.
Francisco), the Municipal Health Officer, Placer, Masbate; Senior Police Officer 4
Restituto L. Lepatan, Sr. (SPO4 Lepatan), Placer Police Station; Serapion M. Bedrijo
On November 8, 2005, the prosecutor filed an Amended Information,8 which (Serapion), employee of Municipal Councilor candidate Boy dela Pisa; Carlo S.
provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Antipolo (Antipolo), a resident of Placer, Masbate; Diego L. Casas (Diego), cousin of
14
the victim; Rosalinda V. Dahonan (Rosalinda), a resident of Placer, Masbate; and the Estonilos.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Servando P. Rosales (Servando), former employee of Ex-Mayor Carlos,
Sr.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary On cross examination, the counsel for the accused tried to discredit Felix by
questioning him on why it took him a long time to execute an affidavit relative to his
The testimonies of the foregoing witnesses consisted of the father�s killing.� Felix explained that he went to Cebu to stay away from Placer,
following:cralawlawlibrary which is under the Estonilo�s jurisdiction.15� The defense confronted Felix of a
criminal case against him for illegal use of prohibited drugs, for which he was out on
Felix narrated that on April 4, 2005, the day before his father, Floro Casas (Floro), was bail.16chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
gunned down, he was with the latter and some teachers at the Celera Inocencio
Elementary School, Placer, Masbate; that they were working on the closing On March 28, 2006, the prosecution presented two witnesses, Dr. Ulysses Francisco
ceremonies to be held the following day; that one Ranio Morales called on Floro and y Pedrano and SPO4 Restituto Lepatan, Sr.� The prosecution and the defense
told him that Mayor Carlos, Sr. wanted to see him at his (Ranio) house; that Floro and entered into stipulation of facts relative to their testimonies.
Felix went to see Mayor Carlos, Sr.; that when they saw Mayor Carlos, Sr., he showed
them (Floro and Felix) a program of a celebration of the Federation of 7 th Day [Stipulation of Facts on Dr. Ulysses P. Francisco�s testimony:]
Adventist that contained the names of the governor, the congressman, and Placer
1. That Dr. Ulysses P. Francisco, a Municipal Health Officer of Placer, Masbate,
mayoralty candidate Vicente Cotero (Cotero), as guests of the said activity; that Felix
is expert in medicine;chanrobleslaw
asked his father why Cotero�s picture was so big while Mayor Carlos, Sr.�s name
was not mentioned in the program; that Floro replied that he cannot help it because 2. That he was the one who conducted the Post-Mortem Examination on the
Cotero paid for the program; that the answer angered Mayor Carlos, Sr. and he dead body of Floro Casas y Baronda on April 6, 2004 at Katipunan, Placer,
scolded Floro; that Mayor Carlos, Sr. said �you are now for Cotero but you�re only Masbate;chanrobleslaw
Estonilo when you ask for my signature to sign the voucher. � This is up to now that
you will be the supervisor of Celera�; that Floro responded �when are you a 3. That in connection with his examination, he prepared the Post-Mortem
superintendent when you don�t have any scholastic standing.� Just look if I will still Examination Report, marked as Exhibit �F,� the printed name and
vote for your son�; that Mayor Carlos, Sr. replied �let�s see if you can still vote�; signature of Dr. Ulysses P. Francisco, marked as Exhibit �F-
and that the following day, Floro was shot to death. 12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 1�;chanrobleslaw

4. That he also prepared the Certificate of Death, marked as Exhibit �G� and
But prior to the April 4, 2005 incident, Felix recounted that on December 10, 2003, the Sketch of a Human Body, marked as Exhibit �H�;chanrobleslaw
upon invitation of Nonoy, he joined the latter�s group for a drinking spree at a
videoke bar; that they talked about the death of one Titing Villester; that Nonoy told 5. The veracity and truthfulness of the Post-Mortem Findings indicated in the
Felix that �brod, do not be afraid, because others are supposed to be afraid [of] us Post-Mortem Examination Report; and
because they believe that we were the ones who killed Titing Villester �; that
6. In the course of the examination of the victim, the said witness recovered
afterwards Felix and the group were fetched at the videoke bar by Edel, a messenger
of Mayor Carlos, Sr.; that they were brought to the house of one Bobong Baldecir (a three slugs: the 1st slug was marked as Exhibit �I,� the fragmented slug
nephew of Mayor Carlos, Sr.) in Daraga; that upon arriving thereat, Rey uttered as Exhibit �I-1,� and the metallic object consisting of two pieces of Exhibit
�it�s good that Dodong (Felix�s nickname) is with you; that Nonoy then �I-2.�
said �who would not [be] otherwise, his father would be the next victim after Titing
Villester�;13 that Rey then turned to Felix and said, �it�s very important that your [Stipulation of Facts on SPO4 Restituto L. Lepatan, Sr.�s testimony:]
father is with us because a District Supervisor has a big [role] in the Comelec�s choice
for those teachers who would become members of the Board of Election Inspectors �; 1. That there exists a Police Blotter in the Record/Blotter Book of the Placer,
that Felix clarified that Rey was then the 2004 mayoralty candidate for Placer, Masbate Police Station relative to the shooting incident that occurred on
Masbate; and that Felix went along with him since he was in Daraga, the bailiwick of
15
 April 5, 2004 at Celera Elementary School. Said Police Blotter was requested Titing and Bulldog; that right after Gali shouted for them to escape, all of them
to be marked by the prosecution as Exhibit �J�;chanrobleslaw hurriedly left the school compound; that he saw Mayor Carlos, Sr.�s pick-up vehicle
arrive soon thereafter; that Mayor Carlos, Sr., Rey and Negro alighted from the
2. That said witness prepared the Police Report dated April 17, 2004 relative vehicle and watched the proceedings; that he heard Mayor Carlos, Sr. say �leave it
to the blotter written on the Blotter Book. Said Police Report was requested
because it�s already dead�; and that afterwards, the police officers
to be marked as Exhibit �J-1� and the signature of Sr. Police Officer IV arrived.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Restituto L. Lepatan, Sr. as Exhibit �J-1-a�;chanrobleslaw

