Del rTITLE III Section 8.

 Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect upon its approval and
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved: October 24, 1990 
A. REBELLION, COUP D’ ETAT, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY
People of the Philippines vs. Lovedioro
1. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION 320 Phil. 481 (November 29, 1995)
Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed.  - The crime of Kapunan, J.
rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms
against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to An accused invoking the lesser penalty of rebellion has the burden of
said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any proving the political motive behind the offense
part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the
Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers FACTS: Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo (deceased) was walking
or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968). along Burgos St., away from the Daraga, Albay Public Market when a man
suddenly walked beside him, pulled a .45 caliber gun from his waist,
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6968             OCTOBER 24, 1990 aimed the gun at the policeman's right ear and fired. The man who shot
AN ACT PUNISHING THE CRIME OF COUP D′ÉTAT BY Lucilo had three other companions with him. After taking the latter's gun,
AMENDING ARTICLES 134, 135 AND 136 OF CHAPTER ONE, the man and his companions boarded a tricycle and fled. The incident was
TITLE THREE OF ACT NUMBERED THIRTY-EIGHT HUNDRED witnessed by Nestor Armenta, a 25 year old welder from Pilar, Sorsogon,
AND FIFTEEN, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL who claimed that he knew both the victim and the man who fired the fatal
CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES shot. Armenta identified the man who fired at the deceased as accused-
Section 1. The heading of Chapter One, Title Three of the Revised Penal appellant Elias Lovedioro y Castro (a member of the NPA according to the
Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "REBELLION, COUP D witness), his nephew, and alleged that he knew the victim from the fact
′ÉTAT, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY". that the latter was a resident of Bagumbayan.

Section 2. Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to read As a result of the killing, an Information was filed charging accused-
as follows: appellant Lovedioro of the crime of Murder under Article 248, RPC.
"Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection – How committed. – "he crime of
rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising and taking arms against BACKDROP IN COURTS:
the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Trial Court1 – found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or (acting in conspiracy with his co-accused who are still at large) of the
any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or crime of Murder, and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of perpetua. Hence, the instant appeal.
any of their powers or prerogatives."
Appellant cites the testimony of the prosecution's principal witness, Nestor
Section 3. Chapter One, Title Three of the Revised Penal Code is hereby Armenta, as supporting his claim that he should have been charged with
further amended by adding a new article as follows: the crime of rebellion, not murder. Additionally, he contends that the
"Art. 134-A. Coup D′ÉTAT. – How committed. – The crime of coup D killing of Lucilo should have been deemed absorbed in the crime of
′ÉTAT is a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, rebellion. Finally, claiming that he did not fire the fatal shot but merely
strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the acted as a look-out in the liquidation of Lucilo, he avers that he should
Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, have been charged merely as a participant in the commission of the crime
communications networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for of rebellion under paragraph 2 of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code
the exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously and should therefore have been meted only the penalty of prision mayor
carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, by the lower court.
belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or
employment, with or without civilian support or participation, for the ISSUE/s: WON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT SHOULD BE
purpose of seizing or diminishing state power." CONVICTED OF REBELLION INSTEAD OF MURDER.

Section 4. Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to read HELD: NO WAY. The conviction for Murder was proper. Under Art.
as follows: 134 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6968,
"Art. 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup D′ÉTAT. – Any rebellion is committed in the following manner:
person who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection shall “[B]y rising publicly and taking arms against the
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Government for the purpose of removing from the
allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory
"Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof,
a rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or
depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature
"Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
undertake a coup D′ÉTAT shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. prerogatives.”

"Any person in the government service who participates, or executes The gravamen of the crime of rebellion is an armed public uprising against
directions or commands of others in undertaking a coup D′ÉTAT shall the government. By its very nature, rebellion is essentially a crime of
suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. masses or multitudes involving crowd action, which cannot be confined a
"Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any priori within predetermined bounds. One aspect noteworthy in the
manner supports, finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup D′ÉTAT commission of rebellion is that other acts committed in its pursuance are,
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period. by law, absorbed in the crime itself because they acquire a political
character. This peculiarity was underscored in the case of People vs.
"When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup D′ÉTAT shall be under the Hernandez, thus:
command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the others, “In short, political crimes are those directly aimed
spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, against the political order, as well as such common
or performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels shall be deemed a leader crimes as may be committed to achieve a political
of such rebellion, insurrection, or coup D′ÉTAT." purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive.
xxx.”
Section 5. Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to read
as follows: Divested of its common complexion therefore, any ordinary act,
"Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup D′ÉTAT, rebellion or however grave, assumes a different color by being absorbed in the
insurrection. – The conspiracy and proposal to commit coup D′ÉTAT crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter penalty than the crime of
shall be punished by prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine murder. In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it
which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00). becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act was
"The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be done in furtherance of a political end. The political motive of the act
punished, respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and should be conclusively demonstrated. In such cases, the burden of
a fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), and by demonstrating political motive falls on the defense. Motive, being a
prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding two state of mind, [is something] the accused, better than any individual,
thousand pesos (P2,000.00)." knows. Thus, in People vs. Gempes, this court stressed that:
“Since this is a matter that lies peculiarly with (the
Section 6. Repealing Clause. – All laws, executive orders, rules and accused's) knowledge and since moreover this is an
regulations, or any part thereof inconsistent herewith are deemed repealed or affirmative defense, the burden is on them to prove, or
modified accordingly. at least to state, which they could easily do personally
or through witnesses, that they killed the deceased in
Section 7. Separability Clause. – If for any reason, any section or provision furtherance of the resistance movement.”
of this Act, or any part thereof, or the application of such section, provision, or From the foregoing, it is plainly obvious that it is not enough that the
portion is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder thereof shall not overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose and overt acts
be effected by such declaration.

1 Case did not specify.

1
are essential components of the crime. With either of these elements or leniency. 
wanting, the crime of rebellion legally does not exist. In fact, even in cases
where the act complained of were committed simultaneously with or in the Issue/s: WON HE SHOULD BE CONVICTED OF SIMPLE
course of the rebellion, if the killing, robbing, or etc., were accomplished REBELLION ONLY
for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, it has been
held that the crime would be separately punishable as a common crime and HELD: YES. Nevertheless, there is merit in appellant's argument that
would not be absorbed by the crime rebellion. Clearly, political motive granting he is guilty, what he committed was a political crime of simple
should be established before a person charged with a common crime rebellion, and hence he should not be convicted of murder with direct
— alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty assault.
— could benefit from the law's relatively benign attitude towards
political crimes. It follows, therefore, that if no political motive is The Solicitor General agrees with the accused-appellant on this point as
established and proved, the accused should be convicted of the common manifested in the People's brief, which We quote:
crime and not of rebellion. In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the "However, as correctly pointed by appellant, the lower court
act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the erroneously convicted him of Murder with Assault Upon a Person
furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself, suffice. in Authority, instead of Rebellion.

As the record would show, allegations relating to appellant's membership "Rebellion is committed by taking up arms against the
in the NPA surfaced almost merely as an afterthought. Interestingly, government, among other means. (Article 135, Revised Penal
however, in the same testimony, Armenta admitted that he was “forced” to Code). In this case, appellant not only confessed voluntarily his
pinpoint appellant as an NPA member. The logical result, of course, was membership with the sparrow unit but also his participation
that the trial court did not give any weight and credence to said testimony. and that of his group in the killing of Pfc. Manatad while
manning the traffic in Mandaue City in the afternoon of August 4,
Appellant's contentions are couched in terms so general and non-specific 1987. It is of judicial notice that the sparrow unit is the
that they offer no explanation as to what contribution the killing would liquidation squad of the New People's Army with the
have made towards the achievement of the NPA's subversive aims. SPO3 objective of overthrowing the duly constituted government. It
Jesus Lucilo, a mere policeman, was never alleged to be an informer. No is therefore not hard to comprehend that the killing of Pfc.
acts of his were specifically shown to have offended the NPA. It is of Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of the
judicial notice that in many NPA infested areas, crimes have been all- subversive ends of the NPA. Consequently, appellant is liable for
too-quickly attributed to the furtherance of an ideology or under the the crime of rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon a
cloak of political color for the purpose of mitigating the imposable person in authority."
penalty when in fact they are no more than ordinary crimes The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement of men
perpetrated by common criminals. and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtherance
of rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in one
Final Ruling: the trial court's decision dated September 14, 1993, single crime of rebellion. The act of killing a police officer, knowing too
sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto. well that the victim is a person in authority is a mere component or
ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It
People of the Philippines vs. Dasig cannot be made a basis of a separate charge.
G.R. No. 100231 (April 28, 1993)
Nocon.,  J.: Final Ruling: Accused Rogelio Dasig is found GUILTY OF
Rebellion absorbs crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion PARTICIPATING IN AN ACT OF REBELLION

FACTS: Umil vs. Ramos, supra

Appellants Rodrigo Dasig, Edwin Nuñez and 6 others were charged G.R. No. 81567 (July 9, 1990)
together of shooting Redempto Manatad, a police officer. He died while Per Curiam:
performing traffic duties. Edwin Nuñez died pending trial, thereby
extinguishing his criminal liability. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit
such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in
In the afternoon pf the incident, he was tasked to assist in canning the connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in
traffic at M.N. Briones and Bonifacio Streets in Mandaue City. Pfc. the nature of continuing crimes.
Manatad manned the traffic; while Pfc. Catamora acted as back-up and
posted himself at a nearby building. FACTS: These are consolidated cases of the eight (8) petitioners for
habeas corpus. The respondents uniformly assert that the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is not available to the petitioners as they have been
Pfc. Catamora noticed eight (8) persons, one of whom he identified as
legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid informations filed in
Edwin Nuñez, acting suspiciously. He noticed one of them giving
court against them. The petitioners counter that their detention is unlawful
instructions to two of the men to approach Pfc. Manatad. He followed the
as their arrests were made without warrant and, that no preliminary
two, but sensing that they were being followed, they immediately
investigation was first conducted, so that the informations filed against
proceeded to the middle of the road and engaged Pfc. Catamora to a gun
them are null and void.
battle. At that instant, Pfc. Catamora heard a series of shots from the other
group and thereafter saw Pfc. Manatad sprawled on the ground. Being out-
ISSUE: WON THE ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT OF
numbered and to save his own life, Pat. Catamora sought refuge at the
APPELLANTS ON THESE CONSOLIDATED CASES ARE
nearby BIR Office from where he saw two (2) persons take Pfc. Manatad's
VALID.
gun and again fired at him to make sure that he is dead while the rest of the
group including Nuñes acted as back up.  Thereafter, the Nuñes group
HELD: YES to all.
commandeered a vehicle and fled from the scene of the shooting. 
I.
Teams of police officers were tasked to conduct surveillance on a
In G.R. No. 81567 (Umil vs. Ramos), as to the appellant Rolando Dural, it
suspected safehouse of members of the sparrow unit, who saw Nuñez and
clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the
Dasig trying to escape.
two (2) CAPCOM soldiers. Nor was he arrested just after the commission
of the said offense for his arrest came a day after the said shooting
Dasig, who was shot and was brought to the hospitawl, was interrogated
incident, he was arrested for being a member of the New People’s Army
and confessed that he and the group of Nuñes killed Pfc. Manatad. He
(NPA), an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a
likewise admitted that he and Nuñes were members of the sparrow unit.
continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is justified
The extra-judicial confession was signed by him on every page thereof
as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested. The
with the first page containing a certification likewise signed by him, which
crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such
states: "I hereby certify that the herein statement is free and voluntary, and
crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in
that I am assisted by my counsel in the course of this investigation"
connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in
followed by the signed conformity of Atty. Parawan. The extra-judicial
the nature of continuing crimes.
confession was subscribed and sworn to before Cebu City Asst. Fiscal
II.
Salvador Solima.
In G.R. Nos. 84581-82 (Roque vs. De Villa), the arrest of Amelia Roque
and Wilfredo Buenaobra, without warrant, is also justified. When
In the present appeal, Dasig contends that the procedure by which his
apprehended at the house of Renato Constantino in Marikina Heights,
extra-judicial confession was taken was legally defective, and contrary to
Marikina, Metro Manila, Wilfredo Buenaobra admitted that he was an
his Constitutional rights. He further contends that assuming he conspired
NPA courier and he had with him letters to Renato Constantino and other
in the killing of Pfc. Manatad, he should be convicted at most of simple
members of the rebel group. Amelia Roque, upon the other hand, was a
rebellion and not murder with direct assault.
member of the National United Front Commission, in charge of finance,
and admitted ownership of subversive documents found in the house of her
ISSUE/s: WON THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION
sister in Caloocan City. She was also in possession of ammunition and a
ADMISSIBLE
fragmentation grenade for which she had no permit or authority to possess.
III.
HELD: YES. We do not find any reason to doubt the factual findings and
In G.R. Nos. 84583-84 (Anonuevo vs. Ramos), the arrest of Domingo
conclusions of the trial court that the extra-judicial confession of the
Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple, without warrant, is also justified under the
appellant was voluntarily made. The settled jurisprudence on the matter is
rules. Both are admittedly members of the standing committee of the
that a confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it
NUFC and, when apprehended in the house of Renato Constatino, they
was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward
2
had a bag containing subversive materials, and both carried firearms and punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put
ammunition for which they had no license to possess or carry. together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such
IV. case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other
In G.R. No. 83162 (Ocaya vs. Aguirre), the arrest without warrant, of purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the
Vicky Ocaya is justified under the Rules, since she had with her penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. The reason for this
unlicensed ammunition when she was arrested. The record of this case benevolent spirit of Article 48 is readily discernible. When two or more
shows that on 12 May 1988, agents of the PC Intelligence and crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse
Investigation of the Rizal PC-INP Command, armed with a search warrant than when he commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts. Instead
issued by Judge Eutropio Migrino of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, of sentencing him for each crime independently from the other, he must
Metro Manila, conducted a search of a house located at Block 19, Phase II, suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious one, on the
Marikina Green Heights, Marikina, Metro Manila, believed to be occupied assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties
by Benito Tiamson, head of the CPP-NPA. In the course of the search, for each offense.
Vicky Ocaya arrived in a car driven by Danny Rivera. Subversive
documents and several rounds of ammunition for a .45 cal. pistol were In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the amended
found in the car of Vicky Ocaya. As a result, Vicky Ocaya and Danny information against Hernandez, the murders, arsons and robberies
Rivera were brought to the PC Headquarters for investigation. When described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly
Vicky Ocaya could not produce any permit or authorization to possess the committed by said defendants, as means “necessary” for the perpetration
ammunition, an information charging her with violation of PD 1866 was of said offense of rebellion; that the crime charged in the aforementioned
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila. amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime
V. of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies; that the maximum
The petitioners Vicky Ocaya, Domingo Anonuevo, Ramon Casiple, and penalty imposable under such charge cannot exceed twelve (12) years of
Amelia Roque claim that the firearms, ammunition and subversive prision mayor and a fine of P20,000; and that, in conformity with the
documents alleged to have been found in their possession when they were policy of this court in dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar
arrested, did not belong to them, but were "planted" by the military agents punishment, said Defendant may be allowed bail.
to justify their illegal arrest. The petitioners, however, have not introduced
any evidence to support their aforesaid claim. Final Ruling: Motion for bail of Defendant- Appellant Amado V.
VI. Hernandez is hereby granted and, upon the filing of a bond, with
In. G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), the release on habeas corpus of the sufficient sureties, in the sum of P30,000, and its approval by the
petitioner Deogracias Espiritu, who is detained by virtue of an Information court, let said Defendant-Appellant be provisionally released.
for Violation of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting to
Sedition) filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, is similarly not People vs. Geronimo
warranted. The record of the case shows that the said petitioner is the 100 Phil 90 (October 23, 1956)
General Secretary of the Pinagkaisahang Samahan ng Tsuper at Operators Reyes, J.B.L., J.
Nationwide (PISTON), an association of drivers and operators of public Not every act of violence is deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion
service vehicles in the Philippines, organized for their mutual aid and solely because it was committed simultaneously with or in the course of
protection. the rebellion.
VII.
In G.R. No. 86332 (Nazareno vs. Station Commander), we also find no FACTS: In an information filed on June 24, 1954 by the provincial Fiscal
merit in the submission of Narciso Nazareno that he was illegally arrested in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Appellant Federico
and is unlawfully detained. The findings of the Presiding Judge of the Geronimo, together with Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony, alias
Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna are based upon the facts and the Tony Collante alias Taoic, alias Mang Pacio, alias Bonny Abundio
law. Consequently, we will not disturb the same. Evidently, the arrest of Romagosa alias David, Jesus Polita alias Rex, Jesus Lava alias Jessie alias
Nazareno was effected by the police without warrant pursuant to Sec. 5(b), NMT, alias Balbas, alias Noli, alias Noli Metangere, alias NKVD, Juan
Rule 113, Rules of Court after he was positively implicated by his co- Ocompo alias Cmdr. Bundalian, alias Tagle, Rosendo Manuel alias Cmdr.
accused Ramil Regala in the killing of Romulo Bunye II; and after Sendong, alias Ruiz, Ernesto Herrero alias Cmdr. Ed, alias Rene, alias
investigation by the police authorities. Eddy, Santiago Rotas alias Cmdr. Jessie, Fernando Principe alias Cmdr.
VIII. Manding, Alfredo Saguni alias Godo, alias Terry, alias Terpy, Andres
It is to be noted that, in all the petitions here considered, criminal charges Diapera alias Maclang, alias Berto, alias Teny, Lorenzo Saniel alias
have been filed in the proper courts against the petitioners. The rule is, that Wenny, Silvestre Sisno alias Tomo, alias Albert, Teodoro Primavera alias
if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an Nestor, Lorenzo Roxas alias Argos, Vivencio Pineda alias Marquez, Pedro
officer under process issued by a court judge, and that the court or judge Anino alias Fernandez, Mauro Llorera alias Justo, Richard Doe alias
had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order, of if such person is Cmdr. Danny and John Doe alias Cmdr. Berion, alias Mayo, alias Cmdr.
charged before any court, the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed. Paulito and many others, were charged with the complex crime of
rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping committed.
Final Ruling: Petitions are dismissed.
In Camarines Sur, the above-named accused being then ranking officers
People of the Philippines vs. Hernandez, etal. and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of
G.R. no. L-6025-26 (July 18, 1956) the Philippines (CPP) and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or
Concepcion, J. otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the latter being the armed
Rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes such as killings, force of said Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) having come to an
destruction of property, etc., committed on the occasion and infurtherance agreement and decide to commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore,
thereof. conspiring together and confederating among themselves with all of the
thirty-one accused.
FACTS: Defendant-appellant Amado Hernandez is a bonafide member of
Congress of Labor Organizations. CLO is an affiliate of Hukbong ISSUE/s: WON THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE
Magpalayang Bayan, a known group performing rebellious activities. CRIME OF REBELLION.
March 15, 1945, Hernandez and other appellants were accused of
conspiring, confederating and cooperating with each other, as well as with HELD:
the thirty-one(31) defendants were charged in the criminal cases of the As a rule, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both
Court of First Instance of Manila. The CFI of Manila convicted them of the armed uprising for the purposes expressed in article 134 of the Revised
the crime of rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robbery for Penal Code, and the overt acts of violence described in the first paragraph
being actively engaged in an armed rebellion against the government of of article 135.
the Philippines and they were sentenced to life imprisonment.  That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one
crime, and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally
The prosecution maintains that capital punishment may be imposed for the does not exist, is shown by the absence of any penalty attached to
crime he was convicted of and required the denial of bail. While the article 134.
defense contends that there is no complex crime in the crime of rebellion,  It follows, therefore that any or all of the acts described in article
and that Hernandez be allowed to post bail. 135, when committed as a means to or in furtherance of the
subversive ends described in article 134, become absorbed in the
ISSUE/s: WON THE CRIME OF REBELLION CAN BE crime of rebellion, and cannot be regarded or penalized as distinct
COMPLEXED WITH MURDER, ARSON, & crimes in themselves.
ROBBERRY AND WON BAIL IS APPLICABLE?
 In law they are part and parcel of the rebellion itself, and cannot be
considered as giving rise to a separate crime that, under article 48 of
*BAIL TALAGA ANG ISSUE SA CASE* the Code, would constitute a complex one with that of rebellion.

HELD: NO to complex crime, YES to bail. The SC ruled that “murder, However, not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the
arson, and robbery are mere ingredient of the crime of rebellion as means crime of rebellion solely because it happens to be committed
“necessary” for the perpetration of the offense. Such common offense simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion. If the killing,
isabsorbed or inherent of the crime of rebellion. Inasmuch as the acts robbing, etc. were done for private purposes or profit, without any political
specified in Article 135constitutes, one single crime it follows that said motivation, the crime would be separately punishable and would not be
acts offer no occasion for the application of Article 48 which requires absorbed by the rebellion. But even then, the individual misdeed could not
therefore the commission of at least two crimes. Indeed, if one act be taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the
constitutes two or more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated to each other; and the
3
individual crime would not be a means necessary for committing the ISSUE/s: WON TO HOLD HERNANDEZ APPLICABLE ONLY TO
rebellion as it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance of the OFFENSES COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE, OR AS A
latter. NECESSARY MEANS FOR THE COMMISSION, OF
 This appears with utmost clarity in the case where an individual rebel REBELLION, BUT NOT TO ACTS COMMITTED IN THE
should commit rape; certainly the latter felony could not be said to COURSE OF A REBELLION WHICH ALSO CONSTITUTE
have been done in furtherance of the rebellion or facilitated its "COMMON" CRIMES OF GRAVE OR LESS GRAVE
commission in any way. The ravisher would then be liable for two CHARACTER;
separate crimes, rebellion and rape, and the two could not be merged
into a juridical whole. HELD: No. The Court unanimously voted to reject the theory
that Hernandez is, or should be, limited in its application to offenses
In this case, while a majority of seven justices agreed that if the overt committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion and that
acts detailed in the information against the Appellant had been duly proved the ruling should not be interpreted as prohibiting the complexing of
to have been committed “as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion with other common crimes committed ON THE
rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof”, then the OCCASION, but not in furtherance, thereof. 
accused could only be convicted of simple rebellion. there was no proof
that the acts of the accused was in furtherance of overthrowing the The Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the
government which is the purpose of rebellion. complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion
thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended
However the opinions differ as to whether his plea of guilty renders the effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.
accused amenable to punishment not only for rebellion but also for murder
or other crimes.The view of the six justices was adopted in resolving this The Court rules further (by a vote of 11 to 3) that the information filed
issue. These justices believe that conceding the absence of a complex against the petitioner does in fact charge an offense. Disregarding the
crime, still, by his plea of guilty the accused-Appellant has admitted all the objectionable phrasing that would complex rebellion with murder and
acts described in the five separate counts of the information; that if any of multiple frustrated murder, that indictment is to be read as charging simple
such counts constituted an independent crime committed within the rebellion. The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged with a crime
jurisdiction of the lower court as seems to be the case under the facts that does not exist in the statute books, while technically correct so far as
alleged in Count No. 5 (the killing of Policarpio Tibay), then the avertment the Court has ruled that rebellion may not be complexed with other
in the information that it was perpetrated in furtherance of the rebellion, offenses committed on the occasion thereof, must therefore be dismissed
being a mere conclusion, cannot be a bar to Appellant’s conviction and as a mere flight of rhetoric. Read in the context of Hernandez, the
punishment for said offense, he having failed, at the arraignment, to object information does indeed charge the petitioner with a crime defined and
to the information on the ground of multiplicity of crimes charged. Hence, punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion.
the acts charged in Counts 1 to 4 cannot be taken into consideration in this
case, either because they were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction Final Ruling: the Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated
of the court below (Count 1), or because the allegations do not charge the in People vs. Hernandez, the questioned information filed against
Appellant’s participation (Count 3), or else the acts charged are essentially petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda
acts of rebellion, with out private motives (Counts 2 and 4). Panlilio must be read as charging simple rebellion only, hence said
petitioners are entitled to bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right
THE ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED FOR THE SIMPLE (NON-
COMPLEX) CRIME OF REBELLION UNDER ARTICLE 135 OF Ponce Enrile vs. Judge Amin, et al.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND ALSO FOR THE CRIME OF 267 Phil. 603 (September 13, 1990)
MURDER. Gutierrez, Jr., J.

Note that the acts of the accused does not constitute rebellion. Rebellion may also absorb crimes punishable under special penal statutes
 The allegations in the information that said acts of accused are mere
conclusions as acts done in furtherance of rebellion. DILL’s NOTES: Better to read this case right after reading Enrile vs.
 It is the failure of the counsel of accused to object on the Judge Salazar, et al.2 because these two cases are intimately connected.
information that made the latter liable for rebellion when he pleaded
guilty to the crime charged against him. FACTS: Together with the filing of an information charging Senator Juan
 Since there was no showing that the acts of the accused was in Ponce Enrile (petitioner) as having committed rebellion complexed with
furtherance of rebellion he is liable for the crimes of robbery, murder (Enrile vs. Judge Salazar, et al.) with the Regional Trial Court of
kidnapping and murder separate from rebellion. Quezon City, government prosecutors filed another information charging
him for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 (Obstruction of Justice) 3
Final Ruling: the decision appealed from is modified and the accused with the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The second information reads:
convicted for the simple (non-complex) crime of rebellion under “That on or about the 1st day of December 1989, at Dasmariñas
article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and also for the crime of Village, Makati, xxx, the above-named accused, having
murder; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand considering the mitigating reasonable ground to believe or suspect that Ex-Col. Gregorio
effect of his plea of guilty, the accused-Appellant Federico Geronimo “Gringo” Honasan has committed a crime, did then and there
is hereby sentenced to suffer 8 years of prision mayor and to pay a unlawfully, feloniously, willfully and knowingly obstruct,
fine of P10,000, (without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article impede, frustrate or delay the apprehension of said Ex. Lt. Col.
38 of the Penal Code) for the rebellion; chan Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan by harboring or concealing him in
roblesvirtualawlibraryand, as above explained, for the murder, his house.”
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less than 10 years
and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion The petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion (a) to hold in abeyance the
temporal; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryto indemnify the heirs of issuance of a warrant of arrest pending personal determination by the court
Policarpio Tibay in the sum of P6,000; chan of probable cause, and (b) to dismiss the case and expunge the information
roblesvirtualawlibraryand to pay the costs. SO ORDERED. from the record.

Note: I can’t find the original case BACKDROP IN COURTS:

Enrile vs. Salazar RTC, Makati – denied Senator Enrile's Omnibus motion on the basis of a
G.R. No. 92163 (June 5, 1990) finding that “there (was) probable cause to hold the accused Juan Ponce
Narvasa,  J.: Enrile liable for violation of PD No. 1829.” Subsequently, the petitioner
Rebellion may be complexed with common crimes committed on the filed a Motion for Reconsideration and to Quash/Dismiss the Information,
occasion which was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

FACTS: In February 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce ISSUE/s: WON THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
Enrile was arrested for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
frustrated murder. The warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Jaime JURISDICTION IN REFUSING TO QUASH/ DISMISS THE
Salazar. Said crime arose from the failed coup attempts against then INFORMATION.
president Corazon Aquino. There was no bail set for Enrile due to the
seriousness of the crime charged against him. Enrile was then brought to 2 G.R. No. 92163, June 5, 1990.
Camp Karingal. Enrile later filed a petition for habeas corpus questioning 3 Particularly Section 1(c), which states:
his detention and alleging that the crime being charged against him is
“SECTION 1. The penalty of prison correccional in its maximum
nonexistent. He insists that there is no such crime as rebellion with murder
period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos or both, shall be
and multiple frustrated murder. Enrile invoked the ruling in the landmark
imposed upon any person who knowingly or wilfully obstructs,
case of People vs Hernandez where it was ruled that rebellion cannot be
impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the
complexed with common crimes such as murder; as such, the proper crime
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of
that should have been charged against him is simple rebellion – which is
the following acts:
bailable.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any
For the prosecution, the Solicitor General argued that the Hernandez ruling
person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect
should be abandoned and that it should be ruled that rebellion cannot
has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to
absorb more serious crimes like murder
prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction.
.
xxx xxx xxx”
4
 Anti-Organized Crime Division of the Criminal Investigation and
HELD: YES. The Information should be quashed. The conviction for Detection Group (CIDG), and brought to the DOJ in the afternoon of July
Murder was proper. Respondent Judge Amin sustained the charge of 28.[15] Cardenas was later charged with the crime of rebellion,[16] but as
violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion case filed against of this writing has been allowed bail.
the petitioner on the theory that the former involves a special law while the
latter is based on the Revised Penal Code or a general law. On July 31, 2003, 4 days after the militant group had surrendered
peacefully, an official spokesperson from the DOJ declared that the
The resolution of the above issue brings us anew to the case of People vs. Presidents indefinite imposition of the state of rebellion would make
Hernandez (99 Phil. 515 [1956]) the rulings of which were recently warrantless arrests a valid exercise of executive power.
repeated in the petition for habeas corpus of Juan Ponce Enrile vs. Judge
Salazar, et al. (supra). The Enrile case gave this Court the occasion to The Court can take judicial notice that the police authorities were releasing
reiterate the long standing proscription against splitting the component to media evidence found purporting to link personalities in the political
offenses of rebellion and subjecting them to separate prosecutions, a opposition, the most prominent of whom was Senator Gringo Honasan.
procedure reprobated in the Hernandez case. This Court recently declared: Even Senator Loi Ejercito and Mayor JV Ejercitos names were being
“The rejection of both options shapes and determines the primary linked to the attempted uprising.
ruling of the Court, which that Hernandez remains binding
doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with On August 1, 2003, the President issued Proclamation No. 435, declaring
any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a that the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National
means to its commission or as an unintended effect of an Police had effectively suppressed and quelled the rebellion, and,
activity that commutes rebellion.” (Emphasis Supreme Court). accordingly, that the state of rebellion had ceased on that date.

This doctrine is applicable in the case at bar. If a person can not be ISSUE: The fundamental issue in the petitions is the legality of
charged with the complex crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to Proclamation No. 427 issued by the President on July 27, 2003 declaring a
be applied, neither can he be charged separately for two (2) different state of rebellion.
offenses where one is a constitutive or component element or
committed in furtherance of rebellion. Held:
The majority discussed only the abstract nature of the powers
The rebellion charges filed against the petitioner in Quezon City were exercised by the Chief Executive, without considering if there was
based on the affidavits executed by three (3) employees of the Silahis sufficient factual basis for the Presidents declaration of a state of
International Hotel who stated that the fugitive Col. Gregorio “Gringo” rebellion and when it ended.
Honasan and some 100 rebel soldiers attended the mass and birthday party  In taking this position, the majority is returning, if not expanding, the
held at the residence of the petitioner in the evening of December 1, 1989. doctrine enunciated in Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile,[17] which overturned
The Information particularly reads that on “or about 6:30 p.m., 1 the landmark doctrine in Lansang v. Garcia.[18]
December, 1989, Col. Gregorio ‘Gringo’ Honasan conferred with accused  In Lansang, the Supreme Court upheld its authority to inquire into
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile accompanied by about 100 fully armed rebel the factual bases for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
soldiers wearing white armed patches.” habeas corpus, and held that this inquiry raises a judicial rather than
a political question.
As can be readily seen, the factual allegations supporting the rebellion  In Garcia-Padilla, on the other hand, the ponencia held that Lansang
charge constitute or include the very incident which gave rise to the charge was no longer authoritative, and that the Presidents decision to
of the violation under Presidential Decree No. 1829. Under the DOJ suspend the privilege is final and conclusive upon the courts and all
resolution, there could be 101 separate prosecutions for harboring and other persons.
concealing Honasan and 100 other armed rebels under PD No. 1829. The These two cases were decided prior to the 1987 Constitution, which
splitting of component elements is readily apparent. requires this Court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also to determine
The petitioner is now facing charges of rebellion in conspiracy with the whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
fugitive Col. Gringo Honasan. Necessarily, being in conspiracy with lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
Honasan, petitioners alleged act of harboring or concealing was for no of government.[19]
other purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus constitute a  This provision in the 1987 Constitution was precisely meant to check
component thereof. it was motivated by the single intent or resolution to abuses of executive power. Martial Law was still fresh in the minds
commit the crime of rebellion. In the light of the Hernandez doctrine the of the delegates in 1987
prosecution's theory must fail. The rationale remains the same. All  The majority ignored the fact that the state of rebellion declared by
crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which the President was in effect five days after the peaceful surrender of
are mere components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance the militant group.
thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and can not be
isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves. The Presidents proclamation cites Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution as the basis for the declaration of the state of rebellion.
The intent or motive is a decisive factor. If petitioner is not charged with
rebellion and he harbored or concealed Colonel Honasan simply because Section 18 authorizes the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to call out
the latter is a friend and former associate, the motive for the act is the Armed Forces, in order to suppress one of three conditions: (1) lawless
completely different. But if the act is committed with political or social violence, (2) rebellion or (3) invasion.[20] In the latter two cases, i.e.,
motives, that is in furtherance of rebellion, then it should be deemed rebellion or invasion, the President may, when public safety requires, also
to form part of the crime of rebellion. (1) suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or (2) place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
Final Ruling: the petition is GRANTED. The Information in Criminal
Case No. 90-777 is QUASHED. The majority made it clear that exercise of the Presidents Commander-in-
Chief powers does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion or a
Sanlakas et. al vs. Angelo Reyes declaration of a state of lawless violence or a state of invasion. When any
G.R. Nos. 159085, 159103 & 159196 (February 3, 2004) of these conditions exist, the President may call out the armed forces to
Tinga, J. suppress the danger.