3. The existence of the Police Blotter as appearing in the Blotter Book page In an attempt to discredit Antipolo, the defense counsel confronted him with a
number 325. Said Police Blotter book page 325 was requested to be marked criminal case against him for homicide of one Edgardo Estonilo (brother of accused-
as Exh. �K� and the bracketed portion thereof as Exh. �K-1.�17 appellant Edel) that happened on October 30, 2005.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Elsa was presented to testify on the probable motive for the killing of Floro, the
According to Dr. Francisco, Floro sustained gunshot wounds caused by more than one circumstances surrounding the killing and its discovery, their family background, her
firearm based on the sizes of the slugs recovered and that some of them were fired husband�s line of work, how she felt on their loss, and the expenses relative to his
at close range.� The counsel for the accused waived his cross killing. She testified that she heard there were people who were jealous of Floro�s
examination.18chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary position because he could bring voters to his side during election time; that Placer
mayoralty candidate Cotero donated medals for the 2003-2004 closing ceremony of
Prosecution witness Serapion testified that while he was printing the name of the entire district of public schools; that during the closing ceremony, the donor�s
Municipal Councilor candidate Boy dela Pisa on the street facing the Celera name was announced, which angered then Mayor Carlos, Sr.;23 that when Floro was
Elementary School on the night of April 5, 2004, he heard gunshots coming from processing a voucher worth P70,000.00, Mayor Carlos, Sr. refused to sign the same
inside the compound of the school; that after two or three minutes, he saw more or and even threw the voucher on the floor saying �let this be signed by Vicente
less six persons coming out of the school; that he was able to identify three of them Cotero�; and that Floro�s cousin, Diego Casas, helped Floro secure the Mayor�s
as present in the courtroom:� Edel, Nonoy, and Nonong; that he saw the six men signature by ensuring Mayor Carlos, Sr. that Floro was for him, and only then did
approach Mayor Carlos, Sr.�s vehicle, which was parked near the school; that Mayor Mayor Carlos, Sr. agree to sign the voucher.24chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Carlos, Sr. and Rey came out of a house nearby; that upon reaching the vehicle,
Serapion heard Nonoy say to Mayor Carlos, Sr. �mission accomplished, sir�; that Diego L. Casas corroborated Elsa�s testimony relative to the fact that he helped
Mayor Carlos, Sr. ordered Nonoy and his group to escape, which they did using two Floro secure Mayor Carlos, Sr.�s signature on the
motorbikes towards the direction of Cataingan; and thereafter, that Mayor Carlos, voucher.25cralawredchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sr. and Rey drove towards the direction of Daraga.19chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Rosalinda testified that at 7:00 a.m. on April 10, 2004, Mayor Carlos, Sr. went to her
During his cross examination, the defense tried to discredit Serapion by confronting house and told her that he would kill her husband following Floro; that she was
him with the fact that he has a pending criminal case for frustrated murder and that shocked and scared, thus, she went to the Placer Police Station and reported the
he was out on bail.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary incident; that she went to see her husband, who was then campaigning for mayoralty
candidate Cotero, and informed him of what happened; and that she went to Elsa�s
Antipolo testified that on April 5, 2004, he was riding his motorcycle and passing by house and informed the latter of the threat. 26chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
the gate of the Celera Elementary School when he heard gunshots and someone
shouted that Floro was shot; that he stopped, alighted from his motorcycle, went to Servando attested that at about 7:00 a.m. on April 1, 2004, he was in the house of
the gate, and saw four persons holding short firearms; that he identified Nonoy and Mayor Carlos, Sr. together with said Mayor, Nonong, Edgar Estonilo, the group of
Negro as the two who fired at Floro about seven times; that he identified Edel and Bulldog, Negro, Alias �S� [Ace], Rollie, Nonong, Edel, and Gali; that he witnessed
Nonong as the two other gun holders; that at that moment, Gali shouted �sir, Mayor Carlos, Sr. say �ipatumba si Floro Casas�; that Servando later learned that
that�s enough, escape!�; that Gali was accompanied by someone named Ace, the mayor�s men were unsuccessful in their goal because Floro was no longer in
16
Barangay Taberna, where they intended to execute the mayor�s order; and that But during his cross examination, Jesus admitted that his nickname was Bobong, and
Mayor Carlos, Sr. and his men again planned to kill Floro at Celera Elementary School that Mayor Carlos, Sr. is his uncle; that he is one of the accused in the criminal case
on April 4, 2004.27chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary for the kidnapping of Servando; and that it was Dante (Dante) Estonilo who arranged
for the meeting with the media, and who served as Servando�s and his wife�s
During cross examination, the defense confronted Servando with the companion, while he was with Atty. Besario.31chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
latter�s Affidavit of Retraction,which he executed on June 14, 2004. The affidavit
contained a withdrawal of his Sinumpaang Salaysaytaken on May 30, 2004 at the During his turn, accused-appellant Mayor Carlos, Sr. testified that in the early evening
Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) of April 5, 2004 he was in a house near the Celera Elementary School attending a
Camp Bonny Serrano, Masbate City relative to the criminal complaint for direct birthday party; that while thereat, he heard successive gunshots and went out to ride
assault with murder filed against Mayor Carlos, Sr. and his company.� He was also his vehicle so he could check the source of the gunshots; that when he reached the
asked about two criminal charges filed against him in Cebu relative to violation of school gate someone informed him that Floro was gunned down; that he did not see
Republic Act No. 9165, illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous the victim because according to the people it was boarded in a jeep and brought to
drugs.28chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary the hospital; and that he and his son, Rey, confirmed that they were at the school
minutes after the incident.32chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On re-direct examination, Servando narrated that Mayor Carlos, Sr.�s nephew,
Bobong Baldecir, fetched him from his house and he was brought to the house of During cross examination, Mayor Carlos said that he and Floro were close friends;
Mayor Carlos, Sr. in Daraga; that from there, he was brought to Atty. Besario in Cebu; that he learned that he and his son were suspects in Floro�s killing five months after
that Atty. Besario informed him about the Affidavit of Retraction that he was the incident; that he confirmed that Rey and Calvin dela Cruz were with him while
supposed to sign, which he did not understand as it was written in English; and that inquiring about the shooting at the school; and that he denied having met Felix on
he clarified that the contents of the affidavit was not his but those of April 4, 2004, seeing Rosalinda after April 5, 2004, or that Servando was his
Bobong.29chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary bodyguard.33chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The defense on its part called to the witness stand Jesus Baldecir, Jr. (Jesus/Bobong), Accused-appellant Rey testified that in the early evening of April 5, 2004 he was in
Quirino D. Calipay (Quirino), and the five accused-appellants. his house and was planning to campaign at Barangay Matagantang, Placer, Masbate;
that on his way to said barangay, he passed by Celera Elementary School and noticed
Jesus denied Servando�s allegation that he (Jesus) forced him to sign the Affidavit his father�s vehicle, and that there were several people thereat; that he stopped
of Retraction. Jesus narrated that Servando gave word that he (Servando) wanted to and stayed in the school for a few minutes, and then proceeded to meet his
meet him (Jesus); that upon their meeting, Servando told him that he wanted to candidates for counselors at Ranio�s house; and that afterwards, they all went to
retract his sworn statement because Mayor Carlos, Sr. and his company did nothing Barangay Matagantang.34chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
wrong; that Jesus, Servando and Servando�s wife went to Cebu to meet Atty.
Besario; that while traveling, Servando told him that was evading the men of On cross examination, Rey expressed that this criminal case may be politically
Governor Go, Vicente Cotero and Casas because he feared for his life; that during the motivated because his opponents could not attribute anything to him since he won
meeting Atty. Besario prepared the affidavit and translated it to Cebuano dialect; that as mayor.35chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
afterwards, Jesus, Servando and Servando�s wife went to the Capitol so that
Servando could sign it before the prosecutor; that Jesus, Atty. Besario, Servado and Quirino narrated that in the evening of April 5, 2004, he and his family were having
his wife, and Dante Estonilo (another nephew of Mayor Carlos) went to Manila to supper at their house located in front of Celera Elementary School�s guardhouse,
meet with the media; that the media asked Servando whether he was forced to sign, when they heard gunshots; that they immediately laid down, while Quirino ran across
or was given money or reward to sign the affidavit of retraction, Servando replied in the road and took cover at the school fence; that he peeped through the fence and
the negative; and that the purpose of the press meeting was to present Servando and saw three persons firing a gun; that he could not identify them or their victim because
show that he was not kidnapped.30chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary it was a bit dark; that after 10 to 20 seconds, he went back home; that a certain Joel
Alcantara and his companions went to him asking him to go with them inside the