Separate Opinion of Consuelo Ynares-Santiago Thus, the declaration of a state of rebellion does not have any legal
Facts: Proclamation No. 427 was issued at 1:00 p.m. on July 27, 2003, at meaning or consequence. This declaration does not give the President any
the height of the occupation of the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Ayala extra powers. It does not have any good purpose.
Center, Makati City, by 323 junior officers and enlisted men (Oakwood
Incident),[7] which began in the early morning of July 27, 2003.[8] If the declaration is used to justify warrantless arrests even after the
Shortly after, the President issued General Order No. 4, ordering the rebellion has ended, as in the case of Cardenas, such declaration or, at the
Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to use least, the warrantless arrests, must be struck down.
reasonable force, and pay due regard to constitutional rights, in putting
down the rebellion.[9] The Oakwood incident ended peacefully that same Clearly defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is the crime of
evening when the militant soldiers surrendered after negotiations. rebellion or insurrection, to wit:
ART. 134. Rebellion or insurrection How committed. The crime
From July 27 to August 1, 2003, search and recovery operations were of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and
conducted. Throughout the Oakwood Incident, searches were conducted in taking up arms against the Government for the purpose of
the non-occupied areas,[10] and, with the recovery of evidence, staging removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the
points for the Oakwood Incident were found in Cavite, Makati and territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of
Mandaluyong.[11] After the soldiers left at around 11:00 in the evening of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or depriving the
July 27, a search was conducted around the Oakwood premises.[12] These Chief Executive or the legislature, wholly or partially, of any of
searches expanded in scope on the basis of recovered evidence.[13] their powers or prerogatives.

Ramon Cardenas, Assistant Executive Secretary in the previous On the other hand, a coup d etat is defined as follows:
administration, was arrested, presented to the media in handcuffs and ART. 134-A. Coup d etat. How committed. The crime of coup d
brought for inquest proceedings before the Department of Justice (DOJ) in etat is a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation,
the morning of July 28.[14] He was initially detained at the Office of the threat, strategy or stealth, directed against the duly constituted
5
 authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military and void.
camp or installation, communications networks, public utilities or
other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession 2. COUP D’ ETAT
of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Article 134-A. Coup d'etat; How committed. - The crime of coup d'etat is a
Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth,
police or holding any public office or employment, with or directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the
without civilian support or participation, for the purpose of Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communications network,
seizing or diminishing state power. public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued
possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the
Under these provisions, the crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or
only by rising publicly or taking up arms against the Government. A coup holding any public office of employment with or without civilian support or
d etat, on the other hand, takes place only when there is a swift attack participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (As
accompanied by violence. Once the act of rising publicly and taking up amended by R.A. 6968).
arms against the Government ceases, the commission of the crime of
rebellion ceases. Similarly, when the swift attack ceases, the crime of coup RA 6968 supra
d etat is no longer being committed.
Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat. - Any person
REBELLION HAS BEEN HELD TO BE A CONTINUING CRIME,[21] who promotes, maintains, or heads rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the
AND THE AUTHORITIES MAY RESORT TO WARRANTLESS penalty of reclusion perpetua.
ARRESTS OF PERSONS SUSPECTED OF REBELLION, AS
PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 5, RULE 113 OF THE RULES OF Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a
COURT.[22] HOWEVER, THIS DOCTRINE SHOULD BE APPLIED rebellion shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal.
TO ITS PROPER CONTEXT I.E., RELATING TO SUBVERSIVE
ARMED ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS THE NEW PEOPLES ARMY, Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to
THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF WHICH IS THE ARMED undertake a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
OVERTHROW OF THE ORGANIZED AND ESTABLISHED
GOVERNMENT. ONLY IN SUCH INSTANCE SHOULD REBELLION Any person in the government service who participates, or executes directions
BE CONSIDERED A CONTINUING CRIME. or commands of others in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period.
When the soldiers surrendered peacefully in the evening of July 27, the
rebellion or the coup d etat ended. The President, however, did not lift the Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner
declaration of the state of rebellion until 5 days later, on August 1, 2003. supports, finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
After the peaceful surrender, no person suspected of having conspired with
the soldiers or participated in the Oakwood incident could be arrested When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat shall be under the command
without a warrant of arrest. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for
Court, which governs arrest without warrant, provides as follows: them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, as performed
similar acts, on behalf or the rebels shall be deemed a leader of such a
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat. (As amended by R.A. 6968, approved
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: on October 24, 1990).
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; 3. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D’ ETAT,
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and insurrection. - The conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be
punished by prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall not
xxxxxxxxx exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest punished respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a
police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by prision
with section 7 of Rule 112. correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding two thousand
pesos (P2,000.00). (As amended by R.A. 6968, approved October 24, 1990).
Rule 113, Section 5, pars. (a) and (b) of the Rules of Court are exceptions
to the due process clause in the Constitution. Section 5, par. (a) relates to a RA 6968 supra
situation where a crime is committed or attempted in the presence of the RA 10951 supra
arresting officer.
4. DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFERS OR EMPLOYEES
Section 5, par. (b), on the other hand, presents the requirement of personal Article 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. - The penalty of
knowledge, on the part of the arresting officer, of facts indicating that an prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon public
offense had just been committed, and that the person to be arrested had officers or employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in
committed that offense. their power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the
control of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office under them.
After the peaceful surrender of the soldiers on July 27, 2003, there was no (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
crime that was being attempted, being committed, or had just been
committed. There should, therefore, be no occasion to effect a valid 5. INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
warrantless arrest in connection with the Oakwood Incident. Article 138. Inciting a rebellion or insurrection. - The penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, without
The purpose of the declaration and its duration as far as the overeager taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government, shall incite
authorities were concerned was only to give legal cover to effect others to the execution of any of the acts specified in article 134 of this Code,
warrantless arrests even if the state of rebellion or the instances stated in by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other
Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules are absent or no longer exist. representations tending to the same end. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).

Our history had shown the dangers when too much power is concentrated 6. SEDITION
in the hands of one person. Unless specifically defined, it is risky to Article 139. Sedition; How committed. - The crime of sedition is committed
concede and acknowledge the residual powers to justify the validity of the by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force,
presidential issuances. This can serve as a blank check for other issuances intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of the following
and open the door to abuses. The majority cite the exercise of strong objects:
executive powers by U.S. President Andrew Jackson. Was it not President 1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any
Jackson who is said to have cynically defied the U.S. Supreme Courts popular election;
ruling (under Chief Justice Marshall) against the forcible removal of the 2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal
American Indians from the tribal lands by saying: The Chief Justice has government or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his
issued his Decision, now let him try to enforce it? Others quote Madison functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order;
as having gone further with: With what army will the Chief Justice enforce 3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any
his Decision? public officer or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge
Final Ruling :WHEREFORE, I vote for Proclamation No. 427 and against private persons or any social class; and
General Order No. 4, issued on July 27, 2003 by Respondent President 5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, to be declared NULL and VOID for province, or the National Government (or the Government of the United
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack States), of all its property or any part thereof
of jurisdiction. All other orders issued and action taken based on those
issuances, especially after the Oakwood incident ended in the evening Article 140. Penalty for sedition. - The leader of a sedition shall suffer the
of July 27, 2003, e.g., warrantless arrests, should also be declared null penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding

6
10,000 pesos. Other persons participating therein shall suffer the penalty of committed, and we believe that such finding is correct.
prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 5,000
pesos. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187). Counsel's contention that in order for there to be a violation of subdivision
3 of section 5 of Act No. 292 it is and necessary that the offender should
People of the Philippine Islands vs. Cabrera, et al. be a private citizen and the offended party a public functionary, and that
43 Phil. 65 (March 4, 1922) what really happened in this instance was a fight between two armed
Malcolm, J. bodies of the Philippine Government, is absolutely without foundation.
Sedition may be committed by public officers / employees Subdivison 3 of section 5 of the Treason and Sedition Law makes no
distinction between the persons to which it applies. In one scene there
NOTES: The appellants (several constabulary soldiers, and constabulary was a fights between two armed bodies of the Philippine Government, but
sergeants and corporals) were made accused / defendants in two separate it was an unequal fight brought on by the actions of the defendants.
criminal suits, decided separately by two CFI branches, and the Supreme
Court, i.e. No. 17748 (43 Phil. 65) for Sedition and No. 17855 (43 Phil. We rule that the trial court did not err in convicting the accused of the
82) for multiple counts of murder and serious physical injury. violation of section 5, paragraph 3, of Act No. 292 of the Philippine
Commission
ANTECEDENTS: December 13, 1920 – policemen of Manila
(hereinafter as “MP” [Manila Police]) arrested a woman (who was a OTHER ISSUE/s:
household member of the Philippine Constabulary [PC] stationed at the  Conspiracy – defendants alleged that when they were asked during
Santa Lucia Barracks, and the wife of one of the PC members). This arrest the investigation, “who asked you to join the riot?” All of the
was considered by several members of the PC as an outrage committed by defendants answered, “nobody.” Thus, there is no conspiracy
the MP. According to defendants (in their extra-judicial confessions), the between them.
members of the MP violated the woman, and not content of having abused o SC: Firstly, conspiracy under section 5 of Act No. 292 is not an
her, they gave the woman to an American. The next day – December 14 – essential element of the crime of sedition; secondly, conspiracies
there was an encounter between the MP and PC, which resulted in the are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions,
shooting of and mortally wounding Private Macasinag of the PC. These and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be
events engendered a deep feeling of resentment on the part of the PC accomplished. Applied to the facts before us, it is incontestable
soldiers, particularly those stationed in the Santa Lucia Barracks. that all of the defendants were imbued with the same purpose,
which was to avenge themselves on the police force of the city
FACTS: In the evening of December 15, at the PC Santa Lucia Barracks, of Manila.
corporal Ingles of the 4th Company approached private Nicolas Torio who Final Ruling: decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED. [Same for the
was then the man in charge of quarters, and asked him to let the soldiers murder case].
out through the window of the quarters of the 4th Company. Private Torio
was easily persuaded to permit the 2nd Company to saw out the window 7. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION
bars of the quarters, in his charge, and to allow soldiers to escape through Article 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. - Persons conspiring to commit
the window with rifles and ammunition under the command of their the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium
sergeants and corporals. period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).

One platoon of PC apparently numbering about ten or twelve, on Calle RA 10951 supra
Real, Intramuros, fired in the direction of the intersection of Calles Real
and Cabildo where an American policeman was stationed, and was taking 8. INCITING TO SEDITION
with a field clerk in the United States Army. These two men were shot and Article 142. Inciting to sedition. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
died soon afterwards. A street car happened to stop at this time. Without maximum period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon
considering that the passengers in the car were innocent passersby, the PC any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition,
squad fired a volley into the car, killing instantly a passenger, and gravely should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute
wounding three other civilian passengers. Some minutes later, Captain sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons,
Wichman, assistant chief of MP, riding in a motorcycle driven by banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any
policeman Saplala, arrived at the corner of Calles Real and Magallanes, person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish,
and a volley of shots by PC soldiers resulted in the instantaneous death of or circulate scurrilous libels against the (Government of the United States or
the two policemen. Then, a police patrol came from the Meisic police the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines) or any of the duly
station. It was fired upon by PC soldiers stationed in the courtyard of the constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful
San Agustin Church. officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate
others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or
Another platoon of the PC, between thirty and forty in number, had in the incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the
meantime, arranged themselves in a firing line on the Sunken Gradens on people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community,
the east side of Calle General Luna opposite the Aquarium. From this the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such
advantageous position, the PC fired upon the motorcycle occupied by MP evil practices. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
Sergeant Armada and driven by policeman Policarpio who with
companions were passing along Calle General. This same platoon of PC RA 10951 supra
soldiers fired several volleys indiscriminately into the Luneta police
station, and the office of the secret service of the city of Manila, but
United States vs. Tolentino
fortunately no one was injured.
G.R. No. L-1451 (March 6, 1906)
Carson, J.
Subsequently, General Rafael Crame, Chief of the PC, and Captain Page,
commanding officer of the Santa Lucia Barracks, rounded up some of the
a well-settled rule in considering indictments that where an offense may be
soldiers in the streets of Manila, and other soldiers, one after another,
committed in any of several different modes, and the offense, in any
returned to the Barracks where they were disarmed. Thereafter, an
particular instance, is alleged to have been committed in two or more
investigation occurred and, in the presence of City Fiscals, herein
modes specified, it is sufficient to prove the offense committed in any one
defenants-appeallants confessed.
of them, provide that it be such as to constitute the substantive offense.
BACKDROP IN COURTS:
FACTS: On or about May 14, 1903, appellant Aurelio Tolentino,
CFI, Manila (Sedition) – following the [then] Treason and Sedition Law
presented his theatrical work written by him 'Kahapon Ñgayon at Bukas'
(Act No. 292), it sentenced all defendants to suffer 10 years of
(Yesterday, To-day, and To-morrow) at the "Teatro Libertad," in the city
imprisonment, although the fine imposed vary from Php5,000 – 10,000.
of Manila, Philippine Islands.
CFI, Manila (multiple counts of Murder and Serious Physical Injury ) –
defendants PC sergeants and corporals were sentenced to death; other
The drama play, according to the Court, constitutes unlawful seditious
defendants were sentenced to suffer cadena perpetua imprisonment.
words and speeches and scurrilous libels against the Government of the
United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, which
The defendants filed their appeals from the above decisions. One of the
tend to obstruct the lawful officers of the United States and the Insular
contentions of the defendants is that Sedition may only be committed by
Government of the Philippine Islands in the execution of their offices, and
private individuals.
which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful
purposes, and which suggest and incite rebellious conspiracies and riots,
ISSUE/s: WON THE DEFENDANTS CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE
and which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities and to
FOR SEDITION SINCE THEY ARE NOT PRIVATE CITIZENS.
disturb the peace of the community and the safety and order of the
Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the
HELD: NO. Defendants committed Sedition. Sedition, in its more
Philippine Islands, which said seditious words and speeches are false and
general sense, is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the
inflammatory, and tend to incite and move the people to hatred and dislike
State. The Philippine law on the subject (Act No. 292) makes all persons
of the government established by law within the Philippine Islands, and
guilty of sedition who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to
tend to incite, move, and persuade great numbers of the people of said
obtain by force or outside of legal methods any one of five objects,
Philippine Islands to insurrection, riots, tumults, and breaches of the public
including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person
peace; which said false, seditious, and inflammatory words and scurrilous
or property of any official or agent of the Insular Government or of
libels are in Tagalog language in a theatrical work written by said Aurelio
Provincial or Municipal Government. The trial court found that the
Tolentino.
crime of sedition, as defined and punished by the law, had been

7
 It was proven at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did in
fact write the drama and the announcement thereof, substantially as set out The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in view of the time,
in the information, and did, with other members of a theatrical company, place, and manner of its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of hatred
of which he was director, utter and publish the same substantially in and enmity against the American people and the Government of the United
manner and form. States in the Philippines, and we are satisfied that the principal object and
intent of its author was to incite the people of the Philippine Islands to
Aurelio Tolentino, was convicted with the crime of uttering seditious open and armed resistance to the constituted authorities, and to induce
words and writings, publishing and circulating scurrilous libels against the them to conspire together for the secret organization of armed forces, to be
Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the used when the opportunity presented itself, for the purpose of
Philippine Islands. overthrowing the present Government and setting up another in its stead.

ISSUE: WON IN WRITING, PUBLISHING, AND UTTERING THE Final Ruling: Judgment is affirmed.
DRAMA, THE ACCUSED WAS IN FACT GUILTY OF A
VIOLATION OF SECTION 8 OF ACT NO. 292 OF THE Espuelas vs. People of the Philippines
PHILIPPINE COMMISSION4. G.R. No. L-2990 (December 17, 1951)
Bengzon, J.:
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court held that the public presentation of the
drama took place in the month of May, 1903, less than two years after the FACTS: Oscar Espuelas was, after trial, convicted in the CFI of Bohol of
establishment of the Civil Government. The smouldering embers of a a violation of Art.142 of the RPC. The conviction was affirmed by the
wide-spread and dangerous insurrection were not yet entirely extinguished, Court of Appeals, because according to said court:
and here and there throughout the Islands occasional outbreaks still " June 9 and June 24, 1947, both dates inclusive, in the town of
required the use of the armed forces of the Government for their Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas had his picture taken,
suppression. A junta in the city of Hongkong, composed of persons whose making it to appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a
announced purpose and object in organizing was the overthrow of the piece of rope suspended form the limb of the tree, when in truth
present Government, was actively engaged in the endeavor to keep the and in fact, he was merely standing on a barrel. After securing
people of these Islands from peaceably accepting the authority of that copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent copies of same to
Government, and this junta, acting with confederates in the Philippines, several newspapers and weeklies of general circulation, not
was still able to keep alive a certain spirit of unrest and uncertainty which only in the Province of Bohol but also throughout the
it hoped to fan into open revolt and rebellion at the first favorable Philippines and abroad, for their publication with a suicide note
opportunity. or letter, wherein he made to appear that it was written by a
fictitious suicide, Alberto Reveniera and addressed to the
In the case of the United States vs. Fred L. Dorr and Edward F. O'Brien, latter's supposed wife. Translation of which letter or note in
decided May 19, 1903, this court said: hereunder reproduced:
The complaint appears to be framed upon the theory that a
writing, in order to be punishable as a libel under this section, Dearest wife and children, bury me five meters deep. Over my grave don't
must be of a scurrilous nature and directed against the plant a cross or put floral wreaths, for I don't need them. Please don't bury
Government of the United States or the Insular Government of me in the lonely place. Bury me in the Catholic cemetery. Although I have
the Philippine Islands, and must, in addition, tend to some one of committed suicide, I still have the right to burried among Christians. But
the results enumerated in the section, the article in question being don't pray for me. Don't remember me, and don't feel sorry. Wipe me out
described in the complaint as "a scurrilous libel against the of your lives. My dear wife, if someone asks to you why I committed
Government of the United States and the Insular Government of suicide, tell them I did it because I was not pleased with the
the Philippine Islands, which tends to obstruct the lawful officers administration of Roxas. Tell the whole world about this. And if they ask
of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine why I did not like the administration of Roxas, point out to them the
Islands in the execution of their offices, and which tends to situation in Central Luzon, the Leyte. Dear wife, write to President
instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, Truman and Churchill. Tell them that here in the Philippines our
and which suggests and incites rebellious conspiracies, and which government is infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis. Teach our
tends to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, and children to burn pictures of Roxas if and when they come across one. I
which disturbs the safety and order of the Government of the committed suicide because I am ashamed of our government under Roxas.
United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine I cannot hold high my brows to the world with this dirty government.I
Islands." But it is a "a well-settled rule in considering indictments committed suicide because I have no power to put under Juez de Cuchillo
that where an offense may be committed in any of several all the Roxas people now in power. So, I sacrificed my own self.
different modes, and the offense, in any particular instance, is
alleged to have been committed in two or more modes specified, The accused admitted the fact that he wrote the note or letter above quoted
it is sufficient to prove the offense committed in any one of them, and caused its publication in the Free Press, the Evening News,
provide that it be such as to constitute the substantive offense." the Bisayas, Lamdang and other local periodicals and that he had
(Com. vs. Kneeland, 20 Pick. Mass. 206, 215), and the defendants impersonated one Alberto Reveniera by signing said pseudonymous name
may, therefore, be convicted if any one of the substantive charges in said note or letter and posed himself as Alberto Reveniera in a picture
into which the complaint may be separated has been made out. taken wherein he was shown hanging by the end of a rope tied to a limb of
a tree."
Several allied offenses or modes of committing the same offense
are define in that section, viz: (1) The uttering of seditious words ISSUE/s: WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
or speeches; (2) the writing, publishing, or circulating of THE ACCUSED GUILTY
scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or
the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands; (3) the writing, HELD: NO. The latter is a scurrilous libel against the Government.   It
publishing, or circulating of libels which tend to disturb or calls our government one of crooks and dishonest persons (dirty) infested
obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office; (4) or which with Nazis and a Fascistis i.e. dictators. And the communication reveals a
tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful tendency to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with the
purposes; (5) or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or disposition to remain loyal to the government.  Writings which tend to
riots; (6) or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful overthrow or undermine the security of the government or to weaken the
authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety confidence of the people in the government are against the public peace,
and order of the Government; (7) knowingly concealing such evil and are criminal not only because they tend to incite to a breach of the
practices. peace but because they are conducive to the destruction of the very
government itself (See 19 Am. Law Rep. 1511). Regarded as seditious
In accordance with the principles laid down in the preceding paragraph the libels they were the subject of criminal proceedings since early times in
judgment of conviction in this case must be sustained, if it appears from England. 
the evidence in the record that the accused was guilty as charged of any
one of those offenses. We are all agreed that the publication and As explained by Paterson, ". . . the great factors of government, consisting
presentation of the drama directly and necessarily tend to instigate others of the Sovereign, the Parliament, the ministers of state, the courts of
to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, and to suggest and incite justice, must be recognized as holding functions founded on sound
rebellious conspiracies and riots and to stir up the people against the principles and to be defended and treated with an established and well-
lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of the community and the safety nigh unalterable respect. Each of these great institutions has peculiar
and order of the Government. virtues and peculiar weaknesses, but whether at any one time the virtue
or the weakness predominates, there must be a certain standard of
decorum reserved for all. Each guarded remonstrance, each fiery
4 Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or invective, each burst of indignation must rest on some basis of respect and
circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the deference towards the depository, for the time being, of every great
Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or which tend to disturb or constitutional function. HENCE ANOTHER LIMIT OF FREE
obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or which tend to instigate SPEECH AND WRITING IS SEDITION. And yet within there is ample
others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or room and verge enough for the freest use of the tongue and pen in passing
incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up the people strictures in the judgment and conduct of every constituted authority."
against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the
safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil In disposing of this appeal, careful thought had to be given to the
practices, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by fundamental right to freedom of speech. Yet the freedom of speech
imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
8
 secured by the Constitution "does not confer an absolute right to speak or FACTS: This decision consolidated two petitions for certiorari filed by
publish without responsibility whatever one may choose." It is not petitioners, Constitutional Convention Delegates5 Manuel Martinez
"unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language (against Judge Morfe, et al.) and Fernando Bautista, Sr. (against Judge
and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom." So statutes Chanco). Petitioners, while performing their duties and discharging the
against sedition have guaranty, although they should not be interpreted so responsibilities of delegates, were charged with and, subsequently, arrested
as to agitate for institutional changes. for falsication of a public document [against Martinez], which is
punishable by prision mayor, and two counts of violation of the Revised
Not to be restrained is the privilege of any citizen to criticize his Election Code by distributing free food, drinks and cigarettes [against
government officials and to submit his criticism to the "free trade of ideas" Bautista], wherein the imposable penalty for each count could not be
and to plead for its acceptance in "the competition of the market." higher than prision mayor.
However, let such criticism be specific and therefore constructive,
reasoned or tempered, and not a contemptuous condemnation of the entire Petitioners now fervently assert immunity from the aforesaid arrests based
government set-up. Such wholesale attack is nothing less than an invitation on Art. VI, Sec. 6 of the Commonwealth Constitution in relation to Art.
to disloyalty to the government. In the article now under examination one 145, RPC. According to them, as delegates, they are immune from any
will find no particular objectionable actuation of the government. It is arrest wherein the imposable penalty is not higher than prision mayor. The
called dirty, it is called a dictatorship, it is called shameful, but no respondent judges, however, found no merit in their uniform contention.
particular omissions or commissions are set forth. Instead the article drip
with male-violence and hate towards the constituted authorities. It tries to NOTES: Remember these points –
arouse animosity towards all public servants headed by President Roxas 1. Art. VI, Sec. 6, 1935 Constitution provides:
whose pictures this appellant would burn and would teach the younger “SEC. 6. The Members of the National Assembly shall in all
generation to destroy. cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be
privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions
Analyzed for meaning and weighed in its consequences the article cannot of the National Assembly, and in going to and returning from
fail to impress thinking persons that it seeks to sow the seeds of sedition the same; and for any speech or debate therein, they shall not
and strife. The infuriating language is not a sincere effort to persuade, be questioned in any other place.”
what with the writer's simulated suicide and false claim to martyrdom and 2. Art. 145 of the Revised Penal Code states:
what with is failure to particularize. When the use irritating language “Art. 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity. — The
centers not on persuading the readers but on creating disturbances, the penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person
rationable of free speech cannot apply and the speaker or writer is who shall use force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent
removed from the protection of the constitutional guaranty. any member of the National Assembly (Congress of the
The essence of seditious libel may be said to its immediate tendency to stir Philippines) from attending the meetings of the Assembly
up general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses; that is to say to induce (Congress) or of any of its committees or subcommittees,
people to resort to illegal methods other than those provided by the constitutional commissions or committees or divisions
Constitution, in order to repress the evils which press upon their thereof, from expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and
minds. "The idea of violence prevades the whole letter" says Justice the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any
Paredes of the Court of Appeals. "The mere fact that a person was so public officer or employee who shall, while the Assembly
disgusted with his "dirty government" to the point of taking his own life, is (Congress) is in regular or special session, arrest or search
not merely a sign of disillusionment.” any member thereof, except in case such member has
committed a crime punishable under this Code by a penalty
Final Ruling: Accused is guilty as charged. Decision is affirmed. higher than prision mayor.”
3. Under the Constitutional Convention Act,6 delegates are entitled to
Umil v Ramos, supra the parliamentary immunities of a senator or a representative.
4. Compare the above-quoted 1935 provision with the parliamentary
immunity provision of the 1987 Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 11),
B. CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION
which provides:
“SECTION 11. A Senator or Member of the House of
9. ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF THE Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more
CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while
Article 143. Act tending to prevent the meeting of the Assembly and similar the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned
bodies. - The penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate
2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, by force or in the Congress or in any committee thereof.”
fraud, prevents the meeting of the National Assembly (Congress of the
Philippines) or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional ISSUE/s: WON THE PETITIONERS WERE EXEMPTED FROM THE
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or SAID ARRESTS.
city or municipal council or board. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
HELD: NO WAY. The arrests were properly effected.
RA 10951 supra
Certiorari does not lie to quash the warrants of arrest issued against
petitioner Martinez y Festin as well as petitioner Bautista, Sr. Their
10. DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS OR
reliance on the constitutional provision which for them should be
SIMILAR BODIES supplemented by what was provided for in the Revised Penal Code is
Article 144. Disturbance of proceedings. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a futile. There is no justification then for granting their respective pleas.
fine from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who disturbs
the meetings of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or of any Even if the provision granting the legislative immunity of freedom from
of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees arrest were clothed in language less clear, its history precludes any other
or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council interpretation. As submitted to the Constitutional Convention of 1934, the
or board, or in the presence of any such bodies should behave in such manner draft proposal was worded as follows: “The Members of the National
as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it. (Reinstated by Assembly shall in all cases except treason, open disturbance of public
E.O. No. 187). order, or other offense punishable by death or imprisonment of not less
than six years, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the
RA 10951 supra sessions of the National Assembly, and in going to and returning from the
same.” On December 4, 1934, upon its being considered by the
11. VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY Convention, an amendment was proposed by Delegate Aldeguer so that it
Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity. - The penalty of prision would read: “The Members of the National Assembly shall in all cases
mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall use force, intimidation, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest
threats, or fraud to prevent any member of the National Assembly (Congress during their attendance at the sessions of the National Assembly, and in
of the Philippines) from attending the meetings of the Assembly (Congress) or going and returning from the same.” What was sought by him was to
of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or retain the provision of the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, with
committees or divisions thereof, from expressing his opinions or casting his phraseology identical to that found in the American Constitution. He
vote; and the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any defended his proposal thus: “My amendment is not new. It is the same
public officer or employee who shall, while the Assembly (Congress) is in phrase granting parliamentary immunity to the members of the Parliament
regular or special session, arrest or search any member thereof, except in of England. It is the same phrase granting parliamentary immunity to
case such member has committed a crime punishable under this Code by a members of Congress. It is the same phrase granting parliamentary
penalty higher than prision mayor. immunity to members of the various state legislators of the Union. Now, in
reading the draft proposed by the Sub-Committee of Seven, I found out
Martinez vs. Judge Morfe, et al. that it is a broad rule. Mr. President, the question is not whether we should
150 Phil. 809 (March 24, 1972) grant privilege of immunity to the members of the National Assembly…”
Fernando, J.
Would it make a difference however in the availability of the writs of
Art. 145, rpc was inconsistent with the 1935 constitution (commonwealth certiorari sought by petitioners considering that Article 145 of the Revised
constitution), and therefore,
was deemed to be NO LONGER OPERATIVE 5 1971 Constitutional Convention.
6 Republic Act No. 6132 (1970).
9
 Penal Code would impose upon any public officer or employee who shall, the general public on any particular issue; or protesting or influencing any
while the Congress is in regular or special session, arrest or charge any state of affairs whether political, economic or social; or petitioning the
member thereof except in case such member has committed a crime government for redress of grievances.
punishable by penalty higher than prision mayor? The assumption here
indulged is that the effect of the above in the Revised Penal Code was to The processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings and
expand the grant of parliamentary immunity under the Philippine assemblages for religious purposes shall be governed by local ordinances:
Autonomy Act, although its literal language does not go that far. It is to be Provided, however, That the declaration of policy as provided in Section 2 of
remembered, however, that it took effect on January 1, 1932 before this Act shall be faithfully observed.
the enforcement of the present Constitution in 1935. Considering that
both under the then organic law, the Philippine Autonomy Act and The definition herein contained shall not include picketing and other
equally so under the present Constitution, such a more generous concerted action in strike areas by workers and employees resulting from a
treatment accorded legislators exempting them from arrest even if labor dispute as defined by the Labor Code, its implementing rules and
warranted under a penal law, the question as to whether it did survive regulations, and by the Batas Pambansa Bilang 227.
becomes unavoidable. It is our opinion that the answer must be in the
negative. (b) "Public place" shall include any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street,
bridge or other thoroughfare, park, plaza, square, and/or any open space of
The [1935] Constitution is equally explicit on the following point: “All public ownership where the people are allowed access.
laws of the Philippine Islands shall continue in force until the inauguration
of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; thereafter, such laws shall (c) "Maximum tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the
remain operative, unless inconsistent with this Constitution until amended, military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a
altered, modified, or repealed by the Congress of the Philippines, and all public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.
references in such laws to the government or officials of the Philippines
shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and (d) "Modification of permit" shall include the change of the place and time of
corresponding officials under this Constitution.” (Art. XV, Sec. 2). the public assembly, rerouting of the parade or street march, the volume of
loud-speakers or sound system and similar changes.
The above conclusion reached by this Court is bolstered and fortified by
policy considerations. There is, to be sure, a full recognition of the Section 4. Permit when required and when not required - A written permit
necessity to have members of Congress, and likewise delegates to the shall be required for any person or persons to organize and hold a public
Constitutional Convention, entitled to the utmost freedom to enable them assembly in a public place. However, no permit shall be required if the public
to discharge their vital responsibilities, bowing to no other force except the assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or
dictates of their conscience. Necessarily the utmost latitude in free ordinance or in private property, in which case only the consent of the owner
speech should be accorded them. When it comes to freedom from or the one entitled to its legal possession is required, or in the campus of a
arrest, however, it would amount to the creation of a privileged class, government-owned and operated educational institution which shall be subject
without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a to the rules and regulations of said educational institution. Political meetings
criminal offense, they would be considered immune during their or rallies held during any election campaign period as provided for by law are
attendance in Congress and in going to and returning from the same. not covered by this Act.
There is likely to be no dissent from the proposition that a legislator
or a delegate can perform his functions efficiently and well, without Section 5. Application requirements - All applications for a permit shall
the need for any transgression of the criminal law. Should such an comply with the following guidelines:
unfortunate event come to pass, he is to be treated like any other citizen (a) The applications shall be in writing and shall include the names of the
considering that there is a strong public interest in seeing to it that crime leaders or organizers; the purpose of such public assembly; the date, time and
should not go unpunished. To the fear that may be expressed that the duration thereof, and place or streets to be used for the intended activity; and
prosecuting arm of the government might unjustly go after legislators the probable number of persons participating, the transport and the public
belonging to the minority, it suffices to answer that precisely all the address systems to be used.
safeguards thrown around an accused by the Constitution, solicitous of the (b) The application shall incorporate the duty and responsibility of applicant
rights of an individual, would constitute an obstacle to such an attempt at under Section 8 hereof.
abuse of power. The presumption of course is that the judiciary would (c) The application shall be filed with the office of the mayor of the city or
main independent. It is trite to say that in each and every manifestation of municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held, at least
judicial endeavor, such a virtue is of the essence. five (5) working days before the scheduled public assembly.
(d) Upon receipt of the application, which must be duly acknowledged in
Final Ruling: the petition for certiorari and habeas corpus by Delegate writing, the office of the city or municipal mayor shall cause the same to
Manuel Martinez by Festin in L-34022 and the petitions for certiorari immediately be posted at a conspicuous place in the city or municipal
and prohibition by Delegate Fernando Bautista, Sr. in L-34046 and L- building.
34047 are hereby DISMISSED. Without pronouncement as to costs.
Section 6. Action to be taken on the application -
C. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS (a) It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in his behalf to
issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the
12. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order,
public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health.
Article 146. Illegal assemblies. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
(b) The mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall act on the application
maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon
within two (2) working days from the date the application was filed, failing
the organizers or leaders of any meeting attended by armed persons for the
which, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the mayor
purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code, or of
or any official acting in his behalf refuse to accept the application for a
any meeting in which the audience is incited to the commission of the crime of
permit, said application shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in
the office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed.
authority or his agents. Persons merely present at such meeting shall suffer
(c) If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a
the penalty of arresto mayor, unless they are armed, in which case the penalty
substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit, he shall
shall be prision correccional. If any person present at the meeting carries an
immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter.
unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that the purpose of said meeting,
(d) The action on the permit shall be in writing and served on the
insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts punishable under this Code, and
application within twenty-four hours.
he shall be considered a leader or organizer of the meeting within the
(e) If the mayor or any official acting in his behalf denies the application or
purview of the preceding paragraph. As used in this article, the word
modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the applicant may contest the
"meeting" shall be understood to include a gathering or group, whether in a
decision in an appropriate court of law.
fixed place or moving. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
(f) In case suit is brought before the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Municipal
Trial Court, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, or
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880 the Intermediate Appellate Court, its decisions may be appealed to the
AN ACT ENSURING THE FREE EXERCISE BY THE PEOPLE OF appropriate court within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of the same. No
THEIR RIGHT PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE appeal bond and record on appeal shall be required. A decision granting
GOVERNMENT FOR OTHER PURPOSES such permit or modifying it in terms satisfactory to the applicant shall, be
immediately executory.
Section 1. Title - This Act shall be known as "The Public Assembly Act of (g) All cases filed in court under this Section shall be decided within
1985." twenty-four (24) hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be
immediately endorsed to the executive judge for disposition or, in his
Section 2. Declaration of policy - The constitutional right of the people absence, to the next in rank.
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is (h) In all cases, any decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
essential and vital to the strength and stability of the State. To this end, the (i) Telegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby
State shall ensure the free exercise of such right without prejudice to the rights allowed.
of others to life, liberty and equal protection of the law.
Section 7. Use of public thoroughfare - Should the proposed public assembly
Section 3. Definition of terms - For purposes of this Act: involve the use, for an appreciable length of time, of any public highway,
(a) "Public assembly" means any rally, demonstration, march, parade, boulevard, avenue, road or street, the mayor or any official acting in his behalf
procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public may, to prevent grave public inconvenience, designate the route thereof which
place for the purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or expressing an opinion to is convenient to the participants or reroute the vehicular traffic to another

10
direction so that there will be no serious or undue interference with the free 2. the carrying of a bladed weapon and the like;
flow of commerce and trade. 3 the malicious burning of any object in the streets or thoroughfares;
4. the carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement unit;
Section 8. Responsibility of applicant - It shall be the duty and responsibility 5. the interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a public
of the leaders and organizers of a public assembly to take all reasonable assembly by the use of a motor vehicle, its horns and loud sound systems.
measures and steps to the end that the intended public assembly shall be Section 14. Penalties - Any person found guilty and convicted of any of the
conducted peacefully in accordance with the terms of the permit. These shall prohibited acts defined in the immediately preceding Section shall be
include but not be limited to the following: punished as follows:
(a) To inform the participants of their responsibility under the permit; (a) violation of subparagraph (a) shall be punished by imprisonment of one
(b) To police the ranks of the demonstrators in order to prevent non- month and one day to six months;
demonstrators from disrupting the lawful activities of the public assembly; (b) violations of subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and item 4, subparagraph
(c) To confer with local government officials concerned and law enforcers to (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of six months and one day to six years;
the end that the public assembly may be held peacefully; (c) violation of item 1, subparagraph (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of
(d) To see to it that the public assembly undertaken shall not go beyond the six months and one day to six years without prejudice to prosecution under
time stated in the permit; and Presidential Decree No. 1866;
(e) To take positive steps that demonstrators do not molest any person or do (d) violations of item 2, item 3, or item 5 of subparagraph (g) shall be
any act unduly interfering with the rights of other persons not participating in punished by imprisonment of one day to thirty days.
the public assembly.
Section 15. Freedom parks - Every city and municipality in the country shall
Section 9. Non-interference by law enforcement authorities - Law within six months after the effectivity of this Act establish or designate at least
enforcement agencies shall not interfere with the holding of a public one suitable "freedom park" or mall in their respective jurisdictions which, as
assembly. However, to adequately ensure public safety, a law enforcement far as practicable, shall be centrally located within the poblacion where
contingent under the command of a responsible police officer may be detailed demonstrations and meetings may be held at any time without the need of any
and stationed in a place at least one hundred (100) meter away from the area prior permit.
of activity ready to maintain peace and order at all times. In the cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective mayors
shall establish the freedom parks within the period of six months from the
Section 10. Police assistance when requested - It shall be imperative for law effectivity of this Act.
enforcement agencies, when their assistance is requested by the leaders or
organizers, to perform their duties always mindful that their responsibility to Section 16. Constitutionality - Should any provision of this Act be declared
provide proper protection to those exercising their right peaceably to assemble invalid or unconstitutional, the validity or constitutionality of the other
and the freedom of expression is primordial. Towards this end, law provisions shall not be affected thereby.
enforcement agencies shall observe the following guidelines:
(a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the Section 17. Repealing clause - All laws, decrees, letters of instructions,
demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and units to resolutions, orders, ordinances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the
which they belong displayed prominently on the front and dorsal parts of their provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.
uniform and must observe the policy of "maximum tolerance" as herein
defined; Section 18. Effectivity - This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
(b) The members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any kind Approved, October 22, 1985.
of firearms but may be equipped with baton or riot sticks, shields, crash
helmets with visor, gas masks, boots or ankle high shoes with shin guards; 13. ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
(c) Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or any similar anti-riot device Article 147. Illegal associations. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by actual violence or minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be
serious threats of violence, or deliberate destruction of property. imposed upon the founders, directors, and presidents of associations totally
or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
Section 11. Dispersal of public assembly with permit - No public assembly punishable under this Code or for some purpose contrary to public morals.
with a permit shall be dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes Mere members of said associations shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
violent, the police may disperse such public assembly as follows: (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
(a) At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law
enforcement contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the public RA 10951 supra
assembly and ask the latter to prevent any possible disturbance;
(b) If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful objects
from the participants are thrown at the police or at the non-participants, or at D. ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO
any property causing damage to such property, the ranking officer of the law PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS
enforcement contingent shall audibly warn the participants that if the
disturbance persists, the public assembly will be dispersed; 14. DIRECT ASSAULTS
(c) If the violence or disturbances prevailing as stated in the preceding Article 148. Direct assaults. - Any person or persons who, without a public
subparagraph should not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the
enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a warning to the participants of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall
public assembly, and after allowing a reasonable period of time to lapse, shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority
immediately order it to forthwith disperse; or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or
(d) No arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also be made during on occasion of such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision
the public assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law, statute, correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding
ordinance or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be governed by P1,000 pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon or when the
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended: offender is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays hands upon
(e) Isolated acts or incidents of disorder or branch of the peace during the a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be present, the penalty of
public assembly shall not constitute a group for dispersal. prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P500
pesos shall be imposed.
Section 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit - When the public Article 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who
assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public shall be deemed as such. - In applying the provisions of the preceding and
assembly may be peacefully dispersed. other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction,
whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental
Section 13. Prohibited acts - The following shall constitute violations of this corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A
Act: barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in
(a) The holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any leader or authority.
organizer without having first secured that written permit where a permit is
required from the office concerned, or the use of such permit for such A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by
purposes in any place other than those set out in said permit: Provided, competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the
however, That no person can be punished or held criminally liable for protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman,
participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful assembly; barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid
(b) Arbitrary and unjustified denial or modification of a permit in violation of of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
the provisions of this Act by the mayor or any other official acting in his
behalf. In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers,
(c) The unjustified and arbitrary refusal to accept or acknowledge receipt of professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly
the application for a permit by the mayor or any official acting in his behalf; recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the
(d) Obstructing, impeding, disrupting or otherwise denying the exercise of the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such
right to peaceful assembly; performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (As amended by PD No.
(e) The unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law enforcement 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985).
agency or any person to disperse the public assembly;
(f) Acts in violation of Section 10 hereof; Article 203. Who are public officers. - For the purpose of applying the
(g) Acts described hereunder if committed within one hundred (100) meters provisions of this and the preceding titles of this book, any person who, by
from the area of activity of the public assembly or on the occasion thereof; direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent
1. the carrying of a deadly or offensive weapon or device such as firearm, authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the
pillbox, bomb, and the like; Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said Government or

11
in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer. RTC found all accused guilty of the complex crime of assault upon a
person in authority resulting in murder. Hence, appeal.
RA 10951 supra
ISSUE: WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
People vs. Beltran. ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE COMPLEX CRIME
G.R. no. 37168-69 (September 13, 1985) OF ASSAULT UPON A PERSON IN
Relova, J. AUTHORITY RESULTING TO MURDER.

Shooting at the mayor and a policeman in considered as direct assault. HELD: YES. The records show that the Barangay Captain was in the act
of trying to pacify Pedro Dollantes who was making trouble in the dance
FACTS: The Accused appellants in this case were Delfino Beltran hall when he was stabbed to death. He was therefore killed while in the
(“Minong”), Rogelio Bugarin (“Boy”), Cresencio Siazon (“Ising”), performance of his duties. In the case of People v. Hecto (135 SCRA 113),
Manuel Puzon (Noling), Domingo Hernandez (“Doming”), and Ceferino this Court ruled that "As the barangay captain, it was his duty to enforce
Beltran (“Ebing”). They were convicted by the trial court of murder for the the laws and ordinances within the barangay. If in the enforcement thereof,
death of Vicente Quirolgico, the mayor’s son and double attempted murder he incurs, the enmity of his people who thereafter treacherously slew him
with direct assault for injuries sustained by Mayor Bienvenido Quirolgico the crime committed is murder with assault upon a person in authority."
and Patrolman Rolando Tolentino. The trial court based its conclusion on
the following facts: Final Ruling: the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

As attested by Ernesto Alvarado that when he passed by the Puzon 15. INDIRECT ASSAULTS
Compound on January 11, 1972 between 9pm-10pm he was verbally Article 149. Indirect assaults. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
assaulted by Delfino Beltran, he decided to report the incident to Mayor minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be
Quirolgico, who then decided to go to the Puzon compound on that same imposed upon any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon
night to talk to Beltran and his companions. When the Mayor’s party any person coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of
approached the compound, they saw appellants Delfino Beltran, Bugarin, the commission of any of the crimes defined in the next preceding article.
and Hernandez, then there was a sudden discharge of firearms. Vicente
was hit. Mayor Quirolgico and Patrolman Tolentino also suffered injuries. RA 10951 supra
When the firing had stopped, they decided to flee and bring Vicente to the
hospital but as the jeep left the compound, three other men in the persons 16. DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY CONGRESS, ITS
of Siazon, Ceferino Beltran, and Puzon fired at the fleeing vehicle. COMMITTEES, ETC., BY THECONSTITUTIONAL
Likewise, Hernandez, Delfino, and Bugarin tried to give chase. An hour COMMISSIONS, ITS COMMITTEES, ETC
after admission, Vicente died. Article 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its
committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its
Defense: Delfino Beltran claimed self-defense, explaining that he was committees, subcommittees or divisions. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a
assaulted by Mayor’s group while he was patrolling the Rural Bank fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and
whereas the rest of the accuseds claim that they do not have anything to do imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly
with the incident. In fact they hid in the basement of the Congressman summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress),
Puzons residence the rest of the night and surrendered the following day to its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional
the authorities. Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any
commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon
ISSUE/s: WON THE MAYOR & PAT. TOLENTINO ARE PERSONS witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being
IN AUTHORITY & WERE BOTH PERFORMING present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses
THE OFFICIAL DUTIES IN THE COURSE OF THE to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to
INCIDENT. produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when
required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty
HELD: YES. Mayor Quirolgico is clearly a person in authority as the shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending
incumbent Mayor and Pat. Rolando Tolentino is a policeman who at the as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be
time was in his uniform, as such both were performing their official duties sworn by any such body or official.
to maintain peace and order in the community, the finding of the trial court
that appellants are guilty of attempted murder with direct assault on the RA 10951 supra
persons of Mayor Quirolgico and Pat. Tolentino is correct.
17. RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN
Final Ruling: The Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with AUTHORITY OR THE AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON
modification. Due to the lack of necessary votes, the penalty of death Article 151.  Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the
imposed upon the accused, was reduced to Reclusion perpetua agents of such person. - The penalty of  arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being
People vs. Dollantes included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously
G.R. No. 70639 (June 30, 1987) disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged
Paras,J. in the performance of official duties.
.
As the barangay captain, it was his duty to enforce the laws and ordinances When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious
within the barangay and if in the enforcement thereof, he incurs, the nature, the penalty of  arresto menoror a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos
enmity of his people who thereafter treacherously slew him, the crime shall be imposed upon the offender.
committed is murder with assault upon a person in authority.
RA 10951 supra
FACTS: The deceased Marcos Gabutero was a Barangay Captain and the
incident happened while they were celebrating Barrio Fiesta. That while E. PUBLIC DISORDERS
Barangay Captain was delivering a speech to start the dance, the accused
Pedro Dollantes went to the middle of the dancing floor, making a dance 18. TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER
movement known in the visayan as ‘nagkorantsa’, brandishing his knife Article 153. Tumults and other disturbance of public orders; Tumultuous
and challenging everyone as to who was brave among the people present; disturbance or interruption liable to cause disturbance. - The penalty
the Barangay Captain approached Pedro Dollantes and admonished him to of arresto mayor  in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
keep quiet and not to disturb the dance. period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who shall cause any serious disturbance in a public place, office, or
However, the accused, instead of heeding to the advice of the Barangay establishment, or shall interrupt or disturb public performances, functions or
Captain, stabbed the latter on the left arm; that accused Hugo Grengia held gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in the provisions of
the left hand of accused Pedro Dollantes and Dionilo Garol was able to get Articles 131 and 132.
from the hand of Pedro Dollantes the hunting knife. Immediately
thereafter, Accused Hamlet Dollantes, who rushed towards the Barangay The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing any
Captain, stabbed the Barangay Captain at the back and the other co- disturbance or interruption of a tumultuous character.
accused also took turns in stabbing the Barangay Captain; the Barangay The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be tumultuous if caused by
Captain at that time was not armed. Except for the accused Hugo Grengia, more than three persons who are armed or provided with means of violence.
Danny Esteban and Leonilo Villaester who were merely holding stones,
the other co-accused participated in the stabbing incident. When the The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who in any
Barangay Captain fell to the ground and died, the accused in this case took meeting, association, or public place, shall make any outcry tending to incite
turns in kicking the dead body of the Barangay Captain and were dancing rebellion or sedition or in such place shall display placards or emblems
around said dead body; that the Barangay Captain suffered eleven (11) which provoke a disturbance of the public order
wounds in the different parts of his body, two of which happened to be at .
the back of his dead body. According to the attending physician, Dr. The penalty of  arresto menor and a fine not to exceed P200 pesos shall be
Rogelio Kho who examined the body of the deceased, the victim died of imposed upon these persons who in violation of the provisions contained in
‘Severe hemorrhage and cardiac tamponade due to stab wounds.’" the last clause of Article 85, shall bury with pomp the body of a person who
(Decision, Crim. Case No. 5832, Rollo, p. 75). has been legally executed.
12
 CLEDERA & JOSE ESMERALDA ARE GUILTY UNDER
RA 10951 supra ART. 156 OF THE RPC.

19. UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND HELD: NO. The Supreme Court held that from the facts of the case, We
UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES are convinced that the respondent Judge committed an error in ordering the
Article 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful fiscal to amend the information so as to include Armando Cledera and Jose
utterances. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine ranging from  P200 Esmeralda as defendants in Criminal Case No. 9414 of the Court of First
to P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: Instance of Camarines Sur. It is the rule that a fiscal by the nature of his
1. Any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information
publication shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news where he is not convinced that he has evidence to support the allegations
which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or thereof. Besides, it cannot be said that the Fiscal had capriciously and
credit of the State; whimsically refused to prosecute Cledera and Esmeralda. (ows?)
2. Any person who by the same means, or by words, utterances or speeches
shall encourage disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or Article 156 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
praise, justify, or extol any act punished by law; Art. 156. Delivering prisoners from jails. — The city Of arrests
3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to be published any mayor in its maximum period to prison correccional in its
official resolution or document without proper authority, or before they have minimum Period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
been published officially; or remove from any jail or penal establishment t any person
4. Any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or cause to be printed, confined therein or shall help the escape of such person, by
published, or distributed books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do means of violence, intimidation, or bribery.
not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified as anonymous.
If other means are used the penalty of arresto mayor shall be
RA 10951 supra imposed. If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside
of said establishments by taking the guards by surprise, the
20. ALARMS AND SCANDALS same penalties shall be imposed in their minimum period. (The
Article 155. Alarms and scandals. - The penalty of arresto menor or a fine words of the provision are verbatim of the case. Please refer
not exceeding P200 pesos shall be imposed upon: to codal for the correct words.)
1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall discharge any
firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosives calculated to cause alarm or The offense may be committed in two ways: (1) by removing a person
danger; confined in any jail or penal establishment; and (2) by helping such a
2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in any charivari or person to escape. To remove means to take away a person from the place
other disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public of his confinement, with or without the active compensation of the person
tranquility; released To help in the escape of a Person confined in any jail or penal
3. Any person who, while wandering about at night or while engaged in any institution means to furnished that person with the material means such as
other nocturnal amusements, shall disturb the public peace; or a file, ladder, rope, etc. which greatly facilitate his escape. The offenders
4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause any under this article is usually committed by an outsider who removes from
disturbance or scandal in public places, provided that the circumstances of jail any person therein confined or helps him escape. If the offender is a
the case shall not make the provisions of Article 153 applicable. public officer who has custody or charge of the prisoner, he is liable for
infidelity in the custody of prisoner defined and penalty under Article 223
RA 10951 supra of the Revised Penal Code. Since Gov. Cledera as governor, is the jailer of
21. DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAILS the province, and Jose Esmeralda is the assistant provincial warden, they
Article 156. Delivery of prisoners from jails. - The penalty of arresto cannot be prosecuted for the escape Of Pablo Denaque under Article 156
mayor in its maximum period of prision correccional in its minimum period of the Revised Penal Code.
shall be imposed upon any person who shall remove from any jail or penal
establishment any person confined therein or shall help the escape of such In order to be guilty under the aforequoted provisions of the Penal Code, it
person, by means of violence, intimidation, or bribery. If other means are is necessary that the public officer had consented to, or connived in, the
used, the penalty of arresto mayor  shall be imposed. escape of the prisoner under his custody or charge. Connivance in the
escape of a prisoner on the part of the person in charge is an essential
If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments by condition in the commission of the crime of faithlessness in the custody of
taking the guards by surprise, the same penalties shall be imposed in their the prisoner. If the public officer charged with the duty of guarding him
minimum period. does not connive with the fugitive, then he has not violated the law and is
not guilty of the crime. For sure no connivance in the escape of Pablo
Alberto (Provincial Fiscal) vs. Hon. De la cruz (CFI of Camarines Sur) Denaque from the custody of the accused Eligio Orbita can be deduced
G.R. No. L-31839 (June 30, 1980) from the note of Gov. Cledera to Jose Esmeralda asking for five men to
Concepcion, J. work in the guest house, it appearing that the notes does not mention the
names of the prisoners to be brought to the guest house; and that it was the
To be liable for Art. 156 of the RPC, it is necessary that the public officer accused Eligio Orbita who picked the men to compose the work party.
had consented to, or connived in, the escape of the prisoner under his
custody or charge. Neither is there evidence to warrant the prosecution of Cledera and
Esmeralda under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code. This article
FACTS: On September 12, 1968, the accused Eligio Orbita, being then a punishes the public officer in whose custody or charge a prisoner has
member of the Provincial Guard of Camarines Sur and specially charged escaped by reason of his negligence resulting in evasion is definite
with the duty of keeping under custody and vigilance detention prisoner amounting to deliberate non- performance of duty. 18 In the constant case,
Pablo Denaque, did then and there with great carelessness and the respondent Judge said:
unjustifiable negligence leave the latter unguarded while in said barrio,
thereby giving him the opportunity to run away and escaped. We cannot, for the present be reconciled with the Idea that the escape of
Denaque was facilitated by the Governor's or his assistants negligence.
In the course of the trial thereof, a note was presented by the defense,
purportedly written by Gov. Armando Cledera, asking Jose Esmeralda Final Ruling: The orders are hereby annulled and set aside. The
(assistant provincial warden of Camarines Sur) to send five men to work in respondent Judge or any other judge acting in his stead is directed to
the construction of a fence at his house at Taculod, Canaman, Camarines proceed with the trial of the case.
Sur, then leased by the province and used as an official guest house. F. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

The defense alleged that the escape of Pablo Denaque was made possible 22. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
by the note of Gov. Cledera to Jose Esmeralda and that Cledera and Article 157.  Evasion of service of sentence. - The penalty of prision
Esmeralda are equally guilty of the offense for which the accused Eligio correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any
Orbita had been charged, but upon motion and the opposition of the convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of
prosecution officers and finding that "the court cannot grant the motion or his imprisonment by reason of final judgment.
order the inclusion of Gov. Cledera and Lt. Esmeralda at this stage unless
an investigation is made," the respondent Judge directed the Fiscals office However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of
to cause the further investigation of the case, taking into consideration the unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or
provisions of Article 156 in relation to Articles 223 and 224 of the Revised by using picklocks, false keys, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through
Penal Code in order to determine once and for all whether the Governor as connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution, the
jailer of the Province and his assistant have any criminatory participation penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum period.
in the circumstances of Pablo Denaque's escape from judicial custody.
Tanega vs. Masakayan
BACKDROP IN COURTS: G.R. No. L-27191 (February 28, 1967)
CFI of Camarines Sur – convicted Eligio Orbita, a Provincial guard, for Sanchez, J.:
the crime of Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner, defined and punished for prescription of penalty of imprisonment to commence to run, the
under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code but absolved Gov. Cledera culprit should escape during such imprisonment.
and Lt. Esmeralda.
FACTS: Petitioner was convicted of Slander by the City Court, then by
ISSUE: WON THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN THIS CASE, GOV. CFI and was sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor, to indemnify the

13
offended party, Pilar B. Julio, in the sum of P100.00, with the criminally liable under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code,
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs. Such was particularly article 157 of the said Code for the reason that said article 157
affirmed by CA and the review on certiorari at the SC was denied. refers only to persons who are imprisoned in a penal institution and
completely deprived of their liberty. He bases his contention on the word
Jan. 11, 1965 – CFI directed that execution of the sentence be set "imprisonment" used in the English text of said article which in part reads
for Jan. 27, but was deffered to Feb. 12 due to petitioner’s motion. as follows:
Feb. 12 – Petitioner failed to show up. Evasion of service of sentence. — The penalty of prision
Feb. 15 – Respondent Judge issued a warrant for her arrest correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be
Mar. 23 – an alias warrant of arrest. Petitioner was never arrested. imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his
Dec. 10, 1966 – Petitioner, by counsel, moved to quash the sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by
warrants of arrest of Feb. 15 and Mar. 23, 1965 on the ground that penalty reason of final judgment.
has prescribed. ISSUE/s: WON THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING A
Dec. 19 – Respondent judge ruled that "the penalty imposed PENALTY ON THE ACCUSED UNDER
upon the accused has to be served", rejected the plea of prescription of ARTICLE 157 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE,
penalty and, instead, directed the issuance of another alias  warrant of WHICH DOES NOT COVER EVASION OF
arrest. SERVICE OF "DESTIERRO."

Thus, this original petition for certiorari and prohibition. HELD: NO. It is the Spanish text that is controlling in case of doubt for
the Revised Penal Code was originally approved and enacted in Spanish,
ISSUE/s: WHEN DOES PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY the Spanish text governs. It is clear that the word "imprisonment" used in
SHOULD START TO RUN the English text is a wrong or erroneous translation of the phrase
HELD: "sufriendo privacion de libertad" used in the Spanish text. Destierro is a
Arresto menor and a fine of P100.00 constitute a light penalty. By Article deprivation of liberty, though partial, in the sense that as in the present
92 of the Revised Penal Code, light penalties "imposed by final sentence" case, the appellant by his sentence of destierro was deprived of the liberty
prescribe in one year. The period of prescription of penalties — so the to enter the City of Manila. Hence, appellant Abilong is guilty of evasion
succeeding Article 93 provides — "shall commence to run from the of service of sentence under article 157 of the Revised Penal Code
date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence". (Spanish text), in that during the period of his sentence of destierro by
virtue of final judgment wherein he was prohibited from entering the City
What then is the concept of evasion of service of sentence Article 157 of of Manila, he entered said City.
the Revised Penal Code furnishes the ready answer. Says Article 157:
ART. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. — The penalty of Final Ruling: The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court in toto
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence 23. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION
by escaping during the term of his imprisonment  by reason of OF DISORDER, CONFLAGRATION, EARTHQUAKE OR
final judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have OTHER CALAMATIES
taken place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion of disorder,
windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors, or by using picklocks, false conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities.  - A convict who shall evade
keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through the service of his sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he shall
connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal have been confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting from a
institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional  in its conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar catastrophe, or during a
maximum period. mutiny in which he has not participated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth
of the time still remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in
Elements of evasion of service of sentence are: no case shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to give himself up to the
(1) the offender is a convict by final judgment; authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a proclamation
(2) he "is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty"; by the Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity.
and
(3) he evades service of sentence by escaping  during the term of his Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding
sentence.  paragraph, shall give themselves up to the authorities within the above
mentioned period of 48 hours, shall be entitled to the deduction provided in
This must be so. For, by the express terms of the statute, a convict evades Article 98.
"service of his sentence", BY "ESCAPING DURING THE TERM OF
HIS IMPRISONMENT BY REASON OF FINAL JUDGMENT." That 24. OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
escape should take place while serving sentence, is emphasized by the (VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON)
provisions of the second sentence of Article 157 which provides for a Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence.  - The penalty of
higher penalty if such "evasion or escape shall have taken by means of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the convict
unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors who, having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall
or by using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, violate any of the conditions of such pardon. However, if the penalty remitted
or through connivance with other convicts or employees of the  penal by the granting of such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall then
institution, ... " Indeed, evasion of sentence is but another expression of suffer the unexpired portion of his original sentence.
the term "jail breaking".
Torres vs. Hon. Neptali A. Gonzales (As chairman of the Board of
We, therefore, rule that for prescription of penalty of imprisonment Pardons and Parole)
imposed by final sentence to commence to run, the culprit should escape G.R. No. 76872 (July 23, 1987)
during the term of such imprisonment. Feliciano, J.

Adverting to the facts, we have here the case of a convict who — Grantee of conditional pardon who is recommitted must be convicted by
sentenced to imprisonment by final judgment — was thereafter never final judgment of a court of the subsequent crime or crimes with which he
placed in confinement. Prescription of penalty, then, does not run in her was charged before the criminal penalty for such subsequent offense(s)
favor. can be imposed.

Final Ruling: For the reasons given, the Court resolved to DISMISS FACTS: Sometime before 1979, petitioner Wilfredo S. Torres was
the petition for certiorari and prohibition. No costs. So ordered. convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila of the crime of estafa.
On 18 April 1979, a conditional pardon was granted to the petitioner by
People vs. Abilong the President of the Philippines on condition that petitioner would "not
G.R. no. L-1960 (November 26, 1948) again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. Should this
Montemayor, J. condition be violated, he will be proceeded against in the manner
prescribed by law.
Shooting at the mayor and a policeman in considered as direct assault.
On 21 May 1986, the Board of Pardons and Parole resolved to recommend
FACTS: Florentino Abilong was charged in the Court of First Instance of to the President the cancellation of the conditional pardon granted to the
Manila with evasion of service of sentence. The said accused, being then a petitioner. On 8 September 1986, the President cancelled the conditional
convict sentenced and ordered to serve 2yrs, 4 months & 1 day of destierro pardon of the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly arrested and
during which he should not enter any place within the radius of 100 confined in Muntinlupa to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence.
kilometers from the City of Manila, by virtue of final judgment rendered
by the municipal court on April 5, 1946, in criminal case No. B-4795 for Petitioner now impugns the validity of the Order of Arrest and
attempted robbery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously Recommitment. He claims that he did not violate his conditional pardon
evade the service of said sentence by going beyond the limits made against since he has not been convicted by final judgment of the twenty (20)
him and commit vagrancy. counts of estafa charged in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-19672 and Q-20756
nor of the crime of sedition in Criminal Case No. Q-22926.
Upon arraignment Abilong pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2yrs, 4
months & 1 day of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties of the ISSUE: WON THE CONVICTION OF A CRIME BY FINAL
law and to pay the costs. He is appealing from that decision, contending JUDGMENT OF A COURT IS NECESSARY BEFORE THE
that a person like the accused evading a sentence of destierro is not PETITIONER CAN BE VALIDLY REARRESTED AND

14
 RECOMMITTED FOR VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF HIS
CONDITIONAL PARDON AND ACCORDINGLY TO SERVE When the accused rushed out of Ward 6, they were met at the corridor by
THE BALANCE OF HIS ORIGINAL SENTENCE. Prison Guard Enriquito Aguilar. Both gave themselves up and handed their
weapons to him.
HELD: YES, but the President (of course) has a wide discretion whether
to proceed against the grantee or not, which in this case, the President has During arraignment, both accused voluntarily entered the plea of guilty.
chosen to proceed against the petitioner under Section 64 (i) of the Thereafter the trial court required the presentation of evidence to
Revised Administrative Code. determine the degree of their culpability. During trial, they acknowledged
the voluntary execution of their respective extra-judicial confessions.
The Supreme Court held that it may be emphasized that what is involved
in the instant case is not the prosecution of the parolee for a subsequent BACKDROP IN COURTS:
offense in the regular course of administration of the criminal law. What Circuit Court, Rizal – sentenced both accused-appellants to death. Hence,
is involved is rather the ascertainment of whether the convict has breached this mandatory review.
his undertaking that he would "not again violate any of the penal laws of
the Philippines" for purposes of reimposition upon him of the remitted ISSUE/s: WON THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY IMPOSED THE
portion of his original sentence. The consequences that we here deal with MAXIMUM PENALTY OF DEATH.
are the consequences of an ascertained breach of the conditions of a
pardon. A convict granted conditional pardon, like the petitioner HELD: YES. The penalty of death was properly imposed.
herein, who is recommitted must of course be convicted by final
judgment of a court of the subsequent crime or crimes with which he It is thus noted that in their briefs, no attempt was made to impugn the
was charged before the criminal penalty for such subsequent lower court's conclusion as to their guilt. Instead, they seek attenuation of
offense(s) can be imposed upon him. Again, since Article 159 of the the death sentence imposed by the trial court by invoking the
Revised Penal Code defines a distinct, substantive, felony, the parolee or circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty.
convict who is regarded as having violated the provisions thereof must be
charged, prosecuted and convicted by final judgment before he can be We find no necessity to discuss at length the effects of such mitigating
made to suffer the penalty prescribed in Article 159. circumstances on the penalty imposed. Suffice it to say that the accused
are quasi-recidivist, having committed the crime charged while serving
Succinctly put, in proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally sentence for a prior offense. As such, the maximum penalty prescribed by
pardoned and who is alleged to have breached the conditions of his law for the new felony [murder] is death, regardless of the presence or
pardon, the Executive Department has two options: (i) to proceed against absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstance or the complete absence
him under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code; or (ii) to thereof.
proceed against him under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code which
imposes the penalty of prision correccional, minimum period, upon a But for lack of the requisite votes, the Court is constrained to commute the
convict who "having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief death sentence imposed on each of the accused to reclusion perpetua.
Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon." Here, the
President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner under Section 64 (i) Final Ruling: accused Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto Abarca are hereby
of the Revised Administrative Code. That choice is an exercise of the sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the
President's executive prerogative and is not subject to judicial deceased, jointly and severally, the sum of P30,000.00. Costs against
scrutiny. appellants.