17
school, once inside the school, they saw Floro lying face down; that he took the liberty in relation to Article 48 all of the Revised Penal Code and each of said accused are
to go to the police headquarters located five minutes away; and that when he and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one
the Placer Chief of Police arrived at the school, he noticed Mayor Carlos, Sr. standing (1) day to forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua.
near the gate.36chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
As civil liability pursuant to Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, the aforesaid
For his part, accused-appellant Nonong testified that in the evening of April 5, 2004 sentenced the accused are all hereby ordered to solidarily indemnify the family of
he was engaged in a drinking spree in Nining Berdida�s house at Barangay Pili, the victim Floro Casas in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). Likewise,
Placer, Masbate; and that he stayed in her place until 11:00 by way of moral damages, the said accused are furthermore ordered to solidarily pay
p.m.37chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary the said family the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).

During his cross examination, accused-appellant Nonong acknowledged that Mayor The accused are, however, credited in the service of their sentence the full time
Carlos, Sr. is his uncle and Rey is his second cousin; that he was not Mayor Carlos, during which they have been denied.
Sr.�s bodyguard, but admitted that he handled the latter�s fighting cocks; and
admitted that Barangay Pili is 40 to 45 minutes away from the poblacion of Let this case be archived as against the accused NONOY ESTONILO, TITING BOOC, and
Placer.38chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary GALI ITCOBANES who have warrants of arrest issued against them but still remain at
large, pending their arrest/s.
Edel related that in the evening of April 5, 2004, he was sleeping in his house when
Rey called him to go to Ranio�s house in Placer, Masbate for a meeting; that their As to the accused ORLANDO TAGALOG MATERDAM ALIAS �NEGRO MATERDAM,�
group passed by Celera Elementary School and saw that there were plenty of people, separate trial is necessary considering that he was only recently arrested when the
one of whom was Mayor Carlos, Sr.; that their group stopped to inquire about what trial of this case as to the other accused was already about to
happened, and learned that Floro was gunned down; and that he and his group end.42ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
stayed for about five minutes and left.39chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The RTC gave credence to the eyewitness account of Antipolo and the corroborating
Accused-appellant Bulldog was also presented in court and confirmed that he was
testimony of Serapion, who were both present at the school grounds during the
with Mayor Carlos, Sr. and his wife attending a birthday party near the Celera
Elementary School; that they went to the school to check on what happened and shooting incident.� The RTC pronounced that the evidence on record showed unity
learned that Floro was shot; and that they did not stay long and went home to of purpose in the furtherance of a common criminal design, that was the killing of
Daraga.40chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Floro.� Accused-appellants Nonoy and Negro were the gunmen, while accused-
appellants Edel and Nonong served as backup gunmen.� Accused-appellant Bulldog,
During cross examination, he denied that he was the bodyguard of Mayor Carlos, Sr.; and accused Gali, Titing and one alias Ace served as
and that he was merely accompanying the latter to help in pushing his vehicle in case lookouts.43chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
the starter failed to work.41chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The RTC found accused-appellants Mayor Carlos, Sr. and Rey to have ordered their
After trial, the RTC found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of co-accused to kill Floro based on the testimony of Servando, who was present when
the crime charged.� The fallo of its March 30, 2009 Decision the group planned to kill Floro.� Thus, the RTC concluded that Ex-Mayor Carlos, Sr.
provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary is a principal by inducement.� And accused-appellant Rey conspired with his father.
In sum, the prosecution was able to establish conspiracy and evident premeditation
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused EX-MAYOR CARLOS among all the accused-appellants.44chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ESTONILO, SR., MAYOR REINARIO �REY� ESTONILO, EDELBRANDO ESTONILO alias
�EDEL ESTONILO,� EUTIQUIANO ITCOBANES alias �NONONG ITCOBANES,� and The accused-appellants� defense of alibi and denial did not withstand the positive
CALVIN DELA CRUZ alias BULLDOG DELA CRUZ� GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE identification of the prosecution witnesses.� The accused-appellants claimed that
DOUBT of the crime of Murder with Direct Assault under Article 248 and Article 148 they were somewhere else in Placer, Masbate when the shooting took place.�
18
However, they were not able to establish the physical improbability of their being in In essence, the defense disagrees with the disposition of the Court of Appeals
the crime scene at the time of the shooting.� The RTC was convinced that the motive affirming their conviction for murder with direct assault on the ground that some of
for the murder was due to Floro�s support for mayoral candidate Vicente Cotero. the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses constitute circumstantial evidence, and
Since the victim was a district supervisor of public schools, the RTC convicted the that the prosecution was not able to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
accused-appellants of the complex crime of murder with direct
assault.45chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary The appeal fails.

All five accused-appellants appealed the foregoing RTC decision to the Court of After a review of the record of the case, this Court sustains the conviction of the
Appeals alleging that the RTC erred in concluding that motive was duly established, accused-appellants for murder with direct assault.
in appreciating the prosecution evidence and disregarding the salient points of the
defense evidence, and in convicting the accused.46chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses
on the witness stand and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which
In its May 12, 2011 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC forms its first-hand impressions as a witness testifies before it. It is, thus, no surprise
decision.47� The dispositive part thereof reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a
rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant appealed is denied. The Decision demeanor of witnesses as they testify.52chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
dated 30 March 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45 is
hereby AFFIRMED with modification in that the penalty imposed upon accused- This Court had nevertheless carefully scrutinized the records but found no indication
appellants shall simply be reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties and that the that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked or failed to appreciate facts that, if
award of civil indemnity is increased to Seventy[-]Five Thousand Pesos considered, would change the outcome of this case.� The trial court and the
(P75,000.00).48ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary appellate court did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, particularly of Antipolo who was an eyewitness to the crime.
The Court of Appeals sustained the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the RTC
considering that the RTC had observed and monitored at close range the conduct, Antipolo�s testimony did not suffer from any serious and material inconsistency
behavior and deportment of the witnesses as they testified.� The Court of Appeals that could possibly detract from his credibility.� He identified the accused-appellant
corrected the penalty imposed, and explained that reclusion perpetua is an Nonoy and accused Negro as those who fired at Floro about seven times, while
indivisible penalty which should be imposed without specifying the duration. accused-appellants Edel and Nonong were on standby also holding their firearms.�
He also witnessed accused Gali shouting to the gunmen to stop and escape.� He
On June 29, 2011, the accused-appellants moved for reconsideration,49 which the narrated that after all the accused left, Mayor Carlos, Sr., Rey and Materdam arrived
Court of Appeals denied in its November 8, 2011 Resolution.50� Unsatisfied, the aboard the mayor�s vehicle.� He also heard Mayor Carlos said �leave it because
accused-appellants appealed their case before this it�s already dead.�� From his direct and straightforward testimony, there is no
Court.51chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary doubt as to the identity of the culprits.

This Court�s Ruling To successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be
established:53� (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her;
(3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
The accused-appellants pray for the reversal of the judgment of conviction in the
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or
criminal case on the following assignment of errors: the RTC and the Court of Appeals
infanticide.54chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
erred in (1) giving credence and weight to the prosecution evidence, (2) finding that
there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants, and (3) finding the accused-
In this case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish that (1) Floro was killed; (2)
appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the prosecution evidence.
Ex-Mayor Carlos, Sr., Rey, Edel, Nonong, and Calvin were five of the nine perpetrators

19
who killed him; (3) the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of evident elements must concur:� (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position
premeditation as testified to by prosecution eyewitnesses, Servando and Antipolo, to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the
as well as treachery as below discussed; and (4) the killing of Floro was neither particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.� The essence of
parricide nor infanticide. treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and
unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance
Of the four elements, the second and third elements are essentially contested by the to resist or escape.� In this case, accused-appellant Nonoy and accused Negro
defense.� The Court finds that the prosecution unquestionably established these successively fired at Floro about seven times � and the victim sustained 13 gunshot
two elements. wounds all found to have been inflicted at close range giving the latter no chance at
all to evade the attack and defend himself from the unexpected onslaught.�
For the second element, the prosecution presented pieces of evidence which when Accused-appellants Edel and Nonong were on standby also holding their firearms to
joined together point to the accused-appellants as the offenders. Foremost, there is insure the success of their �mission� without risk to themselves; and three others
motive to kill Floro.� It was Floro�s support for Vicente Cotero, who was Rey�s served as lookouts.� Hence, there is no denying that their collective acts point to a
opponent for the position of mayor in Placer, Masbate. Second, the prosecution was clear case of treachery.
able to establish that the accused-appellants planned to kill Floro on two separate
occasions.� The prosecution witness, Servando, was present in Mayor Carlos, Sr.�s Defense of denial and alibi
house when they were plotting to kill Floro.� He also heard Mayor Carlos, Sr. say
�ipatumba si Floro Casas.�� Third, Antipolo was an eyewitness to the killing.� The twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by the accused-appellants must fail in
His testimony was corroborated by another witness, Serapion, who testified having light of the positive identification made by Antipolo and Serapion. Alibi and denial
seen the accused-appellants leaving the school a few minutes after he heard the are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has
gunshots.� Serapion also recounted having heard one of them said �mission sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused as in this case.� It
accomplished sir,� after which, Mayor Carlos, Sr. ordered them to leave. is also axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony. 57� The
accused-appellants� alibis that they were at different places at the time of the
Essentially, the prosecution evidence consists of both direct evidence and shooting are negative and self-serving and cannot be given more evidentiary value
circumstantial evidence.� The testimony of the eyewitness Antipolo is direct vis-�-vis the affirmative testimony of credible witnesses.� The accused-appellants,
evidence of the commission of the crime. the victim, and the prosecution witnesses reside in the same municipality and are,
therefore, familiar with one another.� More so, that the two principal accused in
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from this case are prominent political figures. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses could
which the facts in issue may be established by inference. 55� It consists of proof of not have been mistaken on the accused-appellants� identity including those who
collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be remained at large.
inferred according to reason and common experience. 56� Here, the circumstantial
evidence consists of the testimonies of Servando and Serapion. Servando was Further, it has been held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must
present when Mayor Carlos, Sr. ordered his men to kill Floro.� Whether this order prove the following:� (i) that he was present at another place at the time of the
was executed can be answered by relating it to Antipolo�s eyewitness account as perpetration of the crime; and (ii) that it was physically impossible for him to be at
well as Serapion�s testimony. the scene of the crime during its commission.� Physical impossibility involves the
distance and the facility of access between the crime scene and the location of the
As for the third element of qualifying circumstance, the prosecution witness, accused when the crime was committed; the accused must demonstrate that he was
Servando, testified that he was present on the two occasions when the accused- so far away and could not have been physically present at the crime scene and its
appellants were planning to kill Floro.� His categorical and straightforward narration immediate vicinity when the crime was committed.58� Here, the accused-appellants
proves the existence of evident premeditation. utterly failed to satisfy the above-quoted requirements. In fact, Mayor Carlos, Sr. and
his other co-accused, except for Nonong, admitted that they were near the school
Treachery also attended the killing of Floro.� For treachery to be present, two before the incident and at the school minutes after the killing took place.� Certainly,
20
the distance was not too far as to preclude the presence of accused-appellants at the As to the proper monetary awards imposable for the crime charged, modifications
school, and/or for them to slip away from where they were supposed to be, must be made herein.� The award of P100,000.00 each as civil indemnity and moral
unnoticed. damages is proper to conform with current
jurisprudence. 59chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Penalties
Further, when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance either as
On the offense committed by accused-appellants, the RTC correctly concluded that qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified under Article
they should be held accountable for the complex crime of direct assault with 223060 of the New Civil Code.� Thus, conformably with the above, the legal heirs of
murder.� There are two modes of committing atentados contra la autoridad o sus the victim are also entitled to an award of exemplary damages 61 in the amount of
agentes under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code.� Accused-appellants P100,000.00.
committed the second form of assault, the elements of which are that there must be
an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in Lastly, an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all
authority or his agent; the assault was made when the said person was performing the damages awarded, to earn from the date of the finality of this judgment until
his duties or on the occasion of such performance; and the accused knew that the fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.62chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is, that the accused must have the
intention to offend, injure or assault the offended party as a person in authority or At this point, notice must be made that on January 28, 2014, the Superintendent,
an agent of a person in authority. New Bilibid Prison informed this Court of the death of accused-appellant Ex-Mayor
Carlos, Sr. on January 9, 2013.� In view thereof, the case against deceased Ex-Mayor
In this case, Floro was the duly appointed District Supervisor of Public Schools, Placer, Carlos, Sr. is hereby ordered dismissed.
Masbate, thus, was a person in authority.� But contrary to the statement of the RTC
that there was direct assault just because Floro was a person in authority, this Court WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 12,
clarifies that the finding of direct assault is based on the fact that the attack or assault 2011 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04142, affirming the Decision dated March 30, 2009,
on Floro was, in reality, made by reason of the performance of his duty as the District promulgated by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45, in Criminal Case No.
Supervisor. 05-238607, finding accused-appellants REINARIO �REY� ESTONILO, EDELBRANDO
�EDEL� ESTONILO, EUTIQUIANO �NONONG� ITCOBANES, and CALVIN
When the assault results in the killing of that agent or of a person in authority for that �BULLDOG� DELA CRUZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder with Direct
matter, there arises the complex crime of direct assault with murder or homicide. Assault, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, the award of civil indemnity and
moral damages is increased to P100,000.00 each, in addition to P100,000.00 as
The offense is a complex crime, the penalty for which is that for the graver offense, exemplary damages, and the imposition of 6% thereon as legal interest upon finality
to be imposed in the maximum period. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as of this Court�s Decision.
amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death for the felony of murder; thus, the imposable penalty should have been death. SO ORDERED.
Plus the fact that there exists an aggravating circumstance, pursuant to Article 63,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the proper penalty is death. But the
imposition of death penalty has been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, entitled
�An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines�; thus, the
RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly imposed upon accused-appellants
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The Proper Indemnities