Final Ruling: Petition is dismissed. H. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS

G. COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF 26. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITIONS
PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE
25. COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866             JUNE 29, 1983
PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE AMENDED BY RA 9516 "SECTION 3 AND 4"
Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION,
imposed for another offense; Penalty.  - Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION,
Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR
by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS,
the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER
by law for the new felony. PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR
RELEVANT PURPOSES"
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or
criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be
already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after Used in the Manufacture of Firearms of Ammunition. - The penalty of
reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be
he shall not be worthy of such clemency. imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire,
dispose, or possess any firearm, part of firearm, ammunition or machinery,
People of the Philippines vs. Dioso, et al. tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any
217 Phil. 585 (October 23, 1984) firearm or ammunition.
Escolin, J.
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the
Quasi-recisdivism cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance penalty of death shall be imposed.

FACTS: The killings (qualified by alevosia) in this case were committed If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in
inside the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinglupa, Rizal where both accused- connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion, the
appellants were serving sentence, Abarca having been previously penalty of death shall be imposed.
convicted by final judgment of the crime of homicide, and Dioso, of
robbery. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or
At the time of the incident, Dioso and Abarca were members of the other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation
“Batang Mindanao” gang, while the victims Angelito Reyno and Fernando or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by
Gomez (both deceased), also prisoners at the New Bilibid Prisons, such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons
belonged to a group known as the “Happy Go Lucky” gang. These rival found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs.
factions had been involved in intermittent, and sometimes bloody, clashes,
the latest of which resulted in the death of a certain Balerio, a member of The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall
the “Batang Mindanao” gang. carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority
therefor.
Suspecting that Reyno and Gomez had authored the slaying of their
gangmate, the two accused set their minds to avenge his death. They found Section 2. Presumption of Illegal Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. -
the occasion to execute their nefarious design when they learned that The possession of any machinery, tool or instrument used directly in the
Reyno and Gomez were sick and confined in the prison hospital. At 6:15 manufacture of firearms or ammunition, by any person whose business or
in the morning of September 12, 1972, Abarca, feigning illness, went to employment does not lawfully deal with the manufacture of firearms or
the hospital to seek admission as a patient. He was accompanied by his co- ammunition, shall be prima facie evidence that such article is intended to be
accused Dioso. Inside Ward 6 of the hospital, they saw their intended used in the unlawful/illegal manufacture of firearms or ammunition.
victims: Reyno was taking breakfast, while Gomez was lying down on a
tarima [wooden bed] under a mosquito net. Dioso approached Reyno and Section 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition or
spoke briefly to him, while Abarca headed towards the tarima. Then, both Possession of Explosives. - The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum
accused suddenly drew out their improvised knives (matalas). Abarca period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall
raised the mosquito net and stabbed Gomez, as Dioso, almost unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose or possess
simultaneously, attacked Reyno with his knife. And after the latter had handgrenade(s), rifle grenade(s) and other explosives, including but not
fallen, Dioso helped his co-accused finish off Gomez. limited to "philbox bombs", "molotov cocktail bomb", "fire-bombs", or other

15
incendiary devices capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous
objects or causing injury or death to any person. "The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager,
director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm,
Any person who commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow
Code or special laws with the use of the aforementioned explosives, any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to
detonation agents or incendiary devices, which results in the death of any be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions
person or persons shall be punished with the penalty of death. of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow any of them
to use unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal authority to be
If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in carried outside of their residence in the course of their employment.
connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion, the
penalty of death shall be imposed. "The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who
shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion authority therefor."
perpetua shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or
other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation Section 2. Sec. 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby
or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the explosives owned further amended to read as follows:
by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or "Sec. 3. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession
persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs. of explosives. – The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos
Section 4. Presumption of Unlawful Manufacture. - The possession of any (P50,000) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
machinery, tool or instrument directly used in the manufacture of explosives, manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose or possess hand grenade(s),
by any person whose business or employment does not lawfully deal with the rifle grenade(s), and other explosives, including but not limited to 'pillbox,'
manufacture of explosives shall be prima facie evidence that such article is 'molotov cocktail bombs,' 'fire bombs,' or other incendiary devices capable
intended to be used in the unlawful/illegal manufacture of explosives. of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury or
death to any person.
Section 5. Tampering of Firearm's Serial Number. - The penalty of prision
mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully tamper, "When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal
change, deface or erase the serial number of any firearm. Code or special laws with the use of the aforementioned explosives,
detonation agents or incendiary devices, which results in the death of any
Section 6. Repacking or Altering the Composition of Lawfully Manufactured person or persons, the use of such explosives, detonation agents or
Explosives. - The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person incendiary devices shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
who shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify the composition of any lawfully
manufactured explosives. "If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted
Section 7. Unauthorized Issuance of Authority to Carry Firearm and/or coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crimes of
Ammunition Outside of Residence. - The penalty of prision correccional shall rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat.
be imposed upon any person, civilian or military, who shall issue authority to
carry firearm and/or ammunition outside of residence, without authority "The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager,
therefor. director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company,
corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the
Section 8. Rules and Regulations. - The Chief of the Philippine Constabulary explosives owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity, to be used
shall promulgate the rules and regulations for the effective implementation of by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the
this Decree. preceding paragraphs."

Section 9. Repealing Clause. - The provisions of Republic Act No. 4, Section 3. Sec. 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby
Presidential Decree No. 9, Presidential Decree No. 1728 and all laws, decrees, further amended to read as follows:
orders, instructions, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with this "Sec. 5. Tampering of firearm's serial number. – The penalty of prision
Decree are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly. correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
Section 10. Effectivity. - This Decree shall take effect after fifteen (15) days tamper, change, deface or erase the serial number of any firearm."
following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette.
Section 4. Sec. 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby
Done in the City of Manila, this 29th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, further amended to read as follows:
nineteen hundred and eighty-three. "Sec. 6. Repacking or altering the composition of lawfully manufactured
explosives. – The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8294             JUNE 6, 1997 person who shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify the composition of any
AN ACT AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL lawfully manufactured explosives."
DECREE NO. 1866, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "CODIFYING THE
LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, Section 5. Coverage of the Term Unlicensed Firearm. – The term unlicensed
DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, firearm shall include:
AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE 1) firearms with expired license; or
MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, 2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission of the crime.
AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN
VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES." Section 6. Rules and regulations. – The Department of Justice and the
Section 1. Sec. 1 Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further Department of the Interior and Local Government shall jointly issue, within
amended to read as follows: ninety (90) days after the approval of this Act, the necessary rules and
"Sec. 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or regulations pertaining to the administrative aspect of the provisions hereof,
possession of firearms or ammunition or instruments used or intended to furnishing the Committee on Public Order and Security and the Committee on
be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition. – The penalty of Justice and Human Rights of both Houses of Congress copies of such rules
prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than and regulations within thirty (30) days from the promulgation hereof.
Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who
shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any Section 7. Separability clause. – If, for any reason, any Sec. or provision of
low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other this Act is declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, the other Sec.s or
firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, provisions thereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full
tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any force and effect.
firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed.
Section 8. Repealing clause. – All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations
"The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is classified as repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.
high powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger in diameter Section 9. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days
than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of
lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and general circulation.
caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other firearms with firing capability Approved: June 6, 1997.
of full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no
other crime was committed by the person arrested. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9516             DECEMBER 22
AMENDING SECTION 3 AND 4 OF PD 1866
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed AN ACT FURTHER AMENDING THE PROVISIONS
firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED
aggravating circumstance. CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION,
MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION
"If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of or incident to, or in OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR
connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS,
attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER
the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat.

16
PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR perpetua and a fine ranging from One hundred Thousand pesos
OTHER RELEVANT PURPOSES" (P100,000.00) to One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed.
Section 1. Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby "SEC. 3-D. Former Conviction or Acquittal; Double Jeopardy. - Subject to
further amended to read as follows: the provisions of the Rules of Court on double jeopardy, if the application
"Section 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition, thereof is more favorable to the accused, the conviction or acquittal of the
Importation or Possession of an Explosive or Incendiary Device. - The accused or the dismissal of the case for violation of this Decree shall be a
penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall bar to another prosecution of the same accused for any offense where the
willfully and unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose, violation of this Decree was a necessary means for committing the offense
import or possess any explosive or incendiary device, with knowledge of its or in furtherance of which, incident to which, in connection with which, by
existence and its explosive or incendiary character, where the explosive or reason of which, or on occasion of which, the violation of this Decree was
incendiary device is capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous committed, and vice versa.
objects or causing injury or death to any person, including but not limited "SEC. 4. Responsibility and liability of Law Enforcement Agencies and
to, hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), 'pillbox bomb', 'molotov cocktail Other Government Officials and Employees in Testifying as Prosecution
bomb', 'fire bomb', and other similar explosive and incendiary devices. Witnesses. - Any member of law enforcement agencies or any other
"Provided, That mere possession of any explosive or incendiary device shall government official and employee who, after due notice, fails or refuses,
be prima facie evidence that the person had knowledge of the existence and intentionally or negligently, to appear as a witness for the prosecution of the
the explosive or incendiary character of the device. defense in any proceeding, involving violations of this Decree, without any
"Provided, however, That a temporary, incidental, casual, harmless, or valid reason, shall be punished with reclusion temporal and a fine of Five
transient possession or control of any explosive or incendiary device, hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00) in addition to the administrative
without the knowledge of its existence or its explosive or incendiary liability he/she may be meted out by his/her immediate superior and/or
character, shall not be a violation of this Section. appropriate body.
"Provided, Further, That the temporary, incidental, casual, harmless, or "The immediate superior of the member of the law enforcement agency or
transient possession or control of any explosive or incendiary device for the any other government employee mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall
sole purpose of surrendering it to the proper authorities shall not be a be penalized with prision correccional and a fine of not less than Ten
violation of this Section. Thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos
"Provided, finally, That in addition to the instances provided in the two (2) (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from
immediately preceeding paragraphs, the court may determine the absence of public office if despite due notice to them and to the witness concerned, the
the intent to possess, otherwise referred to as 'animus possidendi", in former does not exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court.
accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case and the "The member of the law enforcement agency or any other government
application of other pertinent laws, among other things, Articles 11 and 12 employee mentioned in the preceding paragraphs shall not be transferred or
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended." reassigned to any other government office located in another territorial
jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in court. However, the
Section 2. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby concerned member of the law enforcement agency or government employee
further amended to read as follows: may be transferred or reassigned for compelling reasons: Provided, That
"SEC 3-A. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition, his/her immediate superior shall notify the court where the case is pending
Importation or Possession of a Part, Ingredient, Machinery, Tool or of the order to transfer or reassign, within twenty-four (24) hours from its
Instrument Used or Intended to be Used for the Manufacture, Construction, approval: Provided, further, That his/her immediate superior shall be
Assembly, Delivery or Detonation. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall penalized with prision correccional and a fine of not less than Ten thousand
be imposed upon any person who shall willfully and unlawfully pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose, import or possess any part, and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from public office,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument of any explosive or incendiary should he/she fail to notify the court of such order to transfer or reassign.
device, whether chemical, mechanical, electronic, electrical or otherwise, "Prosecution and punishment under this Section shall be without prejudice
used or intended to be used by that person for its manufacture, construction, to any liability for violation of any existing law.
assembly, delivery or detonation, where the explosive or incendiary device "SEC 4-A. Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence. - Any person who is
is capable or is intended to be made capable of producing destructive effect found guilty of 'planting' any explosive or incendiary device or any part,
on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person. ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument of any explosive or incendiary
"Provided, That the mere possession of any part, ingredient, machinery, tool device, whether chemical, mechanical, electronic, electrical or otherwise,
or instrument directly used in the manufacture, construction, assembly, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
delivery or detonation of any explosive or incendiary device, by any person "Planting of evidence shall mean the willful act by any person of
whose business activity, or employment does not lawfully deal with the maliciously and surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or attaching,
possession of such article shall be prima facie evidence that such article is directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act, whatever quantity of
intended to be used by that person in the unlawful/illegal manufacture, any explosive or incendiary device or any part, ingredient, machinery, tool
construction, assembly, delivery or detonation of an explosive or incendiary or instrument of any explosive or incendiary device, whether chemical,
device. mechanical, electronic, electrical or otherwise in the person, house, effects
"Provided, however, That a temporary incidental, casual, harmless or or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of
transient possession or control of any part, machinery, tool or instrument implicating incriminating or imputing the commission of any violation of
directly used in the manufacture, construction, assembly, delivery or this Decree.
detonation of any explosive or incendiary device, without the knowledge of "SEC. 4-B. Continuous Trial. - In cases involving violations of this Decree,
its existence or character as part, ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument the judge shall set the case for continuous trial on a daily basis from
directly used in the manufacture, construction, assembly, delivery or Monday to Friday or other short-term trial calendar so as to ensure speedy
detonation of any explosive or incendiary device, shall not be a violation of trial. Such case shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from
this Section. arraignment of the accused.
"Provided, Further, That the temporary, incidental, casual, harmless, or "SEC. 4-C. Authority to Import, Sell or Possess Chemicals or Accessories
transient possession or control of any part, ingredient, machinery, tool or for Explosives. - Only persons or entities issued a manufacturer's license,
instrument directly used in the manufacture, construction, assembly, dealer's license or purchaser's license by the Philippine National Police
delivery or detonation of any explosive or incendiary device for the sole (PNP)-Firearms and Explosives Division may import any of the chemical or
purpose of surrendering it to the proper authorities shall not be a violation accessories that can be used in the manufacture of explosives or explosive
of this Section. ingredients from foreign suppliers, or possess or sell them to licensed
"Provided, finally, That in addition to the instances provided in the two (2) dealers or end users, as the case may be.
immediately preceeding paragraphs, the court may determine the absence of "SEC. 4-D. Types of Chemicals/Accessories Covered. - The chemicals and
the intent to possess, otherwise referred to as 'animus possidendi', in accessories mentioned in the preceding Section shall exclusively refer to
accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case and the chlorates, nitrates, nitric acid and such other chemicals and accessories that
application of other pertinent laws, among other things, Articles 11 and 12 can be used for the manufacture of explosives and explosive ingredients.
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended." "SEC. 4-E. Record of Transactions. - Any person or entity who intends to
import, sell or possess the aforecited chemicals or accessories shall file an
Section 3. Insert a new Section 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 4, 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, 4-D, 4-E, 4-E application with the chief of the PNP, stating therein the purpose for which
and 4-F in Presidential Decree No. 1866 to read as follows: the license and/or permit is sought and such other information as may be
"SEC. 3-B. Penalty for the Owner, President, Manager, Director or Other required by the said official. The concerned person or entity shall maintain a
Responsible Officer of Any Public or Private Firm, Company, Corporation permanent record of all transactions entered into in relation with the
or Entity. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the aforecited chemicals or accessories, which documents shall be open to
owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any inspection by the appropriate authorities.
public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or "SEC. 4-F. Cancellation of License. - Failure to comply with the provision
knowingly allow any explosive or incendiary device or parts thereof owned of Section 4-C, 4-D and 4-E shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of
or controlled by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any the license and the confiscation of all such chemicals or accessories,
person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding whether or not lawfully imported, purchased or possessed by the subject
paragraphs. person or entity."
"SEC. 3-C. Relationship of Other Crimes with a Violation of this Decree
and the Penalty Therefor. - When a violation of Section 3, 3-A or 3-B of Sec. 4. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason, any provision of this Act is
this Decree is a necessary means for committing any of the crimes defined declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, the other Sections or provisions
in the Revised Penal Code or special laws, or is in furtherance of, incident thereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and
to, in connection with, by reason of, or on occassion of any of the crimes effect.
defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws, the penalty of reclusion

17
Sec. 5. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or Neither is the second paragraph of Section 1 meant to punish homicide or
parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, murder with death if either crime is committed with the use of an
amended, or modified accordingly. unlicensed firearm, i.e., to consider such use merely as a qualifying
circumstance and not as an offense. That could not have been the intention
Sec. 6. Effecfivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following of the lawmaker because the term "penalty" in the subject provision is
its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general obviously meant to be the penalty for illegal possession of firearm and not
circulation. the penalty for homicide or murder. We explicitly stated in Tac-an:

RA 10591 supra page 1 There is no law which renders the use of an unlicensed firearm as an
aggravating circumstance in homicide or murder. Under an information
charging homicide or murder, the fact that the death weapon was an
People vs. Quijada
unlicensed firearm cannot be used to increase the penalty for the second
G.R. No. 115008-09 (July 24, 1996)
offense of homicide or murder to death .... The essential point is that the
Davide, Jr., J.
unlicensed character or condition of the instrument used in destroying
human life or committing some other crime, is not included in the
The killing of a person with the use of an unlicensed firearm cannot
inventory of aggravating circumstances set out in Article 14 of the Revised
serve to increase the penalty for homicide or murder but rather, by
Penal Code.
express provision of P.D. No. 1866, shall increase the penalty for
illegal possession of firearm. When an accused is prosecuted for
In short, there is nothing in P.D. No. 1866 that manifests, even
homicide or murder and for aggravated illegal possession of firearm,
vaguely, a legislative intent to decriminalize homicide or murder if
the constitutional bar against double jeopardy will not apply since
either crime is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, or to
these offenses are quite different from one another, with the first
convert the offense of illegal possession of firearm as a qualifying
punished under the Revised Penal Code and the second under a special
circumstance if the firearm so illegally possessed is used in the
law
commission of homicide or murder. To charge the lawmaker with that
intent is to impute an absurdity that would defeat the clear intent to
FACTS: On December 25, 1992, a benefit-dance (disco) was held in
preserve the law on homicide and murder and impose a higher penalty for
Brgy. Tinago, Dauis, Bohol. A fight broke out between the accused-
illegal possession of firearm if such firearm is used in the commission of
appellant (Daniel Quijada) and the victim Diosdado Iroy as the former was
homicide or murder.
constantly annoying and pestering the latter's sister (Rosita Iroy). In the
evening of December 30, 1992, another benefit-dance was once gain held.
Final Ruling: The instant appeal is DISMISSED
This benefit dance was attended bv Rosita Iroy, Ariel Dano, Teodora
Badayos, Ado Aranzado, Largo Iroy and Diosdado Iroy.
People of the Philippines vs. Ringor, Jr.
While Rosita Iroy and others were enjoying themselves inside the dancing G.R. No. 123918 (December 9, 1999)
area, Diosdado Iroy, Eugene Nesnea and Largo Iroy, who were then sitting Purisima, J.
at the plaza (the area where they positioned themselves was duly lighted
and was approximately four meters from the dancing hall), decided to just Where murder or homicide was committed, the penalty for illegal
watch the activities in the dance hall directly from the plaza. After possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a
dancing, Rosita Iroy decided to leave and went outside the gate of the special aggravating circumstance – but The amendatory law making the
dance area. Subsequently, or around 11:30 of the same night, while use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in murder or
facing the direction of Diosdado Iroy, Rosita lroy saw appellant homicide, cannot be applied here because the said provision of R.A. No.
surreptitiously approach her brother Diosdado Iroy from behind. 8294 is not favorable to accused-appellant, lest it becomes an ex post facto
Suddenly, appellant fired his revolver at Diosdado Iroy, hitting the law.
latter at the back portion of the head. This caused Rosita Iroy to
spontaneously shout that appellant shot her brother; while appellant, FACTS: On June 23, 1994, Fely Batanes, a waitress at Peoples Restaurant
after shooting Diosdado Iroy, ran towards the cornfield. Diosdado Iroy at Kalantiao St., Baguio City, saw appellant Augusto Loreto Ringor, Jr.
was immediately rushed by Elmer Nigparanon and Largo Iroy to the and his two companions enter the restaurant. The group ordered a bottle of
hospital but the injury sustained was fatal. In the meantime, Rosita Iroy gin. Appellant then approached one of the tables where Florida, the
went home and relayed to her parents the unfortunate incident. restaurants cook was drinking beer. Without any warning, appellant pulled
Florida’s hair and poked a knife on the latter’s throat. Florida stood up and
The firearm used by the appellant (Quijada) was found to be pleaded with appellant not to harm him. Appellant relented and released
unlicensed as verified from alist of licensed firearm holders in the his grip on Florida. Thereafter, he left the restaurant together with his
province. companions. However, a few minutes later he was back, and brandished a
gun, he thus proceeded to the kitchen where Florida worked. Stealthily
The appellant was charged in two informations: (1) Criminal Case No. approaching Florida from behind, appellant fired six successive shots at
8178 - Murder under Art. 248 RPC; and (2) Criminal Case No. 8179- Florida who fell down.
Illegal Possession of firearms in its aggracated form under PD 1866.
SPO2 Fernandez, who was then in the vicinity, went into action and
TC both found accused guilty in the two informations charged. Hence, nabbed appellant. Upon verification from the Firearms Explosive division,
appeal. it was found that appellant is not a licensed firearm holder nor, was the
subject firearm duly registered with the said office.
ISSUE: WON AGGRAVATED ILLEGAL POSSESSION
OF FIREARMS AND MURDER/HOMICIDE The accused was charged of the crime of murder and illegal possession of
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATE firearm but the accused interposed self-defense.

HELD: YES. AGGRAVATED ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF BACKDROP IN COURTS:

FIREARMS AND MURDER/HOMICIED ARE TWO SEPARATE RTC of Baguio City – Guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced him to
OFFENSES. suffer the supreme penalty of death (Criminal Case No. 13102-R) & illegal
possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 (Criminal Case No. 13100-R).
The unequivocal intent of the second paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No.
1866 is to respect and preserve homicide or murder as a distinct offense ISSUE: WON THE RTC ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT
penalized under the Revised Penal Code and to increase the penalty for FOR SIMPLE ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
illegal possession of firearm where such a firearm is used in killing a UNDER P.D. 1866 AND AT THE SAME TIME FOR
person. MURDER
 Its clear language yields no intention of the lawmaker to repeal or
modify, pro tanto, Articles 248 and 249 of the Revised Penal Code, HELD: YES. The Supreme Court held that well-settled is the rule that in
in such a way that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission interposing self-defense, the offender admits authorship of the killing. The
of homicide or murder, either of these crimes, as the case may be, onus probandi is thus shifted to him to prove the elements of self-defense
would only serve to aggravate the offense of illegal possession of and that the killing was justified; otherwise, having admitted the killing,
firearm and would not anymore be separately punished. conviction is inescapable. Accused-appellant failed to prove the element of
 Indeed, the words of the subject provision are palpably clear to unlawful aggression. The allegation that the victim allegedly went out of
exclude any suggestion that either of the crimes of homicide and the kitchen armed with a bolo, and was about to hack him (accused-
murder, as crimes mala in se under the Revised Penal Code, is appellant) who was then at an almost prone lying position on the table he
obliterated as such and reduced as a mere aggravating circumstance was occupying, is a self-serving and unconvincing statement which did not
in illegal possession of firearm whenever the unlicensed firearm is in anyway constitute the requisite quantum of proof for unlawful
used in killing a person. aggression. Prosecution witness Fely Batanes, a waitress in the restaurant
 The only purpose of the provision is to increase the penalty where the shooting incident occurred, was firm in her declaration that the
prescribed in the first paragraph of Section 1 -- reclusion temporal in victim was in the kitchen unarmed when the accused-appellant shot him.
its maximum period to reclusion perpetua -- to death, seemingly The victim had no weapon or bolo. He was neither threatening to attack
because of the accused's manifest arrogant defiance and contempt of nor in any manner manifesting any aggressive act which could have
the law in using an unlicensed weapon to kill another, but never, at imperiled accused-appellants safety and well-being.
the same time, to absolve the accused from any criminal liability for
the death of the victim. With respect to the conviction of accused-appellant for illegal possession
of firearms under P. D. No. 1866, it was held in the case of People vs.
18
 Molina and reiterated in the recent case of People vs. Ronaldo Valdez, that buy dollar coins from appellant.
in cases where murder or homicide is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, there can be no separate conviction for the crime of
illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 in view of the
amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 8294. Thereunder, the use
Upon searching the place, among the articles found in the table inside
of unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is simply considered as
an aggravating circumstance in the murder or homicide and no longer aside from the goldsmith implements are gold foil, a gold nugget, 15 one-
as a separate offense. Furthermore, the penalty for illegal possession centavo pieces, a French gold coin, ten five-dollar American gold coins
of firearms shall be imposed provided that no other crime is with pins and one without pin, one unfinished five-dollar coin, and 2
committed. In other words, where murder or homicide was unfinished ten-dollar U. S. gold coins. When searched the person of the
committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer appellant, the police found eight pieces of twenty-dollar U. S. gold coins
imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance. wrapped in paper. At the police station, with the use of an interpreter,
appellant expressly admits having fabricated the 8 pieces of finished dollar
It bears stressing, however, that the dismissal of the present case for illegal
possession of firearm should not be misinterpreted to mean that there can coins, the unfinished five-dollar and the 2 unfinished ten-dollar pieces.
no longer be any prosecution for the offense of illegal possession of
firearms. In general, all pending cases involving illegal possession of
firearms should continue to be prosecuted and tried if no other crimes
expressly provided in R. A. No. 8294 are involved (murder or homicide, The gold pieces, nuggets, and coins were referred to a chemist of the
under Section 1, and rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d Manila Police Department. He found that most of the gold dollar coins
etat, under Section 3). were genuine, but the unfinished coins and the 8 twenty-dollar coins were
all counterfeit, not being legitimate coins of the United States as they seem
The Court explicitly stated in Tac-an:
There is no law which renders the use of an unlicensed to be. According to the chemist, genuine gold coins are produced by
firearm as an aggravating circumstance in homicide or impression, but the said coins were not so fabricated, but by the use of
murder. Under an information charging homicide or murder , molds and then filed away, marks of filing at the edges were seen through
the fact that the death weapon was an unlicensed firearm the use of stereoscope. He also determined their gold content by their
cannot be used to increase the penalty for the second offense specific gravity, and he found that they were only 16 to 17 karats, whereas
of homicide or murder to death (or reclusion perpetua under the genuine U. S. gold dollars are 18 karats.
1987 Constitution).The essential point is that the unlicensed
character or condition of the instrument used in destroying human
life or committing some other crime, is not included in the
inventory of aggravating circumstances set out in Article 14 of
the Revised Penal Code. Appellant denied ownership of the gold coins or that the latter were found
in his person.
A law may, of course, be enacted making the use of an
unlicensed firearm as a qualifying circumstance. (Emphasis
supplied)
BACKDROP IN COURTS:
Thus, before R.A. No. 8294 (which took effect on July 6, 1997) made the
use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in murder or
homicide, the penalty for the murder committed by accused-appellant on CFI, Manila - declared appellant guilty of a violation of article 163,
June 23, 1994 was not death, as erroneously imposed by the trial court. paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced him to an
There was yet no such aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed indeterminate sentence of not less than two (2) months of arresto mayor,
firearm to raise the penalty for murder from reclusion perpetua to death, at nor more than one (1) year, one (1) month, and eleven (11) days of prision
the time of commission of the crime. correctional, to the accessory penalties provided by law, to a fine of P500,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
The amendatory law making the use of an unlicensed firearm as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, cannot be applied here Thus, he appealed.
because the said provision of R.A. No. 8294 is not favorable to accused-
appellant, lest it becomes an ex post facto law.

Final Ruling: The decision for the Murder case is affirmed with ISSUE/s: WON THE ACCUSED WAS GUILTY OF
modification to the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, and with MAKING FALSE COINS DESPITE NO DIRECT
regard to the decision for the illegal possession of firearms under P.D. PROOF THEREOF
No. 1866 is dismissed.

HELD: Yes. It is not necessary that somebody testify to having seen

TITLE IV
appellant fabricating coins. The above circumstances, in the absence of a
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
satisfactory explanation on his part as to how he came into possession of
the coins, show beyond doubt that he did fabricate them, in the same
A. Forgeries
manner that the unexplained possession of recently stolen articles proves
Forging the seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, the signature that thereof.
or stamp of the Chief Executive
1. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines, forging the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 161 Issue/s: THE ACCUSED ARGUES THAT GOLD COINS HAVE
2. Using forged signature or counterfeiting seal or stamp CEASED TO BE A CURRENCY OF THE UNITED STATES BY
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 162 THE OPERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES GOLD RESERVE ACT OF 1934, AND THAT THE
Counterfeiting Coins
3. Making and importing and uttering false coins APPELLANT MAY NOT, THEREFORE, BE CONSIDERED
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 163 GUILTY.
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)
People of the Philippines vs. Kong Leon

48 OG 664 (January 17, 1950) The learned judge of the trial court held that the provisions of the said Act
of the Congress of the United States, known as the Gold Reserve Act of
Labrador, J.: 1934(G. R. 6976, Public, No. 87), only withdraw gold coins from
circulation temporarily, but did not declare them as illegal or valueless, or
Counterfeiting coins not in circulation, punishable no longer currency or legal tender. The Solicitor General, in support of the
judgment of conviction, argues that only the circulation of gold coins was
suspended, as may be seen from the title of the Act.

FACTS: The accused-appellant is a goldsmith with a shop. The police had

received information from Moro Arais Mansu that appellant was selling
illegally fabricated United States gold dollar coins. So the police, armed A study of the provisions of the United States Gold Reserve Act of 1934
with a search warrant, proceeded to the shop. Moro Mansu pretended to discloses that their effect is to withdraw United States gold coins from

19
 circulation, although there is no intent to outlaw their use and possession It appears that, after showing to complainant Apolinario del Rosario
under rules and regulations that may be promulgated therefore. Gold coins (private offended party) three (3) Philippine one-peso bills and a
of the United States may be possessed or acquired and transferred from Philippine two-peso bill, and inducing him to believe that the same were
one another without necessity of obtaining a license therefore, because counterfeit paper money manufactured by them, the aforementioned
they have a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual defendants had succeeded in obtaining P1,700.00 from said complainant,
coins. in the City of Davao, on June 23, 1955, for the avowed purpose of
financing the manufacture of more counterfeit treasury notes of the
Philippines.

The appellant claims that inasmuch as gold coins have been withdrawn
from circulation, they have ceased to be a currency of the United States,
within the meaning of article 163, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code.
The said bills were in fact genuine treasury notes of the Philippine
The Solicitor General, in reply, argues that the penal provision in question
Government, but one of the digits of each had been altered and changed. It
punishes counterfeiting of coins, whether or not the same are in
is not disputed that a portion of the last digit 9 of Serial No. F-79692619,
circulation.
had been erased and changed so as to read 0 and that similar erasures and
changes had been made in the penultimate digit 9 in Serial No. F-
79692691, in the last digit in Serial No. D-716326, and in the last digit of
Serial No. D-716329.
If under articles 296 and 297 of the Spanish Penal Code of 1878 the
fabrication of a local (Spanish) coin withdrawn from circulation is
punishable, it stands to reason that the counterfeiting of such foreign
coin, even if withdrawn from circulation in the foreign country of its
BACKDROP IN COURTS:
origin, should also be punishable, because the reason for punishing the
fabrication of a local coin withdrawn from circulation is not alone the CFI, Davao – convicted the three accused for illegal possession of said
harm caused to the public by the fact that it may go into circulation, but forged treasury notes and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging
the danger that a counterfeiter produces by his stay in the country, and the from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, and pay a
possibility that he may later apply his trade to the making of coins in fine of P5,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, as
actual circulation. well as a proportionate part of the costs.

In the U.S and England, counterfeiting coins not in circulation is not CA – affirmed the CFI ruling, except insofar as the maximum of said
punishable. The reason of the law in said jurisdictions is that no person is indeterminate penalty which was increased to 10 years, 8 months and 1
defrauded if the coin is not in circulation. In the case at bar collectors were day of prision mayor.
to be defrauded, as it was apparent by the imitation of the U. S. gold
dollars fabricated by appellant that they were to be passed to Moros who
value them even as relics or rare objects. Be that as it may, the reason for
applying the law to coins even if withdrawn from circulation, as given by The case is now before the SC on appeal by certiorari taken by Sergio del
Viada, i. e., the possibility and probability that the counterfeiter will use Rosario. Appellant maintains that, being genuine treasury notes of our
his trade for the fabrication of coins in circulation, has not been shown to government, the possession of the aforementioned bills cannot be illegal.
have ceased to exist.

ISSUE/s: WON THE POSSESSION OF SAID PHILIPPINE BILLS,

Final Ruling: We hereby hold that the making of a false coin of a foreign WHICH ARE GENUINE NOTES OF THE GOVERNMENT,
country is punishable under article 163, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF
Code, even if said country has withdrawn the coin from circulation therein. ARTICLE 168 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
Judgment is affirmed

4. Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of mutilated coins

HELD: YES. The possession of said bills constitutes a crime punishable
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 164
under Art. 168 in relation to Art. 169 of the RPC.
Pres. Decree No. 247 (1973)
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)
Articles 168 and 169 of the Revised Penal Code read:
5. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without connivance
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 165 ART. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank
notes and other instruments of credit. — Unless the act be one of those
Forging treasury or bank notes, obligations and securities; importing and coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person
uttering false or forged notes, obligations and securities who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use
6. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer, any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section,
importing and uttering of such false or forged notes and documents shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 166
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016) articles.”

Del Rosario vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. L-16806 (December 22, 1961) “ART. 169. How forgery is committed. — The forgery referred
to in this section may be committed by any of the following means;
Concepcion, J.
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable
to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and
genuine document.
A genuine, government-issued NOTE with altered figures, letters, words
or signs is considered a false / forged note 2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any
means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein.”

FACTS: Sergio del Rosario (sole appellant), Alfonso Araneta and

Benedicto del Pilar were accused of counterfeiting Philippine treasury It is clear from these provisions that the possession of genuine treasury
notes. notes of the Philippines any of “the figures, letters, words or signs
contained” in which had been erased and or altered, with knowledge of
such notes, as they were used by petitioner herein and his co-defendants in
the manner adverted to above, is punishable under said Article 168, in

20
 relation to Article 169 of the Revised Penal Code. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 168

9. Anti-Forgery Act
Rep. Act No. 9105 (2001)
Final Ruling: Being in accordance with the facts and the law, the
Falsification of legislative, public, commercial, and private documents, and
decision appealed from is, accordingly, AFFIRMED, with costs wireless, telegraph, and telephone messages
against petitioner Sergio del Rosario. It is so ordered. 10. Falsification of legislative documents
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 170
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)
People of the Philippines vs. Galano
11. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic
54 OG 5897 minister
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 171
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)

12. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents

How forgery is committed. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 172
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)

Falsification
FACTS: Patrolman Villanueva followed a bunch of people chasing a man People vs. Romualdez
in Manila. By the time he caught up with the pursuers, the latter already
nabbed Galano who was the person being pursued. G.R. no. 31012 (September 10, 1932)

Vickers, J.

Villanueva was informed by Lilia Cruz, a balut vendor, that Galano paid
her a false pre-war one-peso bill for 4 balut eggs. Both parties were
brought to the police station. Cruz stated that when Galano paid her, she Application of Techinical meaning of falsification of documents
discovered that the word “victory” at the back of the money was only
written in ink. Accused then started running after Cruz tried to get his
attention.
FACTS: Estela Romualdez was the secretary of Supreme Court Justice
Norberto Romualdez (then the head of the Bar Examination Committee),
and by reason of said duty, had under her care the compositions and
Villanueva turned them over to Patrolman Torres who alleged that Galano documents for the bar examinations of August and September 1926. Luis
admitted during the investigation that he did write the word “victory” in Mabunay was one of the takers of the said bar exams.
ink. The bill is a genuine treasury certificate that was withdrawn from
circulation which is redeemable if presented to the Central Bank.

During this time there were two separate committees for the bar exam: the
Committee of Bar Examiners, which was in charge of preparing the test
After pleading not guilty in trial, he was convicted. He appealed to the SC questions, and the Committee of Correctors, which was in charge of
stating that his admission to Torres was due to fear of getting hurt after the reviewing and grading the test booklets. Romualdez, together with Luis
latter intimidated him. Mabunay, went through the archives of the Supreme Court, took the
compositions of Mabunay, and erased his grade of 58% in Remedial Law
and 63% in Civil Law, and replaced them with 64% and 73%,
respectively. The resulting general average of Mabunay became 75%
ISSUE: WON THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR FORGERY UNDER (originally 72.8%), thus enabling him to pass the bar exam.
ART. 166 OF THE RPC.

A review of Mabunay’s booklets led to the discovery of the alterations.

HELD: YES. The Court held that forgery may be committed by: (a) Romualdez admitted that she was the one who changed the grades, arguing
Giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to that she had the authority to revise the compositions already reviewed by
order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document: the other correctors and to change the grades already given, in her capacity
and (b) erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the as secretary of the head of the Bar Exam Committee, as one of the
figures, letters, or signs contained therein. correctors, and also as supervisor of the other correctors. In addition, she
claimed that she corrected said composition without knowing the identity
of its owner, and that she had never met Luis Mabunay prior to the first
day of the trial of this case. Trial court found Romualdez guilty as
Majority of the special division of the SC believes that Galano committed principal of the crime of falsification on public and official documents,
forgery falling squarely under the first paragraph of Art. 166. It cannot while Mabunay was found guilty as an accomplice.
come within the 2nd paragraph because no figure or letter or word has
been erased, substituted, counterfeited, or altered. The forgery only
consisted of addition of a word in an effort to give the bill the appearance
of the true and genuine certificate. Neither can it be considered estafa since The trial court found the accuseds guilty, Romualdez as principal was
it involves falsification of a government obligation. sentenced to suffer 6yrs & 1 day of prision mayor, and the accessory
penalties provided by law, and perpetual disqualification to hold any
public office. While Mabunay was guilty as an accomplice and sentenced
him to suffer 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, and the accessory
Majority also believes that the first provision does not only contemplate penalties provided by law.
situations where a fake document is given the appearance of a genuine
document but also to genuine documents which have been withdrawn.

ISSUE/s: WON ESTELA ROMUALDEZ IS GUILTY OF

FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS?
Final Ruling: Accused is guilty.

7. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments payable to bearer

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 167
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016) HELD: YES.
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or
8. Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or bank notes and other ecclesiastical minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to
instruments of credit exceed 5000 pesos shall be imposed on any public officer, employee, or
21
notary who, taking advantage of his official position shall falsify a that she was elsewhere attending court sessions. 2
document by committing any of the following acts:
x x x (6) Making any alteraction or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning x x x
ISSUE: WON THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER
Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified
documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISION OF
maximum periods and a fine of note more than 5000 pesos shall be ART. 171, PAR. 4, OF THE RPC IS LEGAL AND
imposed upon: PROPER.
(1) Any private individual who shall commit any of the
falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or
official document.
HELD: No. At the outset, it must be emphasized that for a
The phrase “falsification of a document” has a technical meaning and
conviction of the offense of falsification of public or official
according to Art. 300 (of the Penal Code) may be committed in the
following ways : documents, defined and penalized under Article 171, paragraph 4 of
(2) By causing it to appear that persons have participated in any the Revised Penal Code, the requisite elements thereof must be clearly
act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate established, namely:
(3) By attributing to persons who have participated in an act or
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them 1) the offender makes in a document false statements in a
(6) By making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine narration of facts;
document which changes its meaning. 2) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts
narrated by him;
The acts of Romualdez are covered by paragraphs 2, 3, and 6. She made 3) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false, and
the alterations in such a way as to make it appear that the correctors had 4) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made
participated therein, because she blotted out the grades of the correctors with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.
and wrote the new grades opposite their (the correctors’) initials. She in
that way attributed to the correctors’ statements other than those in fact
made by them. Of weight in Our criminal justice system is the principle that the essence
Final Ruling: The SC AFFIRMED the decision of the trial court, but of an offense is the wrongful intent (dolo), without which it cannot exist.
modified the penalties. The penalty of Romualdez was increased to Actus non facit reum nisi mens set rea, the act itself does not make a man
8yrs & 1 day of prision mayor. Luis Mabunay is liable as a guilty unless his intentions were so. Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code
conspirator and co-principal; his penalty was increased to 3 yrs, 6 clearly indicates that malice or criminal intent (dolo) in some form is an
months, & 21days of prision correccional. essential requisite of all crimes and offenses defined in the Code, except in
those cases where the element required is negligence (culpa).

Berdadio v Court of Appeals

103 SCRA 567 (1981) On one point, however, the claim of the petitioner that she is not under
strict obligation to keep and submit a time record is not at all empty with
De Castro, J. justification.

 While it is true, as held by the respondent court, that the obligation

to disclose the literal truth in filling up the daily time record is
Where non-faithful statement of daily hours of work in time record has not required of all officers and employees in the civil service of the
government in accordance with Civil Service Rule XV, Executive
caused damages to the Government, no crime of falsification can accrue.
Order No. 5, Series of 1909, this vague provision, however, is
rendered clear by Section 4, Rule XV of the Civil Service Rule,
dated December 3, 1962, later Memorandum Circular No. II, Series
of 1965 which exempt from requirements of keeping and submitting
FACTS: The accused Salud Beradio was an election registrar of the the daily time records three categories of public officers, namely: 1)
COMELEC who was accused as having falsified her daily time record. Presidential appointees; 2) chiefs and assistant chiefs of agencies;
and 3) officers in the three branches of the government. Clearly thus,
petitioner as Chief of theOffice, Office ofElection Registrar,
COMELEC in the municipality of Rosales, Pangasinan exercising
supervision over four (4) subordinate employess, would fall under
The veracity of the foregoing reports were negated by the following: the third category aforementioned. An Election Registrar of the
municipality performing the powers, dutied , responsibilities of the
1) On March l5, 1973, BERADIO appeared as counsel for the COMELEC, a constitutional body, in the conduct of national or local
applicants at the initial hearing and reception of evidence in election, referenda, and plebiscites, in aparticular voting district may
land Registration Case No. 19-R before the Court of First be regarded as an officer who rank higher thab such chiefs or
Instance of Pangasinan, Branch XIV, Rosales, in both morning assistant chiefs of agencies although he may not be a presidential
and afternoon sessions (Exhs. "K", "K-1" and "K-2"). appointee.
2) In the morning of March 23, 1973, BERADIO appeared as  Notwithstan ding such an exemption, if the election registrars of the
counsel for the petitioner in the hearing of Special Proceedings various municipalities all throughout the country, who occassionaly
No. 24-R (summary settlement of the estate of Vicente Oria, work more than ordinary eight-hours on the last day of the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch XIV, at Resales, registration or on lection day, are keeping and submitting the daily
which was called first in open court and later, in chambers time records to the main office in Manila, it may be only to the sake
(Exhs. "M" and M-1 "). of adminstrative procedural convenience or as a matter of practice,
3) On May 28, 1973, in the same case, Sp. Proc. No. 24-R, but by reason of strict legal obligation.
BERADIO again appeared as counsel for the petitioner in the
same court which held sessions from 8:45 to 11:45 (Exh. "M").
4) In the morning of June 6, 1973, BERADIO appeared as counsel
On the main point, assuming, however, that petitioner is under strict legal
for the defendant in CAR Case No. 19882-.TP '73, entitled
"Pepito Felipe vs. Ismael Pontes and Camilo Tamce before obligation to keep and submit the daily time records, We are definitely
CAR Branch 11 in Tayug, Pangasinan (Exh. "J"). Minutes of inclined to the view that the alleged false entries made in the time
the pre-trial conference which the appellant attended are records on the specified dates contained in the information do not
manifest in the pre-trial order that was dictated in open court constitute falsification for having been made with no malice or
(Exh. "J-1"). deliberate intent.
5) In the morning of June 22, 1973, Beradio appeared in Sp. Proc.
No. 24-R before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan,
Branch XIV at Rosales (Exh. "M").
6) In the morning of July 13, 1973, Beradio appeared as counsel
for plaintiff at the pre-trial conference of Civil Case No. 137R, Further, on the issue of malus animus or criminal intent, it was ruled
"Venancia Diaz vs. Armando Ordonio" before Branch XIV of by the court a quo, confirmed by the respondent Court of Appeals, that in
the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Exhs. "L" to "I-3"). falsification of public document, in contradistinction to private document,
the Idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person is unnecessary, for,
what is penalized is the undermining or infringement of the public faith
It is thus clear that while in the six abovementioned dates, BERADIO and the violation of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed, invoking the
made it appear in her daily time records that she was in her office and case of People vs. Po Giok Te, 96 Phil. 918. Arguing against this ruling,
performed her work on the dates and hours she specified, the facts were
22
petitioner cited the case of People us. Pacana, 47 Phil. 48, which the Section of the Bureau of Public Schools, Guillermo discovered that the
ponente in the instant case upheld in the case of People vs. Motus, CA- treasury warrants in question had been encashed by Pilar Luague and Glen
G.R. No. 18267-CR when he was in the Court of Appeals, that although Luague with different local stores at Laoang. Exhibit A (599) was cleared
the Idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person is unnecessary, htis on February 22, 1972, while Exhibit A (600) was deposited to the account
Court emphasized that "it must, nevertheless, be borne in mind that the of a certain Lee and/or Nicol Chu, Jr. at Philippine Bank of
change in th epublic document must be such as to affect the integrity of the Communications; and Exhibit A (601) was deposited to the account of
same or change in the public document must be such as to affect the Colgate-Palmolive Philippines, Inc.
integrity of the same or change the effects which it would otherwise
produce; for, unless that happens, there could not exist the essential
element of the intention to commit the crime which is required by Article 1
(now Article 3) of the Penal Code. Pilar Luague admitted having endorsed the treasury warrants by means of
which she was able to encash the same and puts up the defense of good
faith in signing theme of her deceased husband in the treasury warrants in
question. That Iluminado Luague instructed his wife to get the check from
We find the petitioner's stand tenable. the evident purpose of requiring Florencio Guillermo. Pilar Luague went to the house of Guillermo in the
government employees to keep time record is to show their attendance in afternoon of January 23, 1972. Guillermo asked her to sign the name of
office to work and to be paid accordingly. Closely adhering tot he policy her husband on the payroll warrant register and counter-sign with her
of no work no pay, a daily time record is primarily, if not solely, intended initials. Guillermo then handed her the treasury warrant [Exhibit A (599)].
to prevent damage or loss tot he government as would result in instances
where it pays an employee for no work done. The integrity of the daily
time record as an official document, however, remains untarnished if the
damages sought to be prevented has not been produced. BACKDROP IN COURTS:

 As this ponente observed in the case of People v. Motus, supra CFI of Samar – convicted the petitioner of three counts of falsification of
while it is true that a time record is an official document, it is not commercial documents in Criminal Cases Nos. 599, 600 and 601 for
criminally falsified if it does not pervert its avowed purpose as when signing the name of her husband Iluminado Luague as payee on three
it does not cause damage to the government. It may be different in treasury warrants for purposes of endorsement. Pilar Luague stands
the case of a public document with continuing interest affecting the charged with the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial
public welfare which is naturally damaged if that document is
Document but was convicted of falsification only.
falsified where the truth is necessary for the safeguard and protection
of that general interest.
 In the instant case, the time records have already served their
purpose. They have not caused any damage to the government or
third person because under the facts duly proven, petitioner may CA – affirmed the decision of CFI of Samar convicting the petitioner of
be said to have rendered service in the interest of the public, with three counts of falsification of commercial documents in Criminal Cases
proper permission from her superiors. They may now even be Nos. 599, 600 and 601.
condemned as having no more use to require their continued
safe- keeping. Public interest has not been harmed by their
contents, and continuing faith in their verity is not affected.
ISSUE: WON PILAR LUAGUE (PETITIONER) IS GUILTY OF
FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL
DOCUMENTS.
Final Ruling: Finding the guilt of petitioner not to have been
established beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment of conviction
rendered by respondent court in affirming that of the trial court is
hereby reversed, and petitioner, acquitted of the crime charged, with HELD: NO. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals failed to
costs de oficio take into account the following facts: That the petitioner signed her
husband's name to the checks because they were delivered to her by no
less than her husband's district supervisor long after the husband's death
Luague vs. Court of Appeals which was known to the supervisor; that she used the proceeds of the
checks to pay for the expenses of her husband's last illness and his burial;
G.R. Nos. L-55683 & 55903-04 (February 22, 1982) and that she believed that she was entitled to the money as an advance
payment for her husband's vacation and sick leave credits the money value
Abad Santos, J. of which exceeded the value of the checks. In the fight of these
circumstances, the Court cannot ascribe criminal intent to the petitioner.
The Court sustained her claim that she acted in good faith.

the absence of damage is an element to be considered to determine

whether or not there is criminal intent.
During the hearing, it was brought out that the government did not sustain
any financial loss due to the encashment of the checks because the Pilar's
husband had accumulated vacation and sick leaves the money value of
FACTS: The facts are stated in the poorly written decision of the Court of which exceeded the value of the three paychecks and the value of the
Appeals. (According to Supreme Court) checks was simply deducted from the money value of the leaves. This
explains why Pilar was not convicted of estafa but of falsification only.
While the Court do not mean to imply that if there is no damage there can
be no falsification, the Court do say that the absence of damage is an
Iluminado Luague, a teacher clerk, died at the G.B. Tan Memorial element to be considered to determine whether or not there is criminal
Hospital at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening of January 24, 1972 after he intent.
was confined in said hospital since January 3, 1972. Thereafter, the Bureau
of Public Schools sent the deceased's salary warrants [Exhibits A (Crim.
Case no. 599), A (Crim. Case no. 600) and A (Crim. Case no. 601)] to the
Superintendent of schools, Samar who in turn forwarded them to the The accused, Pilar, is a poor widow who was obviously in a state of
District Supervisor, Florencio Guillermo. A payroll-warrant register bewilderment due to the recent death of her husband when she cashed the
accompanied the checks. paychecks. She was also in dire need of money to settle the expenses for
her husband's last illness and his burial. A compassionate attitude
repeatedly urged by the First Lady, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, would have
been highly in order under the circumstances.
Exhibit A (599) was personally received by Pilar S. Luague, wife of
Iluminado Luague, while Exhibit A (600) was received by Glen S.
Luague. Exhibit A (601) was received by Edmundo Echano, a relative of
Iliuminado Luague and who claimed to be employed in the Office of the Final Ruling: Petition is granted; Decision is reversed; Petitioner is
District Supervisor. Upon the receipt of the xerox copies from the IBM

23
acquitted. investigation revealed that the five (5) missing treasury bills with series
numbers A-000077 to A-000081 were negotiated by Pigram with the
Home Savings Bank to secure a loan. The Land Bank immediately sought
Cabigas vs. People of the Philippines the assistance of the NBI in investigating the case.

236 Phil. 18 (July 3, 1987)

Paras, J. On May 24, 1982, Cabigas and Reynes were investigated by NBI agents.
After the investigation, Cabigas and Reynes were arrested for having
allegedly conspired together in falsifying the SRD dated March 9, 1982
and the DR SDUC dated March 30, 1982, and for which the corresponding
In the crime of falsification of public document, Informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan. They were charged with
two (2) counts of Falsification of Official Documents (in violation of Art.
Accused must be legally obligated to disclose or reveal the truth in the 171, par. 4, RPC7), i.e. Criminal Case No. 6529 – re: SRD dated March 9,
subject document 1982,and Criminal Case No. 6938 – re: DR SDUC dated March 30, 1982.

FACTS: Petitioner Dario Cabigas is the Securities Custodian of the BACKDROP IN COURTS:
Securities Section of the Land Bank of the Philippines assigned to its
branch at Makati, Metro Manila. Assisting him in his work is Benedicto Sandiganbayan – rendered judgment acquitting both Cabigas and Reynes
Reynes (a co-accused), the securities receiving clerk. The Fund in Criminal Case No. 6529, but convicting petitioner Cabigas in Criminal
Management Department (FMD) of the Land Bank of the Philippines is Case No. 6938 of the crime of Falsification of Public or Official Document
engaged in money market and securities trading transactions. The as defined and penalized under Art. 171, par. 6,8 RPC. Hence, the instant
securities which are in the form of treasury notes and bills are in turn petition.
deposited with the Securities Section (SS) of the Land Bank of the
Philippines, Makati Branch.

On March 9, 1982, the FMD, delivered to the SS, for safekeeping, 112 Petitioner argues that, inter alia, the DR SDUC is a form purely devised
pieces of treasury notes and treasury bills worth P46,000,000.00 and for and adopted by him
which a copy of the Securities Delivery Receipt (SDR) was issued to the
FMD, while the original of the same was retained by the SS. Included in
the securities received on March 9 are 19 pieces of treasury bills with
Serial Nos. A-000064 to A-000082, 795th series, in the denomination of ISSUE/s: WON PETITIONER CABIGAS VIOLATED ART. 171 OF
P500,000.00 each, or a total amount of P9,500,000.00. After receiving the THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
securities, the accused would prepare the Daily Report on
Securities/Documents Under Custody (DR SDUC) evidencing the
securities transactions and operations of the Makati Branch of the Land HELD: NO. The Cabigas should be acquitted. It is a settled doctrine that
Bank of the Philippines. This has been the routine procedure being in falsification by an employee under par. No. 4 of Article 171, which
reads – “by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts,” - the
adopted by the accused in the performance of his duty as a Security
following elements must concur-
Custodian. “(a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful
statements in a narration of facts;
(b) That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the
facts narrated by him;
On March 29, 1982, in the course of their inventory of treasury notes and (c) That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false;
bills deposited with them, Cabigas and Reynes discovered the loss of six and
(6) treasury bills of the 795th series with a total value of P3,000,000.00. (d) That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was
made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.”
Upon verification that SDR dated March 9, 1982 was the source document
of the missing securities, which were delivered to them for safekeeping, Herein petitioner contends that the foregoing elements are not present in
accused Reynes crossed out with a red ink in the said document the last the case at bar. The correction of the figure from 1,539 to 1,533 pieces to
two digits “82” and the addition after them of the figure “76” on the serial conform to the actual number of treasury under custody is not falsification
numbers A-000064 to A-000082 of the 19 treasury bills of the 795th series because it was made to speak the truth (US vs. Mateo, 25 Phil. 324). The
with a total maturity value of P9,500,000.00. Then at the bottom of the placing of an asterisk (*) sign after the figure “1,533” and writing the
SDR Cabigas placed the notation “For adjustment” and below it the date words, “Adjustment on erroneous entry (incoming) dated 3/09/82” as
legend of the asterisk sign, contrary to the ruling of the respondent court,
“3/29/82.” Then upon Cabigas’s suggestion, Reynes reported the incident
was not effected to hide or conceal the fact that the missing 6 treasury bills
to their immediate supervisor, Estela L. Espiritu, and the branch manager, were lost. It would be far more difficult to detect or discover the loss if
Aurora Pigram. When the DR SDUC for March 29, 1982 was prepared, there was no asterisk or footnote in the DR SDUC. In fact, the evidence
the number of treasury bills of the 795th series stood at 1,539 pieces with a discloses that immediately upon discovery of the loss on March 29,
total face value of P610,095,000.00. 1982, petitioner reported the matter to his immediate supervisor,
Estela L. Espiritu and Branch Manager of the Securities Section,
Aurora Pigram. This shows good faith and lack of motive on the part
of petitioner to conceal the said loss.
The following day, Reynes prepared a draft report for March 30, 1982 by Moreover, this form was never required, neither was it introduced nor
Carrying forward the ending balance of the treasury bills of the 795th prescribed by the Land Bank. Petitioner, therefore, was not under
series reflected in the DR SDUC dated March 29, 1982. However, instead “legal obligation” to disclose in the DR SDUC or SDR, the correct
of following the draft prepared by Reynes, Cabigas prepared his own number and total maturity value of the securities under their official
report-DR SDUC dated March 30, 1982 wherein he indicated 1,533 pieces custody as of a given date. It is purely optional on the part of
of treasury bills of the 795th series with a total amount of petitioner to use the said forms.
P607,095,000.00, which the latter claimed to be the number of securities
of the 795th series in his possession at the time of the preparation of said
report. At the bottom of this DR SDUC, Cabigas place the notation 7 “Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic
“Adjustment on Erroneous Entry (incoming) dated March 9, 1982” as minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000
pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who,
legend of the asterisk (*) sign, which appears after the figure “1,533.”
taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by
committing any of the following acts:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
DILL’s NOTES: There is a side story – on May 20, 1982, a certain Rosie xxx xxx xxx
Chua was found to be authenticating with the Central Bank of the 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
Philippines a treasury bill of the 795th series with Serial No. A-000082 in changes its meaning;
xxx xxx xxx”
the amount of P500,000.00. Upon investigation by NBI agents, it was
discovered that branch manager Aurora Pigram was the one who 8 The case mentioned that petitioner was convicted of violating par. 6, while
negotiated the said treasury bill with Gainsbo Commodities. Further the accusation against him (per the Information) pertains to par. 4. Note that
the discussion/ ratio part of the instant case focused on par. 4.
24
The Honorable Solicitor General recommends that the accused be THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL
acquitted because — DOCUMENTS.
“There is nothing to show the DR SDUC dated March 30, 1982, Exh.
G, for the alleged falsification of which petitioner was convicted in
Criminal Case No. 6938 is a form the submission of which was or is
required by law. In the petition for review, petitioner points out that as
testified by him the form was not an official form of the Land Bank. Sendaydiego and Samson appealed to this Court. Sendaydiegos appeal
The form was his own initiative adopted ‘for our own convenience with regard to his criminal liability was dismissed due to his death. His
and also for reference purposes.’ Petitioner therefore, was not under appeal will be resolved only for the purpose of showing his criminal
legal obligation to disclose or reveal the truth by said DR SDUC. In liability which is the basis of the civil liability for which his estate would
the absence of such obligation and of the alleged wrongful intent, be liable for which his estate would be liable.
defendant cannot be legally convicted of the crime of falsification
of public document with which he is charged.

Final Ruling: on ground of reasonable doubt, the decision of the

ISSUE/s: WON THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 6938 is hereby REVERSED and
CONVICTING THE 2 ACCUSED
another one rendered ACQUITTING the petitioner, Dario Cabigas y
Cacho.
HELD: No.

People of the Philippines vs. Sendaydiego

Sendaydiego’s appeal – The assigmments of error made by

G.R. No. L-33254 (January 20, 1978)
Sendaydiego's counsel refer to the trial court's conclusion that
Sendaydiego and Samson are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Aquino,  J.:
malversation through falsification or, specifically, that the provincial
treasurer, in signing the six vouchers, evinced "malice or fraud and that
there must have been connivance between" the two.
Presumption - person possession a falsified document and be made use of
it, he is the material author of the falsification

Several lances indicate that Sendaydiego conspired with Samson. One of

which is that Donato N. Rosete, the assistant provincial treasurer, testified
FACTS: In these three cases of malversation through falsification, the that, contrary to the usual procedure, he affixed his initial to paragraph 3 of
prosecution's theory is that in 1969 Licerio P. Sendaydiego, the provincial the vouchers after Sendaydiego had signed it. Rosete adhered to that
treasurer of Pangasinan, in conspiracy with Juan Samson, an employee of unusual procedure because the interested party, Samson who hand-carried
a lumber and hardware store in Dagupan City, and with Anastacio the vouchers, approached Rosete after he (Samson) had conferred with the
Quirimit, the provincial auditor, as an accomplice, used six (6) forged provincial treasurer and Samson told Rosete to initial the voucher because
provincial vouchers in order to embezzle from the road and bridge fund it was areglado na (already settled) since the treasurer had already signed
the total sum of P57,048.23. the voucher.

Another apt observation of the trial court is that the payments were made
in cash since the forged character of the six vouchers would have been
The falsity of that provincial voucher is proven by the following intances: unmasked by the supposed creditor, Carried Construction Supply Co., if
the payments had been made by means of checks. The company on
(a) That there was no project for the repair of the bridge at Barrio receiving the checks would have returned them to the treasurer because it
Libertad knew that there was no reason to make any payments at all. The trial court
(b) That the amount of P16,727.52 was never received by the Carried said that the cash payments prove Sendaydiego's collusion with Samson.
Construction Supply Co The alleged official receipt No. 3025 of the
company dated March, 1969 (Exh. K-6) is forged.
(c) That the lumber and materials were never delivered by the company
to the provincial government
We are convinced after a minutiose examination of the documentary and
(d) That in the provincial voucher and in the supporting requisition and
issue voucher covering the same lumber and hardware materials the oral evidence and an unprejudiced consideration of the arguments of
signatures of the following office were forged: senior civil engineer; Sendaydiego's counsel that his criminal liability was established beyond
supervising civil engineer, acting provincial engineer, and chief of reasonable doubt and, therefore, the civil liability fo his estate for the
equipment of the governor's office. amounts malversed was duly substantial.
(e) That the imprint of the rubber stamps containing the words
"Approved: For and By Authority of the Governor (signed) Ricardo
B. Primicias, Chief of Equipment", is not the imprint of the genuine
rubber stamp used in Primicias office.
(f) That charge invoice No. 3327 of the Carried Construction Supply Samson’s appeal – The evidence conclusively proves that Samson, as the
Co. dated February 18, 1969, containing a description and the prices representative or collector of the supposed creditor, Carried Construction
of the lumber and hardware material, is fake because, according to Supply Co., hand-carried the vouchers in question to the offices of the
Ambrosio Jabanes, the company's assistant manager, the company's provincial engineer, treasurer and auditor and then back to the treasurer's
invoice No. 3327 was issued to another person and Oropilla denied office for payment. He actually received the cash payments. Under those
that his alleged signature is his signature. circumstances, Samson is presumed to be the forger of the vouchers.
(g) That three other documents, supporting the provincial voucher, were
also forged.
(h) That Angelo C. Manuel the checker of the provincial auditor's office,
denied that his signature on the left margin is his signature
The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document
and be made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting
The signature of Sendaydiego and Quirimit, the auditor, on the said six thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the
vouchers are admittedly authentic. Sendaydiego's defense is that he signed falsification. This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged
the vouchers in the honest belief that the signatures therein of the documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that the user
provincial office concerned were genuine because the voucher had been or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the
pre-audited and approved by the auditor. In connection with the six forgery, or to have close connection with the forgers, and therefore, had
vouchers, Sendaydiego, Samson and Quirimit were charged with complicity in the forgery. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one
malversation through falsification. who is found in possession of a forged document and who used or uttered
it is presumed to be the forger.

BACKDROP IN COURTS:
Samson's use of one form of signature for his crooked transactions with
Lower court - acquitted the auditor Quirimit and found Sendaydiego and the provincial government and another form of signatures of his valid
Samnson guilty of 3 COMPLEX CRIMES OF MALVERSATION transactions or papers shows the deviousness of the falsifications

25
perpetrated in these cases. (Note that Sendaydiego signed the certification In falsification of public documents, the controlling consideration is the
in the first voucher K, stating that proceeds thereof were paid to Samson public character of a document and the existence of any prejudice caused
but Sendaydiego did not sign the same certification in the other five forged to the third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such damage becomes
vouchers). immaterial.