21
G.R. No. 202692, November 12, 2014 while the latter was placing him under arrest for violation of Article 151 of the
Revised Penal Code.
EDMUND SYDECO Y SIONZON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Contrary to law.
DECISION

VELASCO JR., J.: By Order of September 19, 2006, the MeTC classified the cases as falling under, thus
to be governed by, the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Assailed and sought to be set aside in this petition for review under Rule 45 are the
December 28, 2011 Decision1 and July 18, 2012 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals When arraigned, petitioner, as accused, pleaded "Not Guilty" to both charges.
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33567. The assailed issuances affirmed the decision 3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 12, in Criminal Case Nos. 09-270107-08 During the trial of the two consolidated cases, the prosecution presented in evidence
which, in turn, affirmed that of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Manila the oral testimonies of SPO4 Efren Bodino (Bodino),[7 PO2 Emanuelle Parungao[8 and
adjudging petitioner Edmund Sydeco (Sydeco) guilty of drunk driving and resisting Ms. Laura Delos Santos,9 plus the documents each identified while in the witness box,
arrest.4 among which was Exh. "A", with sub-markings, the Joint Affidavit of Arrest10 executed
by SPO2 Bodino and two other police officers. The defense's witnesses, on the other
The factual backdrop:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary hand, consisted of Sydeco himself, his wife, Mildred, and Joenilo Pano.