FACTS: Jesusa Carreon went to the office of Manuel Siquian, the

municipal mayor of Isabela, to apply for a job in the office of the mayor.
ISSUE/S: WON THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN Siquian then appointed her as a clerk in the office of the municipal
CONVICTING THEM WITH 3 COMPLEX secretary and even said that her salary would be included in the budget.
CRIME OF MALEVERSATION THROUGH Accompanying her appointment is the certification, among others, of the
FALSIFICATION availability of funds through a form issued by Siquian and addressed to the
CSC, pursuant to the requirements of the latter. It should be noted that the
Municipal council of Isabela, failed to enact the annual budget for the
municipality for the Fiscal Year 1975-76. As such, the annual budget for
HELD: YES. (NOTE: 3 infomations were filed covering the 6 vouchers, the previous Fiscal Year 1974-75, was deemed re-enacted. No such
kaya siguro 3 complex crimes) position existed then. Carreon worked for five months and was supposed
to receive her salary of P120. She approached the municipal treasurer to
ask for the money but the latter said that there was no money yet. She then
sued Siquian for falsification of a public document.
The crimes committed in these three cases are not complex. Separate
crimes of falsification and malversation were committed. These are not
cases where the execution of a single act constitutes two grave or less
grave felonies or where the falsification was used as a means to commit The RTC and CA ruled in favour of Carreon. Siquian interposed the
malversation. defense of a lack of criminal intent.

In the instant cases, the six vouchers the falsification was used ISSUE: WON SIQUIAN GUILTY OF FALSIFICATION
to conceal the malversation. It is settled that if the falsification was OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
resorted to for the purpose of hiding the malversation, the falsification and
malversation are separate offenses. The provincial treasurer, as the
custodian than of the money forming part of the road and bridge could
have malversed or misappropriated it without falsifiying any voucher. The HELD: YES. The offense of falsification by a public officer under
falsification was used as a device to prevent detection of the malversation. Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by "any public
officer, employee or notary who, taking advantage of his official position,
shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: . . . 4.
Making untruthful statements in a narration of fact; . . .' It is settled that in
The falsifications cannot be regarded as constituting one continuing this fourth kind of falsification, the following requisites must concur:
offense impelled by a single criminal impulse. Each falsification of a
voucher constitutes one crime. The falsification of six vouchers constitutes a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in
six separate or distinct offenses. And each misappropriation as evidenced a narration of facts;
by a provincial voucher constitutes a separate crimes of malversation were b) hat he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts
committed. Appellant Samson is a co-principal in each of the said twelve narrated by him; and
c) That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false
offenses.

All these requisites had been fully met in the case at bar. Petitioner, a
public officer, being then the mayor of the municipality of Angadanan,
ISSUE/S: WON SAMSON MAY BE CONVICTED OF
Isabela, made an untruthful statement in the narration of facts contained in
MALVERSATION, THOUGH BEING A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
the certification which he issued in connection with the appointment of
complainant Jesusa Carreon. The certification, having been issued by a
public official in the exercise of the function of his office is a public
document [U.S. v. Asensi, 34 Phil. 765 (1915)]. It is immaterial whether or
HELD: YES. As already stated, he is presumed to be the author of the
not the Civil Service Commissioner to whom the certification was
falsification because he was in possession of the forged vouchers and he
addressed received the document issued by petitioner. Since the
used them in order to receive public monies from the provincial treasurer.
certification was prepared by petitioner in accordance with the standard
He is a co-principal in the six crimes of malversation because he conspired
forms prescribed by the government (specifically the Civil Service
with the provincial treasurer in committing those offenses. The trial court
Commission) pursuant to law, the certification was invested with the
correctly ruled that a private person conspiring with an accountable public
character of a public document [People v. Asensi, supra citing U.S. v. Vy
officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation.
Guico, 12 Phil. 209 (1908)] falsification of which is punishable under
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Here, falsification of such
document was committed when the petitioner stated that funds were
Note that a different rule prevails with respect to a stranger taking part in available for the position to which Jesusa Carreon was appointed
the commission of parricide or qualified theft. In such cases, the stranger is when he knew that, in reality, the position itself did not even exist and
not guilty of parricide or qualfied theft but only of murder or homicide, as no funds had been appropriated therefor.
the case may be, and simple theft, by reason of paragraph 3, article 62 of
the Revised Penal Code  

 Petitioner's stance that the certification which he issued contained no

narration of facts but rather a conclusion of law is not meritorious.
The respondent court, upholding the Solicitor General's arguments,
Final Ruling: Samson is convicted of six crimes of falsification of a
correctly ruled as follows:
public document and six crimes of malversation.

Conclusion of law" is defined as a proposition not arrived at by any

Siquian vs. People process of natural reasoning from a fact or combination of facts
stated but by the application of the artificial rules of law to the facts
GR No. 82197 (March 13, 1989) pleaded

Cortes, J

The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a 3rd person is not necessary From the above-cited definition, it can be deduced that the
when the falsified document is a PUBLIC DOCUMENT. certification by the appellant that 'funds for the position are

26
 available' does not require the application of the artificial rules of public officer requires that the offender "abuse his office or use the
law. To certify that funds are available for the position what one influences prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him, in
should do was (sic) to refer to the budget and plantilla of committing the crime" [U.S. v. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150 (1911)]. Abuse of
personnel of the applicable fiscal year and ascertain if such item public office is considered present when the offender falsifies a document
exists and funds are allocated therefor. in connection with the duties of his office which consist of either making
 In the present case, despite the presence of the records which shows or preparing or otherwise intervening in the preparation of a document
that there is no position and funds therefor referred to in the [U.S. v. Inosanto 20 Phil. 376 (1911); as in the case of petitioner who was
certification, the appellant, fully aware of the data provided by the charged with the duty of issuing the certification necessary for the
records, certified falsely that "funds for the position are available" appointment of Jesusa Carreon.

The second element of the offense is likewise present. Under the civil
service rules and regulations, specifically the Guidelines in the Preparation
of Appointment for Original Appointment (Exhs. "D" and "D-3"), a
certification of the availability of funds for the position to be filled up is Final Ruling: The appealed decision being in conformity with law and
required to be signed by the head of office or any officer who has been settled jurisprudence, the same is AFFIRMED and the instant petition
delegated the authority to sign. As an officer authorized by law to issue is hereby DENIED.
this certification which is designated as Civil Service Form No. 203, as
revised, the petitioner has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the
facts narrated by him in said certification which includes information as to People vs. Villalon
the availability of the funds for the position being filled up.
G.R. no. 43659 (December 21, 1990)

Regalado, J.
CONTRARY to petitioner's claim, the existence of a wrongful intent
to injure a third person is not necessary when the falsified document is
a public document.
Falsification is only the means necessary to commit the estafa because
 This has already been authoritatively decreed in the 1955 case of before the falsified document is used to defraud another, the crime of
People v. Po Giok To [96 Phil. 913 (1955)]. The Court in the falsification was already consummated.
aforementioned case explicitly stated that wrongful intent on the part
of the accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of
the crime of falsification of public document.
o The rationale for this principal distinction between
falsification of public and private documents has been FACTS: Mariano and Severo Carrere were owners of a parcel of land in
stated by the Court in this wise: "In the falsification of public Pangasinan.
or official documents, whether by public officials or private
persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the Idea of gain - Feb. 5, 1964 – Carrera executed a SPA with respondent Federico de
or the intent to injure a third person, for the reason that, in Guzman, naming him as his attorney-in-fact
contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction
- Feb. 13, 1964 – de Guzman mortgaged Carrera’s property with the
of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed" [People v. Po Giok
To, supra at 918, citing People v. Pacana, 47 Phil. 48 (1924)]. People’s Bank and Trust Co. using the SPA and got the P8,500 loan.
o In falsification of public documents therefore, the controlling
consideration is the public character of a document and the The mortgage foreclosed and the land was sold to Ramon Serafica and
existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, Vileta Quinto. Carrera discovered that his land belonged to someone else
the intent to cause such damage becomes immaterial [People v. when the former filed an action for his ejectment. On March 29, 1974,
Pacana, supra]. criminal case for estafa thru falsification of a public document was filed by
Carrera against private respondent de Guzman in the then Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan.
Petitioner's plea for acquittal on the ground that the evidence for the
prosecution shows the absence of criminal intent on his part must be
denied. While this Court has declared good faith as a valid defense to
falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements in a A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendant, stating that:
narration of facts [U.S. v. San Jose, 7 Phil. 604 (1907)], such defense
cannot serve to exonerate the petitioner since the element of good faith has a) The crime charged would not lie because of complainant’s partial
not clearly been shown to exist in the case at bar. testimony. Mariano testified that it was his brother, Severo, who asked
him to sign the SPA to authorize de Guzman to mortgage one half of
their land.

Under the applicable law at the time, petitioner, as municipal mayor of b) Since the most serious crime in the complex crime was estafa, the
Angadanan, Isabela presides at all meetings of the municipal council penalty of prision correctional will be imposed but because it is a
[Section 2621 (d), Revised Administrative Code] and signs all ordinances correctional penalty, it has already prescribed. The alleged date of the
and resolutions passed by the municipal council [Section 2624 (c), Revised commission of the crime was February 5, 1964 and the information was
Administrative Code]. He was thus aware that (1) for failure to enact a filed only on March 29, 1974 thus, more than 10 years had passed from
budget for the Fiscal Year 1975-1976, Ordinance No. V of the Municipal the commission of the crime, which became public knowledge upon its
Council of Angadanan, Isabela which was the Municipal Annual Budget registry, to the filing of information.
of Angadanan, Isabela for Fiscal Year 1974-1975 was re-enacted and (2)
that under the Municipal Plantilla of Personnel for that fiscal year, there
were no funds appropriated for the position of clerk to the municipal
secretary. His knowledge of these facts is shown by the fact that he even Prosecution’s counter:
affixed his signature in attestation to the correctness of these documents;
i.e. Ordinance No. V and Municipal Plantilla of Personnel. [See Exhs. "H- a) Mariano’s testimony was intended to show that the authority to
1" and "H-2", Folder of Exhibits, pp. 27-32]. He cannot claim good faith in mortgage only extended up to the one half portion pertaining to his
issuing a certification of the availability of funds for the questioned brother, not Mariano’s share.
position since at the time he issued such certification on July 1, 1975, the
fiscal year 1975- 1976 had already commenced and no new ordinance b) Information was not filed out of time since the date to be considered
creating the new position to which he appointed Jesusa Carreon had been is January 1972 when Serafica filed the action for ejectment which was
enacted by the municipal council. when the crime was discovered. It was not alleged because it was
thought to be merely evidentiary.

Presiding Judge Castaneda of CFI of Pangasinan dismissed the case.

Petitioner's claim that there was no showing that he took advantage of People’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the succeeding judge
his official position in falsifying the document should likewise be Felicidad Villalon.
rejected. This essential element of falsification of a public document by
27
 ISSUE/s: 1. WON THE CHARGE OF ESTAFA THRU The defense presented only one witness: Felizardo Manalili. A friend of
FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT Dava, testified that Dava requested him to secure a driver's license for him
HAS SUFFICIENT BASIS TO EXIST IN LAW because he had none. Manalili went to the San Fernando office of the Land
AND IN FACT? Transportation Commission (LTC) where he used to secure own license.
At the LTC branch office, he was "approached" by the fixers who roamed
2. WON THE CRIME HAS PRESCRIBED?
around the compound. When he as them how much it would cost to secure
a driver's license, he told that it would amount to P70 .00. He agreed to
HELD: 1. YES. falsification of a public document may be a means of pay amount and gave the fixers the personal data of Dava.
committing estafa because before the falsified document is actually
utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been
consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of
the crime of falsification of public, official or commercial documents. The
damage to another is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the BACKDROP IN COURTS:
falsification of the document, hence, the falsification of the public, official
or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa. RTC of Pampanga – convicted Dava of the crime of falsification of
In the light of the circumstances revealed by the partial testimony of public document.
complainant Mariano Carrera and of the record, as regards the first ground,
the court finds that the contention of the defense that the authorization CA – affirmed in in toto the decision of the trial court.
given to him to mortgage the whole property is not sustained by the
evidence because a cursory study of the answer made by the witness
complainant clearly shows that what was intended to be mortgaged was
the 1/2 portion pertaining only to Severo Carrera, excluding that portion
pertaining to said complainant. In other words, the alleged authorization ISSUE/S: (1) WON THE OFFICIAL OF THE LTC AGENCY
given to Federico de Guzman to get a loan from the Bank on the half PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF
portion of the land referred to the share of Severo Carrera only. THE SAID DRIVER’S LICENSE.

2. YES. The start of the prescriptive period was when the falsified (2) WON DAVA IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
SPA was registed in the Registry of Deeds on Feb. 13, 1964. In a crime of FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
falsification of public document, the prescriptive period commences from
the time the offended party had constructive notice of the alleged forgery
after the document was registered with the Register of Deeds. Citing
People v. Reyes, the Court said that registration in a public registry is a
HELD: (1) NO. The Supreme Court held that the information specifically
notice to the whole world. The record is a constructive notice of its
contents as well as all interests, legal and equitable, included therein. Also, charges Dava with having made it appear in his driver's license No.
in Armentia vs. Patriarca, et al., in interpreting the phrase "from the 2706887 that "officials of the Pampanga LTC agency participated" in in-
discovery," it was held that the discovery must be reckoned to have taken preparation and with having used the said driver's license knowing that it
place from the time the document was registered in the Register of Deeds was falsified. The charges are found on the provisions of Article 172 (1) of
and that this rule applies in criminal and civil cases. the Revised Penal Code which punishes any private individual who shall
Final Ruling: The SC DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit and commit any the falsification enumerated in Article 171 specifically
the challenged orders of public respondent were AFFIRMED. paragraph 2 thereof which penalizes the act of causing it to appear that
persons (public officials) have participated in any act proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate.
Use of falsified documents
Dava vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 73905 (September 30, 1991) The evidence at hand proves that petitioner, misrepresenting that he had no
driver's license, asked his friend, Manalili, to secure one for him. Manalili,
Fernan, CJ.
who used to get his own driver's license in San Fernando, Pampanga, was
able to secure Dava's driver's license No. 2706887 through fixers at the
LTC agency in said locality. Dava renewed his license at the said office
by paying the amount of P10.00 for which he was issued official receipt
A driver’s license, even if the simulated, becomes a public document.
No. 0605870.

FACTS: On October 19, 1975, while driving a car along Shaw Boulevard,
It is not disputed that it was Dava himself who requested Manalili to get
Mandaluyong, Rizal, Michael T. Dava, then holder of non-professional
him a license. He misrepresented to Manalili that he has not at any time
driver's license No. 1474427 with official receipt No. 7023037, bumped
been issued a driver's license. Through this misrepresentation and
pedestrians Bernadette Roxas Clamor and Dolores E. Roxas, causing death
capitalizing on Manalili awareness of the dire necessity of obtaining a
to former and physical injuries to the latter. As a consequence, Dava was
driver's license the shortest time possible to enable him to perform duties
brought to Mandaluyong Police headquarters where his driver's license
as detailman, he was able to induce Manalili to deal with "fixers" in
was confiscated by Cpl. Daniel Severino who later submitted Dava's
securing the subject driver's license. For indeed, there was no way
driver's license to the fiscal's office. License was thereafter presented as
Manalili could obtain a driver’s license in so short time without having to
prosecution evidence in criminal case for homicide and serious physical
deal with "fixers." Thus, Manalili, who appeared to have been motivated
injuries reckless imprudence filed against Dava.
by a sincere desire to help a friend, did not hesitate to deal with three
fixers whom he knew were not employees of the LTC to whom he paid
P70.00 for the license even if the legal fee then was only P15.00.
On April 12, 1978, Antonio Roxas, the brother of Bernadette and the
father of Dolores, saw Dava driving a maroon Volkswagen car. Knowing
that Dava's driver's license was used as an exhibit in court and that no
(2) YES. The Supreme Court held that as it was in truth Dava who induced
traffic violation receipt had been issued to Dava, Roxas sought the help of
and left Manalili with no choice but to seek the aid of fixers, the fact that it
then Minister of Defense in apprehending Dava for driving without a
was Manalili and not Dava who dealt directly with said fixers cannot
license.
exculpate petitioner from the charge of falsification. He is, beyond
reasonable doubt, a principal by inducement in the commission of said
crime.
Accordingly, an information for falsification of a public document was
filed against Dava in the then Court of First Instance. One of the
prosecution witnesses was Caroline Vinluan of the Angeles City branch of
Dava cannot feign ignorance of the spurious character of his second
the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT), Vinluan stated that although the
driver's license No. 2706887. Having already obtained a driver's license,
form used for the license was genuine, the signature of the issuing official
he knew that it was not legally possible for him to secure another one.
was fake.
Otherwise, there would have been no need for him to misrepresent to his

28
 friend Manalili that he was not then a holder of a driver's license. said companies, Gigantoni went to the office of the Philippine Air Lines
(PAL), allegedly to conduct verification of some travels made by Black
Mountain’s officials. Upon reaching the said PAL office, he represented
himself to the PAL legal officer as a PC-CIS agent investigating a
A driver's license is a public document within the purview of Articles 171 kidnapping case, and requested that he be shown the PAL records
and 172. The blank form of the driver’s license becomes a public particularly the passenger manifests for Manila-Baguio-Manila flights
document the moment it is accomplished. Thus, when driver's license No. covering the period from February 1 to 3, 1981. He explained that he was
2706887 was filled up with Dava's personal data and the signature of the then at the tracking stage of aforementioned kidnapping case. To further
LTC agency was affixed therein, even if the same was simulated, the convince the PAL officials of his supposed mission, Gigantoni exhibited
driver's license became a public document. his identification card purporting to show that he was a PC-CIS agent.
Thereupon, his aforesaid request was granted, and PAL legal officer Atty.
Conrado A. Boro showed to him the requested PAL records. Gigantoni
then secured xerox copies of the requested manifest, and the used PAL
The driver's license being a public document, proof of the fourth element tickets of one Cesar (Philippe) Wong, an SGV auditor, and that of a certain
of damage caused to another person or at least an intent to cause such Daisy Britanico, an employee of Black Mountain. Thereafter, he left the
damage has become immaterial. In falsification of public or official PAL premises.
documents, the principal thing being punished is the violation of the public
faith and the destruction of the truth proclaimed therein.

When Gigantoni was no longer around, PAL general counsel

Ricardo Puno, Jr., inquired from Atty. Boro about Gigantoni's purpose in
Final Ruling: Decision is affirmed. securing copies of PAL records. They then became suspicious of his real
identity, prompting them to conduct verification from the PC-CIS office.
13. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages and They subsequently learned from Gen. Uy of PC-CIS that Gigantoni was no
use of said falsified messages
longer a CIS agent since June 30, 1980 as he had been dismissed from the
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 173
service for gross misconduct brought about by the extortion charges filed
Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or service and the against him, and his final conviction by the Sandiganbayan for the said
like offense. Upon discovering the foregoing, Atty. Puno immediately alerted
14. False medical certificates, false certificates of merit or service the NBI as Gigantoni would be coming back to the PAL office the
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 174 following day.
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)

15. Using false certificates

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 175
After the investigation, arrest and booking conducted by the
Manufacturing, importing and possession of instruments or implements NBI, Gigantoni was charged before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of
intended for the commission of falsification Rizal, thru its office in Makati, with the crime of Usurpation of Authority.
16. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for
falsification
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 176
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)
Petitioner admits that he received a notice of his suspension
B. Other Falsities from the CIS effective June 20, 1980. This admission is supported by the
record, which shows the letter of Lt. Col. Sabas Edades to petitioner, dated
Usurpation of authority, rank, title, and improper use of names, uniforms June 23, 1980, regarding said action. Said official letter was also sent to
and insignia the Commissioner of the Merit Systems Board, Civil Service Commission,
the Minister of National Defense and the Commanding General of the CIS.
17. Usurpation of authority or official functions However, it is further alleged that he was already dismissed from service
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 177
effective June 30, 1980. He denies having been informed thereof.
People vs. Cortez BACKDROP IN COURTS:

73 OG 10056 (-) RTC, Rizal, Pasig – rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of
usurpation of authority under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code with
- modification of the penalty after crediting the accused with a mitigating
circumstance analogous to voluntary confession of guilt.

CA – affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.

FACTS: Case where the accused pretended to be a BIR agent and that he
presented an ID card with other BIR papers. ISSUE/s: WON PETITIONER HAD COMMITTED THE CRIME OF
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY.

HELD: NO. Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code on usurpation of

authority or official functions, under which the petitioner was charged,
HELD: The crime was usurpation of authority thru falsification of a punishes any person: (a) who knowingly and falsely represents himself to
public document by a private person. The falsification was the means be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the
employed by the defendant to perpetrate the crime of usurpation. Philippine Government or of any foreign government; or (b) who, under
pretense of official position, performs any act pertaining to any person in
authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign
Gigantoni vs. People of the Philippines, et al. government or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do
so. The former constitutes the crime of usurpation of authority, under
245 Phil. 133 (June 16, 1988) which the petitioner stands charged, while the latter act constitutes the
crime of usurpation of official functions.
Yap, C.J.
The record is bereft of any evidence or proof adduced by the
A Suspended public officer may commit usurpation of official functions, prosecution showing that the dismissal was actually conveyed to
but not usurpation of authority petitioner. That is why the court, in convicting him, relied on the
disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed,
FACTS: Petitioner Melencio Gigantoni y Javier (a former Philippine that is, that it is presumed that he was duly notified of his dismissal. The
Constabulary CIS [PC-CIS] agent) was charged with usurpation of failure of the prosecution to prove that petitioner was duly notified of
authority under Art. 177, RPC. He admits that he received a notice of his his dismissal from the service negatives the charge that he “knowingly
suspension from the CIS effective June 20, 1980. and falsely” represented himself to be a CIS agent. The constitutional
presumption of innocence can only be overturned by competent and
credible proof and never by mere disputable presumptions, as what the
lower and appellate courts did when they presumed that petitioner was
duly notified of his dismissal by applying the disputable presumption “that
On May 14, 1981, petitioner was then an employee of Black
official duty has been regularly performed.”
Mountain Mining Inc. and Tetra Management Corporation (both are
private companies doing business in the Philippines). As an employee of
29
 The Solicitor General argued in his memorandum that it makes P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment; and to pay the costs. The trial
no difference whether the accused was suspended or dismissed from the court recommended, however, that she be extended executive clemency.
service, “for both imply the absence of power to represent oneself as
vested with authority to perform acts pertaining to an office to which he IAC – on appeal the sentence was affirmed in toto. Hence the instant
knowingly was deprived of .” The observation of the Solicitor General is
petition.
correct if the accused were charged with usurpation of official
function (second part of Article 177), but not if he is charged merely
with usurpation of authority (first part of Article 177). The information
charges the accused with the crime of usurpation of authority for
“knowingly and falsely representing himself to be an officer, agent or ISSUE/s: WON IAC ERRED IN AFFIRMING
representative of any department or agency of the Philippine CONVICTION
Government.”
HELD: YES. Commonwealth Act No. 142 provides in Section 1:
Petitioner is not accused of usurpation of official functions. It
has not been shown that the information given by PAL to the accused was
confidential and was given to him only because he was entitled to it as part Section 1. Except as a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema,
of the exercise of his official function. He was not charged in the television, radio or other entertainment purposes and in athletic
information for such an offense. In fact, it appears from the record of the events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted
case that the information, which was not claimed to be secret and practice, no person shall use any name different from the one
confidential, was readily made available to the accused because PAL with which he was registered at birth in the office of the local
officials believed at the time that he was a CIS agent. And this was the civil registry, or with which he was baptized for the first time,
only offense with which he was charged in the information, that he
or in case of an alien, with which he was registered in the
knowingly and falsely represented himself to be a CIS agent.
Bureau of Immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as
may have been authorized by a competent court: Provided,
Final Ruling: the decision of the respondent Appellate Court That persons, whose births have not been registered in any
affirming the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court is local civil registry and who have not been baptized have one
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner-accused, Melencio Gigantoni year from the approval of this act within which to register their
y Javier is hereby AQUITTED of the crime charged. names in the civil registry of their residence. The name shall
comprise the patronymic name and one or two surnames. (As
amended by R.A. No. 6085.)
18. Using fictitious name and concealing true name
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 178
Commonwealth Act No. 142 (1936)
Rep. Act No. 6085 (1969) It is not uncommon in Philippine society for a woman to represent herself
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)
as the wife and use the name of the man she is living with despite the fact
that the man is married to another woman. The practice, to be sure, is not
Legamia vs. IAC encouraged but neither is it unduly frowned upon. A number of women
can be identified who are living with men prominent in political, business
G.R. No. L-63817 (August 28, 1984) and social circles. The woman publicly holds herself out as the man's wife
and uses his family name blithely ignoring the fact that he is not her
Abad Santos, J.: husband. And yet none of the women has been charged of violating the
C.A. No. 142 because ours is not a bigoted but a tolerant and
In case where the use of name is without any sinister purpose or personal understanding society. It is in the light of our cultural environment that the
material gain in mind law must be construed.

FACTS: Corazon Legamia lived with Emilio N. Reyes for 19 years, In the case at bar, Corazon had been living with Emilio for almost 20
until Emilio died. During their live-in arrangement they produced a boy years. He introduced her to the public as his wife and she assumed that
who was named Michael Raphael Gabriel L. Reyes. From the time role and his name without any sinister purpose or personal material gain in
Corazon and Emilio lived together until the latter's death, Corazon was mind. She applied for benefits upon his death not for herself but for
known as Corazon L. Reyes; she styled herself as Mrs. Reyes; and Emilio Michael who as a boy of tender years was under her guardianship. Surely,
introduced her to friends as Mrs. Reyes. the lawmakers could not have meant to criminalize what Corazon had
done especially because some of them probably had their own Corazons.

Emilio was Branch Claim Manager Naga Branch, of the Agricultural

Credit Administration when he died. Shortly after his death, Corazon filed Final Ruling: the decision under review is hereby set aside; the petitioner
a letter in behalf of Michael with the Agricultural Credit Administration is acquitted of the charge. No costs.
for death benefits. The letter was signed "Corazon L. Reyes." The voucher
evidencing payment of Michael's claim was also signed "Corazon L. 19. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia
Reyes." REV. PEN. CODE, art. 179
Rep. Act No. 75 (1946)
Rep. Act No. 493 (1950)

False testimony
For using the name Reyes although she was not married to Emilio, 20. False testimony against a defendant
Felicisima Reyes who was married to Emilio filed a complaint which led REV. PEN. CODE, art. 180
to Corazon's prosecution. Parenthetically, the amount paid to Michael is Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)
"equivalent to 2/5 of that which is due to each legitimate child in
21. False testimony favorable to the defendant
accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code" per advice given by
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 181
Atty. Diomedes A. Bragado of the Agricultural Credit Administration to Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)
Felicisima. 
22. False testimony in civil cases
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 182
Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)
Thus she was charged with violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142 for
unlawful use of substitute name. 23. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 183
Diaz vs. People

G.R. no. 65006 (October 31, 1990)

BACKDROP IN COURTS:
Paras, J.
CFI, Manila - sentenced her to an indeterminate prison term of only (1)
year, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum; to pay a fine a fine of 

30
 Final Ruling: The decision appealed from was modified, since there is
Application of perjury no mitigating and aggravating circumstance the penalty should be
imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the penalty should be from 4 months of arresto mayor as
minimum to (1 year and 1 day of prision correccional as maximum
FACTS: That on or about the 5th day of December 1972, in the
Municipality of San Fernando, Province of Pampanga, Reolandi M. DIAZ,
then a Senior Clerk at the Jose Abad Santos High School and, therefore, a 24. Offering false testimony in evidence
public employee, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously REV. PEN. CODE, art. 184
commit falsification of official documents, by executing and filing in the
office of the Civil Service Commission of said municipality a Personal C. Frauds
Data Sheet, CS Form No. 212(65), an official document, stating and
making it appear therein that he was a fourth year Bachelor of Arts student Machinations, monopolies and combinations
in 1950-54 at the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges which document 25. Machinations in public auctions
is a requirement for his reappointment as School Administrative Assistant REV. PEN. CODE, art. 185
I of the Jose Abad Santos High School and wherein the academic
requirement to said Position is at least a fourth year college undergraduate, Ouano vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
when in truth and in fact, the said accused did not reach the 4 th year in a
266 Phil. 869 (August 21, 1990)
Bachelor of Arts degree course, and consequently, by reason of said
untruthfull narration of facts, his appointment to the said position was
Narvasa, J.
approved by the Civil Service Commission.

Agreements involving machinations in public auctions are illegal and,

Diaz was found guilty as charged and sentenced to suffer the
therefore, void
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 2yrs, 4mons & 1day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 6yrs & 1day of prision mayor, as maximum.
On appeal, the IAC modified the trial court's decision by increasing the
maximum of the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment in the event of
FACTS: The subject of the case is a parcel of land with an area of about
non-payment of the fine due to insolvency, but affirmed the verdict of
3,710 square meters, situated in Mandawe, Cebu. It is identified as
conviction in all other respects.
Philippine Railway Lot No. 3-A-1 It was covered by a torrens title (then)
in the name of the registered owner, Rehabilitation Finance Corporation
(RFC), now the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Adjoining
Lot 3-A-1 are lands belonging to Francisco Echavez (private respondent)
ISSUE/s: 1. WON DIAZ COMMITTED THE CRIME OF
and petitioner Paterno J. Ouano.
FASIFICATION OF AN OFFICIAL
DOCUMENT ?

HELD: 1. NO. The crime committed was PEJURY. Contrary to Diaz’s

claim that his highest educational attainment was Fourth Year A.B. which The property was offered for sale (for the second time) by public bidding
he allegedly took at the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges during the by the RFC on April 1, 1958. The first bidding, in which both Ouano and
years 1950 to 1954. However, he was never enrolled at the Cosmopolitan Echavez participated together with others, was nullified on account of a
Colleges which later became the Abad Santos Educational Institution and protest by Ouano.
still later the Ortanez University at any time during the period covering the
years from 1950 to 1954, inclusive as certified to by the Registrar of
Ortanez University, Mr. Atilano D. Solomon. Likewise, petitioner was
never a student at the Harvardian Colleges in Tondo, during the first
It appears that prior to the second bidding, Ouano and Echavez orally
quarter of school year 1953-1954, inclusive, as certified to by the school's
President, Mrs. Virginia King vda. de Yap. agreed that only Echavez would make a bid, and that if it was accepted,
they would divide the property in proportion to their adjoining properties.
Neither did Diaz ever enroll as a collegiate student at the Harvardian To ensure success of their enterprise, they also agreed to induce the only
Colleges in San Fernando, Pampanga after he finished his secondary other party known to be interested in the property - a group headed by a
course in the same school in June 1950, as certified to by its Executive Mrs. Bonsucan - to desist from presenting a bid. They broached the matter
Director, Atty. Arnulfo Garcia. to Mrs. Bonsucan’s group. The latter agreed to withdraw, as it did in fact
withdraw from the sale; and Ouano's wife paid it P2,000 as reimbursement
The Diaz did not take the witness stand. He only presented in evidence an
alleged transcript of record (Exh. 1) purporting to show that he took up for its expenses.
collegiate courses at the Philippine Harvardian College in Tondo, Manila,
beginning from the first quarter of the school year 1951-1952 up to the
first quarter of school year 1953-1954 which transcript of record was
allegedly signed by Mrs. Virginia King vda. de Yap, for and in behalf of As expected, the highest bid submitted, and thus accepted by the RFC, was
the then President of the school, Ildefonso Yap. But Mrs. Virginia Yap, that of Francisco Echavez, who offered Php27,826.00 for the land.
testifying for the prosecution disowned the said signature. Echavez paid the sum of Php5,565.00 representing 20% deposit of the
prefferred price.
Following the doctrine laid down, however, in the case of People v. Rufo
B. Cruz, No. L-15132, May 25,1960,108 Phil. 255 and the earlier case of
United States v. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119, the crime committed under
the foregoing facts, is perjury. This offense, as defined in Article 183 of
the Revised Penal Code is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood Thereafter, Enchavez showed Ouano a handwritten sketch indicating how
under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material they will divide the property, and the division of payment. Then, they
matter. The elements of the crime of perjury are — presented such scheme to the RFC, which rejected the same because it
(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or
wants an immediate payment in cash.
executed an affidavit upon a material matter.
(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath.
(c) That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made
a and deliberate assertion of a falsehood. Apparently, the successful bidder was caught flatfooted, for he was not
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the able to comply with this condition, notwithstanding the fact that he has
falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. been making efforts to acquire the property. So, he exerted much effort to
change the terms of the sale from cash to monthly amortization plan. The
All the foregoing elements are present in the case at bar. Perjury carries a
RFC was, however, adamant. Negotiations between Enchavez and the
lesser penalty which is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period. Since there is no mitigating and RFC went on for more than 4-½ years, with none of the private parties
aggravating circumstance the penalty should be imposed in its medium (Enchavez and Ouano) herein having secured the conformity of the RFC
period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty should be or DBP to a novation of the original terms of the sale. Thus, the said sale
from four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year and was finally cancelled, and the deposit of P5,549.72 made by Enchavez to
one (1) day of prision correccional as maximum. the RFC forfeited as of April 4, 1962. However, on July 18, 1962, upon
31
 request of Enchavez, this cancellation was considered under the condition. “... When the nullity proceeds from the illegality of the cause or
It is admitted that Enchavez is now the registered owner of the property, object of the contract, and the act constitutes a criminal offense,
after having fully paid P29,3218.87 on account of the price to the both parties being in pari delicto, they shall have no action
against each other, and both shall be prosecuted. Moreover, the
Development Bank of the Philippines, as per Deed of Absolute Sale dated
provisions of the Penal Code relative to the disposal of effects
December 9,1963 or instruments of a crime shall be applicable to the things or
the price of the contract. xxx.” (Italicization Supreme Court).