On July 20, 2006, separate Informations, one for Violation of Section 56(f) of Republic The prosecution's version of the incident, as summarized in and/or as may be
Act No. (RA) 41365 and another, for Violation of Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code deduced from, the CA decision now on appeal is as
(RPC)6 were filed against petitioner Sydeco with the MeTC in Manila and eventually follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
raffled to Branch 14 of that court. The accusatory portions of the interrelated
informations, docketed as Crim. Case No. 052527-CN for the first offense and Crim. On or about June 11, 2006, P/Insp. Manuel Aguilar (Aguilar), SPO4 Bodino, PO3
Case No. 052528-CN for the second, respectively read:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Benedict Cruz III and another officer were manning a checkpoint established along
Roxas Boulevard corner Quirino Ave., Malate, Manila when, from about twenty (20)
1.� Crim. Case No. 052527-CN meters away, they spotted a swerving red Ford Ranger pick up with plate number
That on or about June 11, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, XAE-988. Petitioner was behind the wheel. The team members, all in uniform, flagged
being then the driver and owner of a car, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, the vehicle down and asked the petitioner to alight from the vehicle so he could take
drive, manage and operate the same along Roxas Blvd. cor. Quirino Avenue, Malate, a rest at the police station situated nearby, before he resumes driving. 11 Petitioner,
in said city, while under the influence of liquor, in violation of Section 56(f) of Republic who the policemen claimed was smelling of liquor, denied being drunk and insisted
Act 4136. he could manage to drive. Then in a raised voice, petitioner started talking rudely to
the policemen and in fact yelled at P/Insp. Aguilar blurting: "P...g ina mo, bakit mo
Contrary to law. ako hinuhuli." At that remark, P/Insp. Aguilar, who earlier pointed out to petitioner
that his team had seen him swerving and driving under the influence of liquor,
2. Crim. Case No. 052528-CN proceeded to arrest petitioner who put up resistance. Despite petitioner's efforts to
parry the hold on him, the police eventually succeeded in subduing him who was then
That on or about June 11, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, brought to the Ospital ng Maynila where he was examined and found to be positive
did then and there willfully and unlawfully resist and disobey P/INSP Manuel Aguilar, of alcoholic breath per the Medical Certificate issued by that hospital, marked as Exh.
SPO2 Virgilio Paulino, SPO4 Efren Bodino and PO3 Benedict Cruz III, bona fide "F". Petitioner was then turned over to the Malate Police Station for disposition. 12
member of the Philippine National Police, Malate Police Station-9, duly qualified and
appointed, and while in the actual performance of their official duties as such police Petitioner, on the other hand, claimed to be a victim in the incident in question,
officers, by then and there resisting, shoving and pushing, the hands of said officers adding in this regard that he has in fact filed criminal charges for physical injuries,
22
robbery and arbitrary detention against P/Insp. Aguilar et al. In his Counter- 1. Pay a fine of two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) for Criminal Case No.
Affidavit13 and his Complaint-Affidavit14 appended thereto, petitioner averred that, 052527-CN; and
in the early morning of June 12, 2006, he together with Joenilo Pano and Josie
Villanueva, cook and waitress, respectively, in his restaurant located along 2. Suffer imprisonment of straight penalty of three (3) months and pay a fine
Macapagal Ave., Pasay City, were on the way home from on board his pick-up when of two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) for Criminal Case No. 052528-CN.
signaled to stop by police officers at the area immediately referred to above. Their For lack of basis, no civil liability is adjudged.
flashlights trained on the inside of the vehicle and its occupants, the policemen then
asked the petitioner to open the vehicle's door and alight for a body and vehicle The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to certify to the Land Transportation Office the
search, a directive he refused to heed owing to a previous extortion experience. result of this case, stating further the data required under Section 58 [15 of Republic
Instead, he opened the vehicle window, uttering, "plain view lang boss, plain view Act 4136.
lang." Obviously irked by this remark, one of the policemen, P/Insp. Aguilar, as it
turned out, then told the petitioner that he was drunk, pointing to three cases of
empty beer bottles in the trunk of the vehicle. Petitioner's explanation about being Therefrom, petitioner appealed to the RTC on the main submissions that the MeTC
sober and that the empty bottles adverted to came from his restaurant was ignored erred in: 1) according credit to the medical certificate issued by Dr. Balucating,
as P/Insp. Aguilar suddenly boxed him (petitioner) on the mouth and poked a gun at although the records custodian of Ospital ng Maynila was presented to testify
his head, at the same time blurting, "P...g ina mo gusto mo tapusin na kita dito thereon instead of the issuing physician, and 2) upholding the veracity of the joint
marami kapang sinasab." The officers then pulled the petitioner out of the driver's affidavit of arrest of P/INSP Manuel Aguilar, SPO4 Efren Bodino, and PO3 Benedict
seat and pushed him into the police mobile car, whereupon he, petitioner, asked his Cruz III, considering that only SPO4 Bodino appeared in court to testify.
companions to call up his wife. The policemen then brought petitioner to the Ospital
ng Maynila where they succeeded in securing a medical certificate under the By Decision16 dated February 22, 2010, the RTC affirmed the conviction of the
signature of one Dr. Harvey Balucating depicting petitioner as positive of alcoholic petitioner, addressing the first issue thus raised in the appeal in the following wise:
breath, although he refused to be examined and no alcohol breath examination was Dr. Balucating's failure to testify relative to petitioner's alcoholic breath, as indicated
conducted. He was thereafter detained from 3:00 a.m. of June 12, 2006 and released in the medical certificate, is not fatal as such testimony would only serve to
in the afternoon of June 13, 2006. Before his release, however, he was allowed to corroborate the testimony on the matter of SPO4 Bodino, noting that under the Rules
undergo actual medical examination where the resulting medical certificate of Court,17 observations of the police officers regarding the petitioner's behavior
indicated that he has sustained physical injuries but negative for alcohol breath. Ten would suffice to support the conclusion of the latter's drunken state on the day he
days later, petitioner filed his Complaint-Affidavit against Dr. Balucating, P/Insp. was apprehended.18
Aguilar and the other police officers.
Apropos the second issue, the RTC pointed out that the prosecution has the
Petitioner also stated in his counter-affidavit that, under Sec. 29 of R.A. 4136, or the discretion as to how many witnesses it needs to present before the trial court, the
Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the procedure for dealing with a traffic positive testimony of a single credible witness as to the guilt of the accused being
violation is not to place the erring driver under arrest, but to confiscate his driver's reasonable enough to warrant a conviction. The RTC cited established
license. jurisprudence19 enunciating the rule that preponderance is not necessarily with the
greatest number as "[Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered."
On June 26, 2009, the MeTC rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty as charged,
disposing as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Following the denial by the RTC of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner went to
the CA on a petition for review, the recourse docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 33567. By a
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution having established the guilt of Decision dated December 28, 2011, as would be reiterated in a Resolution of July 18,
the accused beyond reasonable doubt, his conviction of the offenses charges is 2012, the appellate court affirmed that of the RTC, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
hereby pronounced.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated February 22, 2010
Accordingly, he is sentenced to: of the RTC, Manila, Branch 12, is AFFIRMED.
23
SO ORDERED. Instead of requiring the vehicle's occupants to answer one or two routinary questions
out of respect to what the Court has, in Abenes v. Court of Appeals,23 adverted to as
the motorists' right of "free passage without [intrusive] interruption," P/Insp. Aguilar,
Hence, this petition on the following stated issues:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary et al. engaged petitioner in what appears to be an unnecessary conversation and
I. The CA erred in upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of when utterances were made doubtless not to their liking, they ordered the latter to
duties by the police officers; and step out of the vehicle, concluding after seeing three (3) empty cases of beer at the
trunk of the vehicle that petitioner was driving under the influence of alcohol. Then
II. The CA erred in giving weight to the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Harvey petitioner went on with his "plain view search" line. The remark apparently pissed
Balucating, in the absence of his testimony before the Court. the police officers off no end as one of them immediately lashed at petitioner and his
companions as "mga lasing" (drunk) and to get out of the vehicle, an incongruous
response to an otherwise reasonable plea. Defense witness, Joenilo Pano, graphically
The petition is meritorious. described this particular event in his sinumpaang salaysay, as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Prefatory, the rule according great weight, even finality at times, to the trial court's
findings of fact does hold sway when, as here, it appears in the record that facts and xxx matapos kami huminto ay naglapitan sa amin ang mga pulis, nag flash light sa
circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or loob ng sasakyan at sa aming mga mukha.
misapplied in a case under appeal.[20 Corollary, it is basic that an appeal in criminal
prosecutions throws the whole case wide open for review, inclusive of the matter of xxx isang pulis ang nag-utos sa amin na kami ay magsi-baba at buksan ang pintuan ng
credibility and appreciation of evidence.21 nasabing sasakyan.

Peace officers and traffic enforcers, like other public officials and employees are xxx dahil doon sinabi ni Kuya sa mga pulis, na hindi pwede iyon at pinigilan niya ako
bound to discharge their duties with prudence, caution and attention, which careful at ang aking kasama kong waitress na bumaba.
men usually exercise in the management of their own affairs. 22
xxx iginiit ni Kuya sa mga pulis ang salitang "PLAIN VIEW LANG BOSS, PLAIN VIEW
In the case at bar, the men manning the checkpoint in the subject area and during LANG" pero iyon ay hindi nila pinansin. Sa halip as isang pulis ang nagsabi na "MGA
the period material appeared not to have performed their duties as required by law, LASING KAYO HETO MAY CASE PA KAYO NG BEER".
or at least fell short of the norm expected of peace officers. They spotted the
petitioner's purported swerving vehicle. They then signaled him to stop which he xxx habang nagpapaliwanag si Kuya, isang pulis ang biglang kumuha ng susi ng
obeyed. But they did not demand the presentation of the driver's license or issue any sasakyan habang ang isang pulis ang biglang sumuntok sa bibig ni Kuya, nagbunot ng
ticket or similar citation paper for traffic violation as required under the particular baril at tinutukan sa ulo si Kuya.
premises by Sec. 29 of RA 4136, which specifically
provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary xxx dahil doon ay nagmakaawa ako na wag barilin si Kuya subalit ako rin ay tinutukan
ng baril.
SECTION 29. Confiscation of Driver's License. - Law enforcement and peace officers
of other agencies duly deputized by the Director shall, in apprehending a driver for x x x na matapos suntukin si Kuya ay pinagtulungan siya ng mga pulis na ilabas sa
any violation of this Act or any regulations issued pursuant thereto, or of local traffic sasakyan at nang mailabas siya ay pinagtulakan siya ng mga pulis sa gilid ng kalsada
rules and regulations x x x confiscate the license of the driver concerned and issue a habang hawak ang kanilang baril.24chanrobleslaw
receipt prescribed and issued by the Bureau therefor which shall authorize the
driver to operate a motor vehicle for a period not exceeding seventy-two hours from
the time and date of issue of said receipt. The period so fixed in the receipt shall not Pano's above account ironically finds in a way collaboration from the arresting
be extended, and shall become invalid thereafter, x x x (Emphasis added.) officers themselves who admitted that they originally had no intention to search the

24
vehicle in question nor subject its occupants to a body search. The officers wrote in drunk mainly because of the cases of beer found at the trunk of the vehicle. On re-
their aforementioned joint affidavit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary direct examination, SPO4 Bodino testified:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

x x x x Q: On that particular date, time and place ... what exactly prompted you to
arrest the accused (sic) the charged in for Viol, of Section 56(f) of R.A. 4136?
That we arrested the suspect, Edmund Sydeco y Siozon x x x for violation of RA 4136
(Driving under the influence of liquor), and violation of Article 151 of the RPC A: Noong mag check-up kami, naamoy namin na amoy alak siya at yung
(Resisting Arrest) x x x committed on or about 3:30A.M., June 11, 2006 along x x x sasakyan ay hindi maganda ang takbo.
Malate, Manila, x x x He began to raise his voice and converse with us rudely without Q: Now you stated in your affidavit of arrest Mr. Witness that you spotted the
considering that we are in uniform, on duty and performing our job. P/INSP Manuel vehicle of the accused swerving, is that correct?
Aguilar pointed out that we saw him swerving and driving under the influence of
liquor that was why we are inviting him to our police station in which our intention A: Yes, sir.
was to make him rest for a moment before he continue to drive, x x x (Emphasis
added.) Q: Is that also the reason why you apprehended him?