The dismissal of Ouano's action by both the Trial Court and the Court of
During the 4-½ years of negotiation, Ouano filed a case for specific Appeals was thus correct, being plainly in accord with the Civil Code
performance against Enchavez and DBP (the suit against the latter was provisions just referred to. Article 1411 also dictates the proper disposition
dismissed because of lack of cause of action). of the land involved, i.e., “the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and
the instruments or tools with which it was committed,” as mandated by the
provisions of Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, this being obviously
the provision “of the Penal Code relative to the disposal of effects or
instruments of a crime” that Article 1411 makes “applicable to the things
BACKDROP IN COURTS: or the price of the contract.”

CFI, Cebu – rendered judgment on June 29,1968. It found that the sharing Final Ruling: the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is
agreement between Ouano and Echavez could not be enforced in view of MODIFIED, so that in addition to affirming the Trial Court's
the absence of consent of the RFC (DBP) which the latter never gave; judgment dismissing Ouano's complaint and Echavez's counterclaim
apart from this, the agreement had an unlawful cause and hence could in Civil Case No. R-8011, Lot No. 3-A-1 subject of said case is ordered
“Produce no effect whatever” in accordance with Article 1352 of the Civil FORFEITED in its entirety in favor of the Government of the
Code, because involving a felony defined in Article 185 9 of the Revised Philippines. No pronouncement as to costs. Let copy of this Decision
Penal Code. The decision accordingly dismissed the civil action, ordered be furnished the Solicitor General.
Ouano “to vacate the portion of Lot No. 3-A-1 he occupied pursuant to
Exhibit C,” and also dismissed Echavez's counterclaim.
26. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade
CA – at first, reversed the CFI ruling. However, on second MR, it ruled in REV. PEN. CODE, art. 186
favor of Enchavez because the oral agreement between petitioner and Rep. Act No. 10667 (2014)
private respondent remained inoperative since RFC/ DBP’s consent, which
was a condition precedent, was not obtained. Frauds in commerce and industry
27. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise
made of gold, silver, or other precious metals or their alloys
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 187
ISSUE/s: WON ENCHAVEZ MAY BE COMPELLED TO EXECUTE Rep. Act No. 10951 (2016)
THE ORAL AGREEMENT HE ENTERED INTO WITH OUANO.
28. Substituting and altering trade marks and trade names or service marks
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 188

HELD: NO. Two material facts, about which Ouano and Echavez are in 29. Unfair competition and fraudulent registration of trade mark or trade
agreement, render these questions of academic interest only, said facts name, or service mark; fraudulent designation of origin, and false
being determinative of this dispute on an altogether different ground. description
These facts are: REV. PEN. CODE, art. 189
1) that they bad both orally agreed that only Echavez
would make a bid at the second bidding called by the RFC, and
that if it was accepted, they would divide the property in 30. Offenses under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines
proportion to their adjoining properties; and Rep. Act No. 8293 (1997), secs. 4.1, 21, 84, 121-122, 155-
2) that to ensure success of their scheme, they had also 157, 163, 168 - 170, 172, 177, 216-217, 239.1
agreed to induce the only other party known to be interested in
the property a group headed by a Mrs. Bonsucan to desist from
presenting a bid, as they did succeed in inducing Mrs.
Bonsucan's group to withdraw from the sale, paying said group
P2,000 as reimbursement for its expenses.
TITLE V
These acts constitute a crime, as the Trial Court has stressed. Ouano and CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
Echavez had promised to share in the property in question as a Republic Act No. 9165 (2002) or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
consideration for Ouano's refraining from taking part in the public auction, Republic Act No. 7659, sec. 13-19
and they had attempted to cause and in fact succeeded in causing another Republic Act No. 10640 (2013)
bidder to stay away from the auction. in order to cause reduction of the A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, 10 April 2018, Adoption of the Plea Bargaining
price of the property auctioned In so doing, they committed the felony of Framework in Drug Cases
machinations in public auctions defined and penalized in Article 185 of the
Revised Penal Code, supra.
PEOPLE VS LO HO WING
G.R. NO. 88017, 21 JAN. 1991
That both Ouano and Echavez did these acts is a matter of record, as is the
FACTS: This case involves the unlawful transport of metamphetamine, a
fact that thereby only one bid - that of Echavez - was entered for the land,
regulated drug under Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. One of its
in consequence of which Echavez eventually acquired it. The agreement
derivatives is metamphetamine hydrochloride, notoriously known in street
therefore being criminal in character, the parties not only have no
parlance as "shabu" or "poor man's cocaine."
action against each other but are both liable to prosecution and the
things and price of their agreement subject to disposal according to
Appellant Peter Lo, together with co-accused Lim Cheng Huat alias
the provisions of the criminal code. This, in accordance with the so-
Antonio Lim and Reynaldo Tia, were charged with a violation of Section
called pari delicto principle set out in the Civil Code.
15, Article III of the aforementioned statute otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, before Branch 114 of the Regional Trial
Article 1409 of said Code declares as “inexistent and void from the
Court of Pasay City. Only appellant and co-accused Lim Cheng Huat were
beginning” those contracts, among others, “whose cause, object or purpose
convicted. They were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, to pay a fine
is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy,” or
of P25,000.00 each, and to pay the costs. Their co-accused Reynaldo Tia
“expressly prohibited ... by law.” Such contracts “cannot be ratified;” “the
was discharged as a state witness.
right to set up the defense of illegality (cannot) be waived;” and, Article
1410 adds, the “action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence ...
In July 1987, the Special Operations Group, a unit of the Criminal
(thereof) does not prescribe.” Furthermore, according to Article 1411 of
Investigation Service (CIS) of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), received
the same Code—
a tip from one of its informers about an organized group engaged in the
importation of illegal drugs, smuggling of contraband goods, and
9 ART. 185. Machinations in public auctions. — any person who shall solicit gunrunning. After an evaluation of the information thus received, a project
codenamed "OPLAN SHARON 887" was created in order to bust the
any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any suspected syndicate.
public auction, and any person who shall attempt to cause bidders to stay
away from an auction by threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice, with As part of the operations, the recruitment of confidential men and "deep
intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned, shall suffer penetration agents' was carried out to infiltrate the crime syndicate. One of
the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine ranging those recruited was the discharged accused, Reynaldo Tia (hereinafter
from 10 to 50 per centum of the value of the thing auctioned. referred to as Tia).
32
 destination.
Tia was introduced to his co-accused Lim Cheng Huat (hereinafter
referred to as Lim) by another confidential agent named George on August The situation in the instant case is one where the transport of a prohibited
3, 1987. Lim expressed a desire to hire a male travelling companion for his drug was interrupted by the search and arrest of the accused. Interruption
business nips abroad. Tia offered his services and was hired. necessarily infers that an act had already been commenced. Otherwise,
there would be nothing to interrupt.
Lim and Tia met anew on several occasions to make arrangements for a
trip to China. In the course of those meetings, Tia was introduced to Peter Therefore, considering the foregoing, since the information included the
Lo (hereinafter referred to as appellant), whom Tia found out to be the acts of delivery, dispatch or transport, proof beyond reasonable doubt of
person he was to accompany to China in lieu of Lim. the commission of any of the acts so included is sufficient for conviction
under Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
As a "deep penetration agent," Tia regularly submitted reports of his
undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate. Meanwhile, the Moreover, the act of transporting a prohibited drug is a malum prohibitum
officer-in-charge of OPLAN SHARON 887, Captain Luisito Palmera, because it is punished as an offense under a special law. It is a wrong
filed with his superiors the reports submitted to him, and officially because it is prohibited by law. Without the law punishing the act, it
informed the Dangerous Drugs Board of Tia's activities. cannot be considered a wrong. As such, the mere commission of said act is
what constitutes the offense punished and suffices to validly charge and
On October 4, 1987,appellant and Tia left for Hongkong on board a convict an individual caught committing the act so punished, regardless of
Philippine Airlines flight. Before they departed, Tia was able to telephone criminal intent.
Captain Palmera to inform him of their expected date of return to the
Philippines as declared in his round-trip plane ticket-October 6, 1987 at PEOPLE VS MARIACOS
two o'clock in the afternoon. G.R. NO. 18861 JUNE 16, 2010
FACTS: Accused-appellant Belen Mariacos was charged in an
The day after they arrived in Hongkong, Tia and appellant boarded a train Information, dated November 7, 2005 of violating Section 5, Article II of
bound for Guangzhou, in the People's Republic of China. Upon arriving Republic Act [No.] 9165.
there, they checked in at a hotel, and rested for a few hours. The pair
thereafter went to a local store where appellant purchased six (6) tin cans the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
of tea. Tia saw the paper tea bags when the cans were opened for feloniously transport, deliver 7,030.3, (sic) grams of dried marijuana
examination during the purchase. Afterwards, they returned to the hotel. fruiting tops without the necessary permit or authority from the proper
government agency or office.
The next day, October 6,1987, the two returned to Manila via a China
Airlines flight. The plane landed at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport On October 26, 2005, in the evening, the San Gabriel Police Station of San
(NAIA), then named Manila International Airport, on schedule. Gabriel, La Union, conducted a checkpoint near the police station at the
Meanwhile, a team composed of six operatives headed by Captain Palmera poblacion to intercept a suspected transportation of marijuana from
was formed to act on the tip given by Tia. On the expected date of arrival, Barangay Balbalayang, San Gabriel, La Union.
the team proceeded to the NAIA. Captain Palmera notified the Narcotics
Command (NARCOM) Detachment at the airport for coordination.
When the checkpoint did not yield any suspect or marijuana, the Chief of
Upon seeing appellant and Tia leave the airport, the operatives who first Police instructed PO2 Pallayoc to proceed to Barangay Balbalayang to
spotted them followed them. Along Imelda Avenue, the car of the conduct surveillance operation (sic). At dawn on October 27, 2005, in
operatives overtook the taxicab ridden by appellant and Tia and cut into its Barangay Balbalayang, PO2 Pallayoc met with a secret agent of the
path forcing the taxi driver to stop his vehicle. Meanwhile, the other Barangay Intelligence Network who informed him that a baggage of
taxicab carrying Lim sped away in an attempt to escape. The operatives marijuana had been loaded on a passenger jeepney that was about to leave
disembarked from their car, approached the taxicab, and asked the driver for the poblacion. The agent mentioned three (3) bags and one (1) blue
to open the baggage compartment. Three pieces of luggage were retrieved plastic bag. Further, the agent described a backpack bag with an "O.K."
from the back compartment of the vehicle. The operatives requested from marking. PO2 Pallayoc then boarded the said jeepney and positioned
the suspects permission to search their luggage. A tin can of tea was taken himself on top thereof. While the vehicle was in motion, he found the
out of the red traveling bag owned by appellant. black backpack with an "O.K." marking and peeked inside its contents.
PO2 Pallayoc found bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspapers. He then
During the investigation of the case, the six tin cans recovered from the asked the other passengers on top of the jeepney about the owner of the
traveling bag of appellant were opened and examined. They contained a bag, but no one knew.
total of fifty-six (56) paper tea bags with white crystalline powder inside
instead of tea leaves. When the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc alighted together
with the other passengers. Unfortunately, he did not notice who took the
The tea bag opened by Sgt. Cayabyab during the search and seizure was black backpack from atop the jeepney. He only realized a few moments
sent to the PC-INP Crime Laboratory for preliminary examination. Tests later that the said bag and three (3) other bags, including a blue plastic bag,
conducted on a sample of the crystalline powder inside the tea bag yielded were already being carried away by two (2) women. He caught up with the
a positive result that the specimen submitted was metamphetamine. women and introduced himself as a policeman. He told them that they
Samples from each of the fifty-six (56) tea bags were similarly tested. The
tests were also positive for metamphetamine. Hence, the three suspects were under arrest, but one of the women got away.
were indicted.

RTC: FIND THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF DELIVERING ,

DISPATCHING OR TRANSPORTING METAMPHETAMINE, A PO2 Pallayoc brought the woman, who was later identified as herein
REGULATED DRUG. accused-appellant Belen Mariacos, and the bags to the police station. the
bags were opened and three (3) bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspaper,
ISSUE: WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE two (2) round bundles of marijuana, and two (2) bricks of marijuana
ACCUSED GUILTY OF DELIVERING, DISPATCHING OR fruiting tops, all wrapped in a newspaper, were recovered, as a result the
TRANSPORTING METAMPHETAMINE, A REGULATED DRUG. appellant was convicted.

HELD: The information charged the accused of delivering, transporting or Appellant appealed her conviction to the CA. She argued that the
dispatching fifty-six (56) tea bags containing metamphetamine, a regulated prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime.7 She alleged
drug. The conjunction "or' was used, thereby implying that the accused that the apprehending police officers violated Dangerous Drugs Board
were being charged of the three specified acts in the alternative. Appellant Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as amended by Board Regulation No. 2,
argues that he cannot be convicted of "delivery" because the term connotes Series of 1990, which prescribes the procedure in the custody of seized
a source and a recipient, the latter being absent under the facts of the case. prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses, and articles. The
It is also argued that "dispatching' cannot apply either since appellant said regulation directs the apprehending team having initial custody and
never sent off or disposed of drugs. As for "transporting," appellant control of the drugs and/or paraphernalia, immediately after seizure or
contends that he cannot also be held liable therefor because the act of confiscation, to have the same physically inventoried and photographed in
transporting necessarily requires a point of destination, which again is non- the presence of appellant or her representative, who shall be required to
existent under the given facts. sign copies of the inventory. The failure to comply with this directive,
appellant claimed, casts a serious doubt on the identity of the items
The contentions are futile attempts to strain the meaning of the operative allegedly confiscated from her. She, likewise, averred that the prosecution
acts of which appellant and his co-accused were charged in relation to the failed to prove that the items allegedly confiscated were indeed prohibited
facts of the case. There is no doubt that law enforcers caught appellant and drugs, and to establish the chain of custody over the same.
his co-accused in flagrante delicto of transporting a prohibited drug. The
term "transport" is defined as "to carry or convey from one place to OSG: brushed aside appellant’s argument that the bricks of marijuana
another."6 The operative words in the definition are "to carry or convey." were not photographed and inventoried in her presence or that of her
The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that counsel immediately after confiscation, positing that physical inventory
the act of transporting was committed. It is immaterial whether or not the may be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
place of destination is reached. Furthermore, the argument of appellant apprehending team, whichever was practicable.
gives rise to the illogical conclusion that he and his co- accused did not CA: DISMISSED THE APPELLANT’S APPEAL AND AFFIRMED
intend to bring the metamphetamine anywhere, i.e. they had no place of THE RTC DECISION IN TOTO.

33
 People vs. Suzuki
ISSUE:
WON APPELLANT’S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT G.R. no. 65006 (October 31, 1990)
CONSTITUTE A VALID DEFENSE. YES
WON THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE CORPUS
Paras, J.
DELICTI OF THE CRIME.

HELD:
*When an accused is charged with illegal possession or transportation of
prohibited drugs, the ownership thereof is immaterial. Consequently, proof Application of perjury
of ownership of the confiscated marijuana is not necessary.

Appellant’s alleged lack of knowledge does not constitute a valid defense.

Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances FACTS: On April 12, 1994, Suzuki (appellant) and Takeshi Koketsu, both
where the crime charged is malum prohibitum, as in this case.27 Mere Japanese nationals, entered the pre-departure area of the Bacolod Airport
possession and/or delivery of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is Terminal. Suzuki was bound for Manila and was carrying a small
punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.28 Anti-narcotics laws, like traveling bag and a box marked “Bongbong’s piaya.” At the pre-departure
anti-gambling laws, are regulatory statutes. They are rules of convenience area, upon the advice of Corazon Sinosa, a civilian personnel of the
designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society, and PASCOM, appellant proceeded to the “walk-through metal detector,” a
their violation gives rise to crimes mala prohibita. Laws defining crimes machine which produces a red light and an alarm once it detects the
mala prohibita condemn behavior directed not against particular presence of metallic substance or object. Thereupon, the red light
individuals, but against public order. switched on and the alarm sounded, signifying the presence of metallic
substance either in his person or in the box he was carrying. P/Inspector
Rea Abastillas Villavicencio, SPO1 Arturo Casugod, PO3 Rhodelin
Poyugao, and SPO1 Gilbert Linda were in their respective stations, the
Jurisprudence defines "transport" as "to carry or convey from one place to alarm prompted PO3 Poyugao to frisk him bodily. Finding no metallic
another."30 There is no definitive moment when an accused "transports" a
object in his body, PO3 Poyugao picked up the box of piaya and passed it
prohibited drug. When the circumstances establish the purpose of an
accused to transport and the fact of transportation itself, there should be no through the machine. Again, the machine was activated. PO3 Poyugao
question as to the perpetration of the criminal act.31 The fact that there is then ordered appellant to go to the hand-carried luggage inspection counter
actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting where several PASCOM and NARCOM personnel were present. SPO1
was committed and it is immaterial whether or not the place of destination Casugod requested appellant to open the box. He appeared tense and
is reached. reluctant and started to leave, but SPO1 Casugod called him. Eventually
he consented for the opening of the box and found therein were 18 small
Moreover, appellant’s possession of the packages containing illegal drugs
packs, 17 of wrapped in aluminum foil later confirmed as dried marijuna.
gave rise to the disputable presumption33 that she is the owner of the
packages and their contents.34 Appellant failed to rebut this presumption. Appellant ran outside but he was captured. Takeshi and his wife, Lourdes
Her uncorroborated claim of lack of knowledge that she had prohibited Linsangan were brought to the office, being suspects as conspirators with
drug in her possession is insufficient. appellant in drug trafficking.

*In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the
existence of all dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for conviction. The
dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of that crime, Section 21 of R.A.
The total weight of the suspected marijuana fruiting tops was 1.9
No. 9165 prescribes the procedure for custody and disposition of seized
dangerous drugs: Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, kilograms or 1,900 grams. He then drafted a “confiscation receipt” which
Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous appellant, upon the advice of Atty. Tayson (lawyer of suspects), refused to
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, acknowledge.
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA
shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, Suzuki was charged with illegal possession of marijuana, upon
seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
arraignment appellant entered a plea of not guilty. The defense presented
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and appellant as its sole witness testifying that he only received the box of
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from “Bongbong’s piaya” as “pasalubong” from a ceratin Pinky (whom he met
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative at Casino Filipino the other night & enticed him to sleep with her) and he
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice did not ascertain the contents of the box. Appellant only came to manila to
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the collect the debt Takeshi owed him (P500,00) that Takeshi and Lourdes
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. met him at the coffee shop to apologize for his failure to pay his debt.
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and On December 7, 1994, the trial court rendered its Decision finding the
custody over said items. accused HEDISHI SUZUKI guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal
possession of marijuana, defined and penalized under Section 8, Article II
While it is true that the arresting officer failed to state explicitly the of R.A. No. 6525, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21, this does not
death and to pay a fine of P10,000,000.00.
necessarily mean that appellant’s arrest was illegal or that the items seized
are inadmissible. The justifiable ground will remain unknown because
appellant did not question the custody and disposition of the items taken
from her during the trial.38 Even assuming that the police officers failed to
abide by Section 21, appellant should have raised this issue before the trial ISSUE/s: 1. WON PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE OPENING
court. She could have moved for the quashal of the information at the first AND SEARCH OF THE SUBJECT CARTON
instance. But she did not. Hence, she is deemed to have waived any AND DECLARING LEGAL AND VALID THE
objection on the matter. SEIZURE OF SAID CARTON AND THE
SUBSEQUENT ARREST OF SUZUKI ?
Further, the actions of the police officers, in relation to the procedural
rules on the chain of custody, enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the
HELD: YES. The trial court correctly upheld the PASCOM’s authority to
performance of official functions. Courts accord credence and full faith to
open packages and cargoes. ‘Based upon the Memorandum of
the testimonies of police authorities, as they are presumed to be Understanding, pursuant to President LOI 399, in relation to R.A. 6235,
performing their duties regularly, absent any convincing proof to the the PASCOM had the legal authority to be at theBacolod Airport, Bacolod
contrary. City and to inspect luggages or hand-carried bags. Section 8 of Republic
Act No. 6235 reads:

“SECTION 8. Aircraft companies which operate as public utilities or

In sum, the prosecution successfully established appellant’s guilt. Thus, operators of aircraft which are for hire are authorized to open and
her conviction must be affirmed. investigate suspicious packages and cargoes in the presence of the
owner or shipper, or his authorized representatives if present, in order
to help the authorities in the enforcement of the provisions of this Act:

34
 PDEA a by-bust operation was conducted, at the couple’s residence.
During the operation the asset introduced PO2 Noble to Marcelino as a
Provided, That if the owner, shipper or his representative refuses to
regular buyer of shabu. When asked how much shabu he needed, PO2
have the same opened and inspected, the airline or air carrier is
Noble replied, "dalawang piso," which means ₱200.00 worth of drugs. But
authorized to refuse the loading thereof.”
when PO2 Noble was handing over the marked money to Marcelino, the
It should be stressed, however, that whenever the right against
latter motioned that the same be given to his wife, Myra, who accepted the
unreasonable search and seizure is challenged, an individual may choose money. Marcelino then took from his pocket a small metal container from
between invoking the constitutional protection or waiving his right by which he brought out a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline
giving consent to the search or seizure. appellant gave his consent when substance and gave the same to PO2 Noble.
PO1 Casugod asked him to open the box was confirmed by SPO1 Linda
and PO3 Poyugao. As succinctly found by the trial court, appellant cannot While PO2 Noble was inspecting its contents, he noticed smoke coming
deny that he consented by feigning ignorance of the English language from a table inside the house of the couple around which were seven
persons.13 When PO2 Noble gave the pre-arranged signal, the backup
because he is a Japanese national. It made capital on the presence of
team rushed to the scene. Simultaneously, PO2 Noble introduced himself
Japanese interpreters, Tsuyushi Tsuchida and Hideo Agarie, who assisted as a policeman and arrested Marcelino. He frisked him and was able to
during the trial. The Court has no doubt in the positive testimonies of the confiscate the metal container that contained another sachet of white
prosecution witnesses and their categorical declaration that accused crystalline substance.
Hedishi Suzuki gave his consent not only by nodding his head but also by
saying Open. Open. Open. There was even a third-party consent given by Meanwhile, SPO2 Cruz and another police officer went inside the house of
Marcelino and Myra, where they found Apelo, Cipriano, Ranada, Abache,
his Japanese companion Takeshi Koketsu.
Sumulong, Madarang and Latario gathered around a table littered with
various drug paraphernalia such as an improvised water pipe, strips of
aluminum foil with traces of white substance, disposable lighters, and
plastic sachets. A strip of aluminum foil used for smoking marijuana was
Given the circumstances obtaining here, we find the search conducted by recovered from Ranada. The buy-bust team arrested all these persons,
the airport authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative of his advised them of their constitutional rights, and brought them to police
constitutional rights. Hence, when the search of the box of piaya revealed headquarters for investigation and drug testing.
several marijuana fruiting tops, appellant is deemed to have been caught in
A chemistry report on all the seized items yielded positive results for
flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even without a warrant. The packs of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Another chemistry report15 showed
marijuana obtained in the course of such valid search are thus admissible Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada positive for drug use while Myra,
as evidence against appellant. However, the trial court imposed the wrong Abache, Sumulong, Madarang, and Latario were found negative.
penalty. Under Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from Appellants argue that the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165
P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 shall be imposed if the quantity of was not followed. They specifically harp on the fact that the confiscated
marijuana or Indian hemp shall be 750 grams or more. Section 63 of the drugs were not photographed and inventoried. Moreover, they contend that
the police officers who handled the seized specimen were not presented in
Revised Penal Code provides that when the law prescribes a penalty
court to testify on the condition in which they received the said specimen.
composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied For the appellants, these defects constitute a clear break in the chain of
in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance. custody and, consequently, the prosecution failed to establish corpus
delicti.

RTC: THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE

In the case at bar, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, DOUBT.
appellants possession of 1,547.70 grams of marijuana does not merit the CA: appellate court found the warrantless arrest of the appellants to be
lawful considering that they were caught in the act of committing a crime.
supreme penalty of death but only reclusion perpetua. Thus, CA affirmed with modification the trial court decision on the
conviction of the spouses and Ranada, as with regards to Cipriano and
Latario, as well as the other accused Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and
Madarang, the CA found them guilty not as principals but only as
Final Ruling: The decision appealed from was AFFIRMED with the accessories.
MODIFICATION in the penalty, reducing Suzukis penlty to reclusion
perpetua and fined One Million Pesos. ISSUE: THE APPELLANT QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF
THE BY-BUST OPERATION, WON IT COMPLIED WITH THE
PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 21 R.A. 9165.
PEOPLE VS COLLADO
G.R. NO. 18861, JUNE 16, 2010
FACTS: (4 CASES)
-appellants Marcelino Collado (Marcelino) and Myra Collado (Myra) were HELD:
charged with the crimes of sale of dangerous drugs and maintenance of a Chain of Custody
den, dive or resort in violation of Sections 5 and 6 of Article II, RA 9165 Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 provides for the custody
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 13781-D and 13782-D, respectively. and disposition of the confiscated drugs, this was elaborated in Sec. 21(a),
- Marcelino was also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165.
under Section 11, Article II of the same law docketed as Criminal Case a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the
No. 13783-D drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
- On the other hand, appellants Mark Cipriano (Cipriano), Samuel Sherwin inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
Latario (Latario), Reynaldo Ranada (Ranada), together with co-accused person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
Melody Apelo (Apelo), Marwin Abache (Abache), Michael Angelo representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Sumulong (Sumulong), and Jay Madarang (Madarang), were charged with Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Section 14, Article II of required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
RA 9165, docketed as Criminal Case No. 13784-D Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
ON ARRAIGNMENT: ALL THE ACCUSED PLEADED NOT station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/ team,
GUILTY. whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure; Provided, further,
that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
DURING THE PRE-TRIAL; THE PROSECUTION: long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
The prosecution presented as witnesses PO2 Richard Noble (PO2 Noble) properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
and SPO2 Bernardo Cruz (SPO2 Cruz) who were involved in the buy-bust and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
operation that led to the arrest of the appellants.
Pursuant to the above-cited provisions, this Court has consistently ruled
PO2 NOBLE: He testified that he received an information from a civilian that the failure of the police officers to inventory and photograph the
asset that spouses Marcelino and Myra were engaged in selling shabu and confiscated items are not fatal to the prosecution’s cause, provided that the
that drug users, including out-of-school youth, were using their residence integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance were preserved, as
in Pasig City for their drug session. PO2 Noble relayed the information to in this case. Here, PO2 Noble, after apprehending Marcelino and
his superior, (P/ins Castillo), who in turn ordered the conduct of a confiscating from him the sachets of shabu, immediately placed his
markings on them. To stress, the implementing rules are clear that non-
surveillance operation. The former together with the other 2 Police
compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
authority, conducted a surveillance on the couple’s residence and after integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
confirming the reported activities, they preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
looked for an asset who could introduce them to Marcelino and Myra in
the ensuing buy-bust operation. Thereafter after coordinating with the As with regards to Reynaldo Ranada, who was convicted of illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia, the court re-examine the findings of both
35
the RTC and CA.