A: Yes, sir.
In fine, at the time of his apprehension, or when he was signaled to stop, to be Q: And what happened after Mr. Witness, when you approached the vehicle of
precise, petitioner has not committed any crime or suspected of having committed the accused?
one. "Swerving," as ordinarily understood, refers to a movement wherein a vehicle
shifts from a lane to another or to turn aside from a direct course of action or A: The accused was in a loud voice. He was asking, "Bakit daw siya pinahihinto?"
movement.25cralawred The act may become punishable when there is a sign
xxxx
indicating that swerving is prohibited or where swerving partakes the nature of
reckless driving, a concept defined under RA 4136, as:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Q: How do you describe the resistance Mr. Witness?
SECTION 48. Reckless Driving. - No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any A: He refused to ride with us going to the hospital, Your Honor.
highway recklessly or without reasonable caution considering the width, traffic,
grades, crossing, curvatures, visibility and other conditions of the highway and the x x x x27
conditions of the atmosphere and weather, or so as to endanger the property or the
safety or rights of any person or so as to cause excessive or unreasonable damage to
Going over the records, it is fairly clear that what triggered the confrontational stand-
the highway.
off between the police team, on one hand, and petitioner on the other, was the
latter's refusal to get off of the vehicle for a body and vehicle search juxtaposed by
Swerving is not necessarily indicative of imprudent behavior let alone constitutive of his insistence on a plain view search only. Petitioner's twin gestures cannot plausibly
reckless driving. To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be be considered as resisting a lawful orders.28 He may have sounded boorish or spoken
something more than a mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, and a crudely at that time, but none of this would make him a criminal. It remains to stress
willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required.26Nothing in the records that the petitioner has not, when flagged down, committed a crime or performed an
indicate that the area was a "no swerving or overtaking zone." Moreover, the overt act warranting a reasonable inference of criminal activity. He did not try to
swerving incident, if this be the case, occurred at around 3:00 a.m. when the streets avoid the road block established. He came to a full stop when so required to stop.
are usually clear of moving vehicles and human traffic, and the danger to life, limb The two key elements of resistance and serious disobedience punished under Art.
and property to third persons is minimal. When the police officers stopped the 151 of the RPC are: (1) That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the
petitioner's car, they did not issue any ticket for swerving as required under Section performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender; and (2) That the
29 of RA 4136. Instead, they inspected the vehicle, ordered the petitioner and his offender resists or seriously disobeys such person or his agent. 29
companions to step down of their pick up and concluded that the petitioner was then
25
There can be no quibble that P/Insp. Aguilar and his apprehending team are persons evidence:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
in authority or agents of a person in authority manning a legal checkpoint. But surely
petitioner's act of exercising one's right against unreasonable searches 30 to be The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence
conducted in the middle of the night cannot, in context, be equated to disobedience regarding
let alone resisting a lawful order in contemplation of Art. 151 of the RPC. As has often
been said, albeit expressed differently and under dissimilar circumstances, the x x x x
vitality of democracy lies not in the rights it guarantees, but in the courage of the
people to assert and use them whenever they are ignored or worse The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition
infringed.31 Moreover, there is, to stress, nothing in RA 4136 that authorized the or appearance of a person Under Section 15 of the Revised Rules on Summary
checkpoint-manning policemen to order petitioner and his companions to get out of Procedure, "at the trial, the affidavits submitted by the parties shall constitute the
the vehicle for a vehicle and body search. And it bears to emphasize that there was direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the same."32chanrobleslaw
no reasonable suspicion of the occurrence of a crime that would allow what
jurisprudence refers to as a "stop and frisk" action. As SPO4 Bodino no less testified,
the only reason why they asked petitioner to get out of the vehicle was not because In sum, the MeTC, as echoed by RTC and CA later, did not rely on the medical
he has committed a crime, but because of their intention to invite him to Station 9 certificate Dr. Balucating issued on June 12, 2006 as to petitioner's intoxicated state,
so he could rest before he resumes driving. But instead of a tactful invitation, the as the former was not able to testify as to its contents, but on the testimony of SPO4
apprehending officers, in an act indicative of overstepping of their duties, dragged Bodino, on the assumption that he and his fellow police officers were acting in the
the petitioner out of the vehicle and, in the process of subduing him, pointed a gun regular performance of their duties. It cannot be emphasized enough that smelling
and punched him on the face. None of the police officers, to note, categorically of liquor/alcohol and be under the influence of liquor are differing concepts.
denied the petitioner's allegation about being physically hurt before being brought Corollarily, it is difficult to determine with legally acceptable certainty whether a
to the Ospital ng Maynila to be tested for intoxication. What the policemen claimed person is drunk in contemplation of Sec. 56(f) of RA 4136 penalizing the act of driving
was that it took the three (3) of them to subdue the fifty-five year old petitioner. Both under the influence of alcohol. The legal situation has of course changed with the
actions were done in excess of their authority granted under RA 4136. They relied on approval in May 2013 of the Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013 (RA 10586)
the medical certificate issued by Dr. Balucating attesting that petitioner showed no which also penalizes driving under the influence of alcohol (DUIA), 33 a term defined
physical injuries. The medical certificate was in fact challenged not only because the under its Sec. 3(e) as the "act of operating a motor vehicle while the driver's blood
petitioner insisted at every turn that he was not examined, but also because Dr. alcohol concentration level has, after being subjected to a breath analyzer test
Balucating failed to testify as to its content. Ms. Delos Santos, the medical record reached the level of intoxication as established jointly by the [DOH], the NAPOLCOM]
custodian of the Ospital ng Maynila, testified, but only to attest that the hospital has and the [DOTC]. And under Sec. 3(g) of the IRR of RA 10586, a driver of a private
a record of the certificate. The trial court, in its decision, merely motor vehicle with gross vehicle weight not exceeding 4,500 kilograms who has BAC
stated:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary [blood alcohol concentration] of 0.05% or higher shall be conclusive proof that said
driver is driving under the influence of alcohol. Viewed from the prism of RA 10586,
At the outset, the records of the case show that the same were not testified upon by petitioner cannot plausibly be convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol for
the doctor who issued it. Instead, the Records Custodian of the Ospital ng Maynila this obvious reason: he had not been tested beyond reasonable doubt, let alone
was presented by the Prosecution to testify on the said documents. conclusively, for reaching during the period material the threshold level of
intoxication set under the law for DUIA, i.e., a BAC of 0.05% or over. Under Art. 22 of
However, although the doctor who examined the accused was unable to testify to the RPC,34 penal laws shall be given retroactive insofar as they are favorable to the
affirm the contents of the Medical Certificate he issued (re: that he was found to have accused. Section 19 of RA 10586 expressly modified Sec. 56(f) of RA 4136. Verily, even
an alcoholic breath), this court finds that the observation of herein private by force of Art. 22 of the RPC in relation to Sec. 3(e) of RA 10586 alone, petitioner
complainants as to the accused's behavior and condition after the incident was could very well be acquitted for the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol,
sufficient. even if the supposed inculpatory act occurred in 2006.

Under Section 50 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Parenthetically, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, per its Resolution35 of
26
November 21, 2006 found, on the strength of another physical examination from the ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby acquitted of the crimes charged in Criminal Case No.
same Ospital ng Maynila conducted by Dr. Devega on the petitioner on the same day, 052527-CN and Criminal Case No. 052528-CN.
June 12, but later hour, probable cause for slight physical injuries against P/Insp.
Aguilar et al. That finding to be sure tends to indicate that the police indeed
manhandled the petitioner and belied, or at least cancelled out, the purported Dr.
Balucating's finding as to petitioner's true state.

The Court must underscore at this juncture that the petitioner, after the unfortunate
incident, lost no time in commencing the appropriate criminal charges against the
police officers and Dr. Balucating, whom he accused of issuing Exh. "F" even without
examining him. The element of immediacy in the filing lends credence to petitioner's
profession of innocence, particularly of the charge of disobeying lawful order or
resisting arrest. Certainly not to be overlooked is the fact that petitioner, in so filing
his complaint, could not have possibly been inspired by improper motive, the police
officers being complete strangers to him and vice versa. Withal, unless he had a
legitimate grievance, it is difficult to accept the notion that petitioner would expose
himself to harm's way by filing a harassment criminal suit against policemen.

Conviction must come only after it survives the test of reason. 36 It is thus required
that every circumstance favoring one's innocence be duly taken into account. 37 Given
the deviation of the police officers from the standard and usual procedure in dealing
with traffic violation by perceived drivers under the influence of alcohol and
executing an arrest, the blind reliance and simplistic invocation by the trial court and
the CA on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is clearly
misplaced. As stressed in People v. Ambrosio,38 the presumption of regularity is
merely just that, a presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when
challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. And to be sure, this
presumption alone cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that
prevails if not overcome by proof that obliterates all doubts as to the offender's
culpability. In the present case, the absence of conclusive proof being under the
influence of liquor while driving coupled with the forceful manner the police yanked
petitioner out of his vehicle argues against or at least cast doubt on the finding of
guilt for drunken driving and resisting arrest.

In case of doubt as to the moral certainty of culpability, the balance tips in favor of
innocence or at least in favor of the milder form of criminal liability. This is as it should
be. For, it is basic, almost elementary, that the burden of proving the guilt of an
accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its evidence and
not on the weakness of the defense.

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the appealed Decision and Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33567 are hereby REVERSED and SET
27