We find that the CA erred in convicting Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache, When the police team questioned accused-appellant Maongco as to the
Sumulong and Madarang as accessories. "[I]llegal possession of other " bulto " of shabu Carpio had ordered, accussed-appellant disclosed
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous that the same was in the possession of accused-appellant Bandali, who was
drugs during parties, social gatherings or meetings under Section 14 of then at Jollibee Pantranco branch along Quezon Avenue. The police team,
R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of malum prohibitum, that is, the act is made with Carpio and accused-appellant Maongco, went to the said restaurant
wrong or evil because there is a law prohibiting it. Since violation of where accused-appellant Maongco identified accused-appellant Bandali to
Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of mala prohibita, the degree of the police team as the one wearing a blue shirt. PO2 Ong approached
participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the accused-appellant Bandali and demanded from the latter the other half of
prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. There is no principal or the drugs ordered. Accused-appellant Bandali voluntarily handed over a
accomplice or accessory to consider. In short, the degree of participation sachet of shabu to PO2 Ong. Thereafter, PO2 Ong apprised accused-
of the offenders does not affect their liability, and the penalty on all of appellant Bandali of his constitutional rights and arrested him.
them are the same whether they are principals or merely accomplices or
accessories.44 The police team first brought accused-appellants to the East Avenue
At any rate, this Court is convinced that only Ranada should be held liable Medical Center for medical examination to prove that accused-appellants
for violation of Section 14 of RA 9165. It is clear that it was only Ranada sustained no physical injuries during their apprehension. Afterwards, the
who was caught having in his possession an aluminum foil intended for police team brought accused-appellants to the police station in Navotas
using dangerous drugs.45 As to the other co-accused, namely Apelo, City. At the police station, PO1 Arugay marked the sachet of shabu from
Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong, not one drug accused-appellant Maongco with the initials "MMY," while PO2 Ong
marked the sachet of shabu from accused-appellant Bandali with the
paraphernalia was found in their possession. The police officers were only
initials "PBS." PO1 Arugay and PO2 Ong turned over the two sachets of
able to find the other drug paraphernalia scattered on top of a table. It is shabu to the custody of PO1 Del Fierro and SPO1 Sugui. The sachets of
already established that there was no conspiracy between Ranada and the shabu were then inventoried, photographed in the presence of accused-
other co-accused. As the CA correctly held, mere presence at the scene of appellants, and submitted for laboratory examination.
the crime does not imply conspiracy. P/Insp. Calabocal received the sachets of shabu for chemical analysis.
P/Insp. Calabocal’s examination revealed that the contents of the sachets
marked "MMY" and "PBS" weighed 4.50 grams and 4.45 grams,
respectively, and both tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The February 28,
When the defense’s turn to present evidence came, the accused-appellants
2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02626 took the witness stand.18 Accused-appellants asserted that they did not
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellants Mark Cipriano know each other prior to their arrests and they were illegally arrested,
and Samuel Sherwin Latario, including co-accused Melody Apelo, extorted for money, physically beaten, and framed-up by the police.
Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo Sumulong, and Jay Madarang are
hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section 14, Article II RTC: FOUND THEM GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
OF ILLEGALLY SELLING SHABU PENALIZED UNDER ART. II,
of Republic Act No. 9165. They are ordered released unless they are
SECTION 5 OF R.A. 9165.
being lawfully held for some other cause.
ISSUE: WON THE PROSECUTION WAS UNABLE TO SHOW
THAT THE INTEGRITY AND THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF
PEOPLE VS MAONGCO THE SEIZED SHABU HAD BEEN PRESERVED IN
G.R. No. 196966 October 23, 2013 ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 21(A) OF THE IMPLEMENTING
FACTS: Accused-appellants were separately charged for illegally RULES OF REPUBLIC ACT. NO. 9165.
dispensing, delivering, transporting, distributing, or acting as brokers of
dangerous drugs under the following information. HELD:
The appeal is partly meritorious.
On the first criminal case: MICHAEL MAONGCO was charged for In the case of accused-appellant Maongco, the Court finds that the RTC
willfully and unlawfully dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as and the Court of Appeals both erred in convicting him in Criminal Case
broker in the said transaction, four point fifty (4.50) grams of
No. Q-04-127731 for the illegal sale of shabu under Article II, Section 5 of
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.3 Hence, violating
Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of Republic Act No. 9165. The evidence on record does not support accused-
2002), appellant Maongco’s conviction for said crime, especially considering the
following answers of prosecution witness PO1 Arugay during the latter’s
On the 2nd criminal case: PHANS BANDALI y SIMPAL was charged for cross-examination, practically admitting the lack of consideration/payment
violating the same section of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs for the sachet of shabu.
Act of 2002) and there willfully and unlawfully dispense, deliver,
transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, four point
forty-five (4.45) grams of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.
Inarguably, consideration/payment is one of the essential elements of
On arraignment both the accused pleaded not guilty. illegal sale of dangerous drugs, without which, accused-appellant
Maongco’s conviction for said crime cannot stand. Nonetheless, accused-
DURING THE TRIAL: appellant Maongco is still not absolved of criminal liability.
Based on a tip from a confidential informant, the Station Anti-Illegal A review of the Information in Criminal Case No. Q-04-127731 readily
Drugs of the Navotas City Police conducted a special operation on June reveals that accused-appellant Maongco was not actually charged with
18, 2004, which resulted in the arrest of a certain Alvin Carpio (Carpio) illegal sale of shabu. Said Information specifically alleged that accused-
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and seizure from Carpio’s appellant Maongco "willfully and unlawfully dispensed, delivered,
possession of 15 heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu . When transported, distributed or acted as broker" in the transaction involving
questioned by the police, Carpio admitted that the shabu came from 4.50 grams of shabu. These acts are likewise punishable under Article II,
accused-appellant Maongco. Consequently, the police planned an Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
operation to apprehend accused-appellant Maongco and formed a team for SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
this purpose. Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
after coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Chemicals. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and
a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
the police team was briefed about the operation. The police team allowed
(₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall
Carpio to talk to accused-appellant Maongco on the cellphone to arrange be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law,
for a sale transaction of shabu. At around 10:30 in the morning, the police shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
team, accompanied and guided by Carpio, proceeded to the vicinity of another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
Quezon corner Roces Avenues in Quezon City frequented by accused- dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium
appellant Maongco. PO2 Arugay alighted from the taxi and approached poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall
accused-appellant Maongco and introduced himself to the appellant that he act as a broker in any of such transactions
is the cousin of Carpio and claimed that the latter was sick so he could not
As for the illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, it must be proven that (1)
be there personally, then he asked from accused-appellant Maongco for the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another,
Carpio’s order of " dalawang bulto." Accused-appellant Maongco drew personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not
out from his pocket a sachet of shabu and showed it to PO2 Arugay. When authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery.
PO2 Arugay got hold of the sachet of shabu , he immediately revealed that Worthy of note is that the delivery may be committed even without
he was a police officer, arrested accused-appellant Maongco, and apprised consideration.
the latter of his constitutional rights.
It is not disputed that accused-appellant Maongco, who was working as a
taxi driver at the time of his arrest,26 had no authority under the law to
deliver any dangerous drug. The existence of the 2 other elements were
36
likewise established. marking may be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of
arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of the accused and that what
There was a prior arrangement between Carpio and accused-appellant is of utmost importance is the preservation of its integrity and evidentiary
Maongco. When PO1 Arugay appeared for his purportedly indisposed value.
cousin, Carpio, and asked for his order of shabu, accused-appellant
Maongco immediately understood what PO1 Arugay meant. Accused- WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision Is AFFIRMED with
appellant Maongco took out a sachet of shabu from his pocket and handed MODIFICATIONS to read as follows:
over possession of said sachet to PO1 Arugay. 1. In Criminal Case No. Q-04-127731, accused-appellant MICHAEL
Based on the charges against accused-appellant Maongco and the evidence YUMONDA MAONGCO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
presented by the prosecution, accused-appellant Maongco is guilty beyond of illegal delivery of shabu penalized under Article II, Section 5 of
reasonable doubt of illegal delivery of shabu under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, and is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and
Republic Act No. 9165. ordered to pay a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00);
and
WITH REGARDS TO BANDALI: the RTC and the Court of Appeals 2. In Criminal Case No. Q-04-127732, accused-appellant PHANS SIMP
also erred in convicting the latter. AL BAND ALI is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possession of shabu with a net weight of 4.45 grams, penalized under
The Information against accused-appellant Bandali, same as that against Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, and is sentenced to suffer
accused-appellant Maongco, charged him with "willfully and unlawfully the penalty of IMPRISONMENT of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as
dispensing, delivering, transporting, distributing or acting as broker" in the the minimum term, to twenty (20) years, as the maximum term, and
ordered to pay a FINE of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00).
transaction involving 4.45 grams of shabu . However, unlike accused-
SO ORDERED.
appellant Maongco, accused-appellant Bandali cannot be convicted for
illegal delivery of shabu under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9165, given that the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the latter were PEOPLE VS JAY MONTEVIRGEN
radically different from those of the former. G.R. NO. 189840 DEC. 11, 2013

FACTS: (2 CHARGES)
1ST CHARGE: That the appellant Montevirgen willfully, unlawfully and
In accused-appellant Bandali’s case, it cannot be said that he knowingly feloniously sell distribute and transport, weighing zero point zero four
passed on the sachet of shabu in his possession to PO2 Ong. PO2 Ong (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), which is a
approached accused-appellant Bandali as a police officer, absent any dangerous drug,
pretense, and demanded that the latter bring out the other sachet of shabu. 2nd CHARGE: That the appellant not lawfully authorized to possess or
Accused-appellant Bandali’s voluntary production of the sachet of shabu otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license
in his possession was in subservience to PO2 Ong’s authority. PO2 Ong or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
then acquired the sachet of shabu from accused-appellant Bandali by have in his possession, direct custody and control weighing zero point zero
seizure, not by delivery. Even if there may be doubt as to whether or not four (0.04) gram and zero point ten (0.10) gram or [a] total weight of zero
accused-appellant Bandali was actually aware at that moment that PO2 point fourteen (0.14) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu),
Ong was a police officer, the ambiguity would still be resolved in accused- which is a dangerous drug,
appellant Bandali’s favor.
On arraignment the appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY.
This does not mean though that accused-appellant Bandali goes scot-free.
The evidence for the prosecution did establish that accused-appellant VERSION OF PROSECUTION:
Bandali committed illegal possession of dangerous drugs, penalized under P/Supt. Marietto Valerio (P/Supt. Valerio) of the Makati City Police
Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force received a report
from a confidential informant that appellant was selling shabu in Malvar
For the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the Street, Barangay South Cembo, Makati City. Thus a team was
following essential elements must be proven, namely: (1) the accused is in immediately formed composed of police officers and personnel of the
possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) to conduct a buy-bust
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely
and consciously possess the said drug.30 operation against appellant. PO3 Ruiz was designated as poseur-buyer and
But can accused-appellant Bandali be convicted for illegal possession of was provided with two 100-peso bills marked money. PO1 Marmonejo, on
dangerous drugs under Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 the other hand, coordinated the operation with PDEA which issued a
when he was charged with illegal dispensation, delivery, transportation, Certificate of Coordination.6 The buy-bust team then proceeded to the
distribution or acting as broker of dangerous drugs under Article II, subject area but could not locate appellant. The buy-bust team returned to
Section 5 of the same statute? YES! Malvar Street and found appellant talking to three men. After these men
departed, PO3 Ruiz, accompanied by the confidential informant,
Rule 120, Section 4 of the Rules of Court governs situations where there is
a variance between the crime charged and the crime proved, to wit: approached appellant. The confidential informant introduced PO3 Ruiz to
Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and appellant and told him that PO3 Ruiz wanted to buy shabu. Appellant
proof. – When there is variance between the offense charged in asked PO3 Ruiz how much he wanted to buy and he replied, ₱200.00.
the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense Appellant pulled out from his pocket three plastic sachets containing white
as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense crystalline substance and told PO3 Ruiz to choose one. He complied and
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved gave the marked money to appellant as payment. Appellant pocketed the
which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense
remaining plastic sachets together with the marked money. PO3 Ruiz then
charged which is included in the offense proved.
took off his cap – the pre-arranged signal that the transaction had been
Well-settled in jurisprudence that the crime of illegal sale of dangerous consummated. The other buy-bust team members then rushed to the scene
drugs necessarily includes the crime of illegal possession of dangerous to assist PO3 Ruiz in apprehending appellant. The two other plastic
drugs. The same ruling may also be applied to the other acts penalized sachets and marked money were recovered from appellant after PO3 Ruiz
under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 because for the ordered him to empty his pockets. PO3 Ruiz then marked the plastic
accused to be able to trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to sachets.
another, distribute, dispatch in transit, or transport any dangerous drug, he
must necessarily be in possession of said drugs.

At the outset of the trial, both parties had admitted the laboratory results Appellant was taken to the police headquarters where he was booked and
the incident recorded in the police blotter. The items seized from him were
showing that the contents of the two sachets tested positive for shabu,
turned over to the duty investigator who prepared a request for laboratory
although accused-appellants contest the identity and integrity of the examination and then sent to the crime laboratory. The results revealed
sachets and contents actually tested since the chain of custody of the same that the contents of the plastic sachets are positive for shabu.
was not satisfactorily established in accordance with Republic Act No.
9165 and its implementing rules. RTC: FOUND GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ON BOTH
CRIMINAL CASES.
CA: ON APPEAL CONCURRED WITH THE RTC’S FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSION AND CONSEQUENTLY AFFIRMED ITS JUDGMENT.
The Court disagrees with accused-appellants as the police officers had
substantially complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21(a) CONTENTION OF APPELLANT: Appellant contends that the police
of the Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court had officers involved in the buy-bust operation failed to observe the proper
previously held that in dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police procedure in the custody and control of the seized drug by not marking the
officers to make a physical inventory, to photograph, and to mark the confiscated specimens in the manner mandated by law. He claims that the
seized drugs at the place of arrest do not render said drugs inadmissible in arresting team did not immediately conduct a physical inventory of the
evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of seized items and photograph the same in the presence of his representative
the same.34 The Court had further clarified, in relation to the requirement or counsel, representative from media, Department of Justice, and any
of marking the drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," that the elected public officials pursuant to Section 21 of the Implementing Rules
37
and Regulations of RA 9165. He also argues that the Certificate of 744 Phil. 816 (October 1, 2014)
Coordination has no weight in evidence and cannot be used to prove the
legitimacy of the buy-bust operation since it was issued for the failed Leonen, J.
entrapment operation the previous day, July 18, 2005.

ISSUE: WON THE PROSECUTION HAS SUFFICIENTLY

ESTABLISHED ALL THE ELLEMENTS OF ILLEGAL SALE AND
Strict obedience with the chain of custody rule is mandatory unless there
POSSESSION OF SHABU AGAINST THE APPELLANTAND WON
is a justifiable ground not to comply with it
THE POLICE OFFICERS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS ON R.A. 9165
REGARDING PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND PHOOTOGRAPH
OF THE SEIZED ITEMS. FACTS: As alleged by the prosecution, Gary dela Cruz (accused-
appellant) was arrested in a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust operation
was allegedly conducted after a civilian informant (the informant) tipped
the Zamboanga City Police Office that a certain “Gary” was selling illegal
HELD:
drugs at the parking area for buses behind Food Mart, Governor Lim
In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, under Section 5, Article
II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proved: "(1) the identity of Street, Sangali, Bunguioa, Zamboanga City (the target area). The buy-bust
the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the operation team included PO1 Wilfredo Bobon, as poseur-buyer, and SPO1
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material Roberto Roca, as back-up arresting officer. It was agreed that “PO1 Bobon
in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the would remove his bull cap once the sale of illegal drugs was
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in [consummated].” The buy-bust team prepared a marked Php100.00. Then
court of the corpus delicti"17 or the illicit drug in evidence. On the other operation team, accompanied by the informant, went to the target area.
hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under
Section 11, Article II of the same law, the following elements must The informant initially brokered the sale of shabu. It was PO1 Bobon who
concur: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is handed the marked money to dela Cruz in exchange for 1 heat-sealed
identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by plastic sachet of suspected shabu. After which, he removed his bull cap.
law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.18 SPO1 Roca then arrested dela Cruz.
In this case, all the elements for the illegal sale of shabu were established.
PO3 Ruiz, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the person
he caught in flagrante delicto selling a white crystalline substance believed
to be shabu in the entrapment operation conducted by the police and
Upon frisking dela Cruz, PO1 Bobon supposedly recovered 6
MADAC operatives. Upon receipt of the ₱200.00 buy-bust money,
appellant handed to PO3 Ruiz the sachet containing 0.04 gram of white more heat-sealed sachets of suspected shabu. PO1 Bobon placed the sachet
crystalline substance which later tested positive for shabu. "The delivery he purchased from dela Cruz in his right pocket and the 6 other sachets in
of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the his left pocket. SPO1 Roca recovered the marked bill. Dela Cruz and the 7
marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. sachets seized from him were then brought to the Zamboanga City Police
Station. There, PO1 Bobon marked the sachet from his right pocket with
All the elements in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous his initials, “WB.” He marked the sachets from his left pocket as “WB-1,”
drugs were also established. First, the two plastic sachets containing shabu
to “WB-6.”
subject of the case for the illegal possession of drugs were found in
appellant’s pocket after a search on his person was made following his
arrest in flagrante delicto for the illegal sale of shabu. It must be
remembered that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an On the same day, the 7 sachets were turned over to SPO1
offense without a warrant.20 Second, appellant did not adduce evidence Federico Lindo, Jr., the investigating officer, who prepared the request for
showing his legal authority to possess the shabu. Third, appellant’s act of laboratory examination. Subsequently, the tests yielded positive results for
allowing the poseur-buyer to choose one from among the three sachets and shabu.
putting back into his pocket the two sachets of shabu not chosen clearly
shows that he freely and consciously possessed the illegal drugs. Hence,
appellant was correctly charged and convicted for illegal possession of
shabu.
, the absence of evidence that the buy-bust team made an inventory and During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses PO1
took photographs of the drugs seized from appellant was not fatal since the Bobon, SPO1 Roca, and forensic chemist Police Inspector Melvin L.
prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the Manuel. The sole witness presented for the defense was dela Cruz himself.
shabu. PO3 Ruiz, the poseur-buyer and apprehending officer, marked the For his part, dela Cruz acknowledged that on the morning of
seized items in front of appellant, the barangay captain and other members
September 14, 2004, he was in the target area. As he was leaving the
of the buy-bust team, immediately after the consummation of the drug
transaction. He then delivered the seized items to the duty investigator, comfort room, someone embraced him from behind, while another poked a
who in turn sent the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination gun at him. He was then handcuffed and brought to an L-300 van which
on the same day. During trial, PO3 Ruiz was able to identify the said was parked in front of Food Mart. Inside the van, he was asked if he was
markings and explain how they were made. Jing-Jong, alias Jong-Jong. Despite his denials, he was brought to the
police station. It was when he was already detained that he learned that he
Clearly, there was no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation, handling, was charged for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
custody and examination of the shabu.1âwphi1 The illegal drugs that were 2002.
confiscated from appellant, taken to the police headquarters, subjected to
qualitative examination at the crime laboratory, and finally introduced in
evidence against appellant were the same illegal drugs that were
confiscated from him when he was caught in flagrante delicto selling and BACKDROP IN COURTS:
possessing the same.
RTC, Zamboanga City – convicted dela Cruz for violating Article II,
Section 5 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Appellant was found guilty of selling one sachet containing 0.04 gram of Precursors and Essential Chemicals) and Section 11 (Possession of
shabu and of possessing two other sachets of the same substance with a
Dangerous Drugs).
total weight of 0.14 gram. Hence, applying the above provisions, the
penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum
to twenty (20) years as maximum and the payment of fine of ₱300,000.00 CA – decision affirming dela Cruz’ conviction in toto. Thereafter, dela
imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA are also proper. Cruz filed his notice of appeal.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated

July 31, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03208
affirming the conviction of Jay Montevirgen y Ozaraga by the Regional ISSUE/s: WON THE ACCUSES-APPELLANT SHOULD BE
Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65, for violation of Sections 5 and 11, ACQUITTED.
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED.

HELD: YES. In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs,

People of the Philippines vs. Dela Cruz the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the
transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the
38
corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. Moreover, PO1 Bobon did so without even offering the
slightest justification for dispensing with the requirements of Section
On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a 21. Section 21, paragraph 1, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of 2002, includes a proviso to the effect that “noncompliance of (sic) these
of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
(2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be and custody over said items.” Plainly, the prosecution has not shown that –
established beyond reasonable doubt. on September 14, 2004, when dela Cruz was arrested and the sachets
supposedly seized and marked – there were “justifiable grounds” for
With respect to the element of corpus delicti, Section 21 of the
dispensing with compliance with Section 21. All that the prosecution has
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by Republic
done is insist on its self-serving assertion that the integrity of the seized
Act No. 10640 provides for the custody and disposition of confiscated,
sachets has, despite all its lapses, nevertheless been preserved.
seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Particularly on
the matter of custody before a criminal case is filed, Section 21, as [Also,] the miniscule amount of narcotics supposedly seized
amended, provides: from dela Cruz amplifies the doubts on their integrity. In total, the
“SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or seven (7) sachets supposedly contained all of 0.1405 gram of shabu. This
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, quantity is so miniscule it amounts to little more than 7% of the weight of
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a one-centavo coin (2.0 grams).
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, Final Ruling: the decision dated May 31, 2012 of the Court of Appeals
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00869-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory Accused-appellant Garry dela Cruz y de Guzman is hereby
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
disposition in the following manner: reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical PEOPLE VS SUMILI,
inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the G.R. NO. 200748, JULY 23, 2014
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were FACTS: On June 30, 2006, an Information6 was filed before the RTC
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with charging Sumili of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for willfully,
an elected public official and a representative of the National unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) sachet of Methamphetamine
Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug commonly known as Shabu.
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That
the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the According to the prosecution, on June 7, 2006, the Philippine Drug
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police Enforcement Agency Iligan City Sub-Office received a report from a
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, confidential informant that Sumili was selling shabu. After making their
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, plan and formed a team. The buy-bust team headed to the target area.
finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable Upon arrival, the poseur-buyer approached Sumili’s house to buy shabu.
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the After Sumili let the poseur-buyer in, the latter gave the pre-arranged signal
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending that the sale has been consummated. Almost immediately, the buy-bust
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and team stormed the house but Sumili escaped by jumping through the
custody over said items. window, throwing the marked money at the roof beside his house. The
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of poseur-buyer turned over the sachet of suspected shabu to SPO2
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled Englatiera, who marked the same with “DC-1,” representing the initials of
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as SPO2 Cabahug.9SPO2 Englatiera then prepared a request for laboratory
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same examination and instructed Non-Uniform Personnel CarlitoOng (NUP
shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative Ong) to bring the sachet together with the request to the PNP Crime
and quantitative examination; Laboratory for examination. However, NUP Ong failed to do so on the
same day as the PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed.10 It was only
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination on June 9, 2006, or two (2) days after the buy-bust operation, that NUP
results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, Ong was able to bring and turn-over the seized sachet to the PNP Crime
shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Laboratory.11 Upon examination, it was confirmed that said sachet
Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of contained 0.32 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals
does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a RTC: FOUND SUMILI GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued CA: AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE RTC.
stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined
by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final
certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said ISSUE: WON THE IDENTITY OF THE PROHIBITED DRUGS
examination and certification; HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY PROOF BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
The significance of complying with Section 21’s requirements
cannot be overemphasized. Non-compliance is tantamount to failure in HELD:
establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the In order to convict an accused for violation of RA 9165, or the crime of
offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the concurrence of
failing to establish an element of these offenses, non-compliance will, the following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
thus, engender the acquittal of an accused. object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment.24Note that what remains material for conviction is the proof that
As [emphasized in People vs.]Holgado xxx, “[e]ven the the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before
doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not the court of the corpus delicti.25 It is also important that the integrity and
actually comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice.” evidentiary value of the seized items be preserved. Simply put, the
In People vs. Garcia, this court noted that the mere marking of seized dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against an accused must be
paraphernalia, unsupported by a physical inventory and taking of the same as that seized from him. The chain of custody requirement
photographs, and in the absence of the persons required by Section 21 to removes any unnecessary doubts regarding the identity of the evidence.
be present, does not suffice.

In this case, the Regional Trial Court acknowledged that no After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds that the prosecution
physical inventory of the seized items was conducted. Similarly, there is failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated from
nothing in the records to show that the seized items were photographed in Sumili due to unjustified gaps in the chain of custody, thus, militating
the manner required by Section 21. Likewise, none of the persons required
against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
by Section 21 to be present (or their possible substitutes) have been shown
to be present.

The circumstance of PO1 Bobon keeping narcotics in his own

pockets precisely underscores the importance of strictly complying with To justify the delay in the turn-over of the corpus delicti, SPO2 Englatiera
Section 21. His subsequent identification in open court of the items and NUP Ong insist that the PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed on
coming out of his own pockets is self-serving. xxx. Keeping one of the
June 7, 2006, and since it was a Friday, the delivery of the seized sachet
seized items in his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful
and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items. Contrary to the was only done on June 9, 2006. However, contrary to their claims, June 7,
Court of Appeals’ finding that PO1 Bobon took the necessary precautions, 2006 is not a Friday, but a Wednesday.34 Thus, if the PNP Crime
we find his actions reckless, if not dubious. Laboratory was indeed closed on June 7, 2006, the delivery of the seized
sachet could have easily been done on the next day, or on June 8, 2006,
39
instead of doing it two (2) days after the buy-bust operation. This glaring As to whether accused-appellant’s guilt was established beyond reasonable
fact, coupled with the absence in the records as to who among the doubt, we rule in the affirmative.
apprehending officers had actual custody of the seized sachet from the
In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly
time it was prepared for turn-over until its delivery to the PNP Crime
established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal
Laboratory, presents a substantial and unexplained gap in the chain of sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article
custody of the alleged shabu seized from Sumili. Undoubtedly, the II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
compromised. sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller
successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material,
therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with
the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.
It must be emphasized that in criminal prosecutions involving illegal
drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of
Verily, all the elements for a conviction of illegal sale of dangerous or
the crime calls for the necessity of proving with moral certainty that they
are the same seized items.35 Failing in which, the acquittal of the accused prohibited drugs were proven by the prosecution: the identity of accused-
on the ground of reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right,36 as in this appellant as the seller, and that of the confidential informant as poseur-
case. buyer were established, as well as the exchange of the sachet of shabu and
the marked money. It was also ascertained that the seized item was
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January positive for shabu, a dangerous drug, and that the same item was properly
29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01075 is hereby identified in open court by SPO4 Larot. Moreover, the ₱100.00 bill with
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accordingly, accused-appellant serial number YZ712579, or the subject marked money, as well as the
Dennis Sumili is ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section 5, living body of the accused-appellant revealed a positive result for
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. ultraviolet fluorescent powder.

Indeed, as we held in People v. Torres,20 equally important in every

PEOPLE VS ROSAURO prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs is the
G.R. NO. 209588 FEB. 18, 2015 presentation of evidence of the seized drug as the corpus delicti. The
FACTS: accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of identity of the prohibited drug must be proved with moral certainty. It
R. A. No. 9165, for , willfully and feloniously, did then and there, sell and must also be established with the same degree of certitude that the
convey to a third person, who acted as a decoy in a buy bust operation, one substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item
(1) sachet of shabu, containing 0.04 grams (sic) of shabu, which when offered in court as exhibit. In this regard, paragraph 1, Section 21, Article
examined gave POSITIVE result to test for the presence of II of R. A. No. 9165 (the chain of custody rule) provides for safeguards for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug. the protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized.
Upon re-arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime However, this Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of
charged. Thereafter, pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued. custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is "almost always impossible
Accused-appellant Eric Rosauro (Rosauro for brevity) was selling and to obtain an unbroken chain." The most important factor is the
distributing drugs, the Provincial Drug Enforcement Unit of Misamis preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
Oriental conducted a test-buy operation in the Municipality of Villanueva, as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Misamis Oriental using a confidential agent. The confidential agent bought Hence, the prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the physical
shabu from Rosauro at Purok 2, Barangay Katipunan, Villanueva, Misamis inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21
Oriental. The substance bought from Rosauro was examined by the PNP of R. A. No. 9165, will not render the accused’s arrest illegal or the items
crime laboratory and yielded a positive result for Methamphetamine seized from him inadmissible.
Hydrochloride (commonly known as shabu).
In the case at bar, after the sale was consummated, the confidential
The police authorities received information that again drugs were being informant gave the seized item to SPO4 Larot who placed tape on the
distributed at Purok 3, Barangay Poblacion, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. sachet and marked it "Exhibit A." Upon reaching the police station, SPO4
Thus, at 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon, the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Larot executed the Certificate of Inventory, as well as the request for
Special Operation Task Unit (PAID-SOTU) elements led by SPO4 laboratory examination. The request, the specimen, as well as the marked
Lorenzo Larot and PO3 Juancho Dizon positioned themselves in the house money and accused-appellant were then brought to the PNP Crime
of their confidential agent. Laboratory for examination. They were received. by SPO2 Ricardo
Maisog, the Receiving Clerk of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office, who
then forwarded them to Police Inspector Ma. Leocy Jabonillo Mag-abo,
the Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory.23 Moreover,
There, the PAID-SOTU elements saw Rosauro negotiate with the
the seized item was duly identified by SPO4 Larot in open court as the
confidential agent. In exchange for the one (1) sachet of shabu given by
Rosauro to the confidential agent, the latter gave him a marked 100-peso same item seized from accused-appellant.
bill with serial number YZ7 12579.

After the transaction, Larot and Dizon came out of their hiding place and JAIME DELA CRUZ VS PEOPLE
arrested Rosauro. Thereafter, the confidential agent handed the sachet to G.R. NO. 200748, JULY 23, 2014
Larot, who taped it, mark edit with the marking "Exhibit A", and placed it FACTS: Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation of
inside his pocket. He also took pictures of Rosauro and the drugs. In the Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or The
police station, he prepared a Certificate of Inventory and a Request for Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, by the Graft Investigation
Laboratory Examination. Both the drugs and Rosauro were then turned and Prosecution Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman.
over to the Crime laboratory.
The evidence of the prosecution reveals that at 8:00 a.m. of 31 January
On the basis of the request made by Larot, Police Chief Inspector Ma. 2006, the agents and special investigators of the National Bureau of
Leocy Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical Officer of PNP Crime Laboratory Investigation, Central Visayas Regional Office (NBI-CEVRO) or simply
conducted a laboratory examination on the contents of the sachet, on NBI, received a Complaint from Corazon Absin (Corazon) and Charito
accused-appellant, and the marked money. The examination of the seized
Escobido (Charito). The complainants claimed that at 1:00 a.m. of that
item yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu);
while the accused-appellant and the marked money tested positive for the same day, Ariel Escobido (Ariel), the live-in partner of Corazon and son of
presence of ultra-violet fluorescent powder Charito, was picked up by several unknown male persons believed to be
police officers for allegedly selling drugs. An errand boy gave a number to
RTC: FOUND ROSAURO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE the complainants, and when the latter gave the number a ring, they were
DOUBT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION. instructed to proceed to the Gorordo Police Office located along Gorordo
CA: AFFIRMED THE RTC JUDGMENT. Avenue, Cebu City. In the said police office, they met "James" who
demanded from them ₱100,000, later lowered to ₱40,000, in exchange for
ISSUE:
1. WON THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN the release of Ariel. After the meeting, the complainants proceeded to the
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHEN HIS NBI-CEVRO to file a complaint and narrate the circumstances of the
GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE meeting to the authorities. While at the NBI-CEVRO, Charitoeven
DOUBT received calls supposedly from "James" instructing her to bring the
2. WON THE PROSECTUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE
CORPUS DELICTI AND THAT THE STATUTORY money as soon as possible.
SAFEGUARDS RPOVIDED FOR SEC. 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165
WERE COMPLIED WITH. The special investigators at the NBI-CEVRO verified the text messages
3. received by the complainants.1âwphi1 A team was immediately formed to
HELD:
40
implement an entrapment operation, which took place inside a Jollibee suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless
branch at the corner of Gen. Maxilom and Gorordo Avenues, Cebu City. are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal
The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz by using a pre-marked 500 complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they
bill dusted with fluorescent powder, which was made part of the amount beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a
demanded by "James" and handed by Corazon. Petitioner was later crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded
brought to the forensic laboratory of the NBI-CEVRO where forensic against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of
examination was done by forensic chemist Rommel Paglinawan. Petitioner being haled before the prosecutor’s office and peaceably
was required to submit his urine for drug testing. It later yielded a positive submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not
result for presence of dangerous drugs as indicated in the confirmatory test necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right
result labeled as Toxicology (DangerousDrugs) Report No. 2006-TDD- to privacy. To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is
2402 dated 16 February 2006. a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal
prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 6195. Drug
On the defense, petitioner after he was arrested, when he was at the NBI testing in this case would violate a person’s right to privacy
Office, he was required to extract urine for drug examination, but he guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse
refused saying he wanted it to be done by the Philippine National Police still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate
(PNP) Crime Laboratory and not by the NBI. His request was, however, themselves.
denied. He also requested to be allowed to call his lawyer prior to the
taking of his urine sample, to no avail.
The drug test is not covered by allowable non-testimonial compulsion.
RTC: FOUND THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT
CA AFFIRMED THE RULLING OF THE RTC
In the instant case, we fail to see howa urine sample could be material to
Petitioner filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration. He argued that the the charge of extortion.1âwphi1 The RTC and the CA, therefore, both
CA overlooked prevailing jurisprudence, which states that drug testing erred when they held that the extraction of petitioner’s urine for purposes
conducted under circumstancessimilar to his would violate a person’s right of drug testing was "merely a mechanical act, hence, falling outside the
to privacy. The appellate court nevertheless denied the motion. concept of a custodial investigation."

Petitioner thus filed the present Petition for Review on certiorari. He We note a case where a urine sample was considered as admissible. In
assigns as errors the use of hearsay evidence as basis for his conviction Gutang v. People,29 the petitioner therein and his companions were
and the questionable circumstances surrounding his arrest and drug test. arrested in connection with the enforcement of a search warrant in his
residence. A PNP-NARCOM team found and confiscated shabu materials
ISSUE: WON THE DRUG TEST CONDUCTED UPON THE and paraphernalias. The petitioner and his companions in that case were
PETITIONER IS LEGAL also asked to give urine samples, which yielded positive results. Later, the
petitioner therein was found guilty of the crime of illegal possession and
HELD: use of prohibited drugs. Gutang claimed that the latter’s urine sample was
The RTC subsequently convicted petitioner, ruling that the following inadmissible in evidence, since it was derived in effect from an
elements of Section 15 were established: (1) the accused was arrested; (2) uncounselled extrajudicial confession.
the accused was subjected to drug test; and (3) the confirmatory test shows
that he used a dangerous drug. We emphasize that the circumstances in Gutangare clearly different from
the circumstances of petitioner in the instant case.1awp++i1 First, Gutang
Disregarding petitioner’s objection regarding the admissibility of the was arrested in relation to a drug case. Second, he volunteered to give his
evidence, the lower court also reasoned that "a suspect cannot invoke his urine. Third, there were other pieces of evidence that point to his
right to counsel when he is required to extract urine because, while he is culpability for the crimes charged. In the present case, though, petitioner
already in custody, he is not compelled to make a statement or testimony was arrested for extortion; he resisted having his urine sample taken; and
against himself. Extracting urine from one’s body is merely a mechanical finally, his urine sample was the only available evidencethat was used as
act, hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation." basis for his conviction for the use of illegal drugs.

We find the ruling and reasoning of the trial court, as well as the The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and right
subsequent affirmation by the CA, erroneous on three counts. against self-incrimination.

It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and

tested for drugs. He also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He was
adamant in exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved futile,
The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested
because he was still compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under
for any unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of
those circumstances.
R.A. 9165.
Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.
First, "[a] person apprehended orarrested" cannot literally mean any
person apprehended or arrested for any crime.The phrase must be read in
context and understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) v. DANGEROUS DRUGS
comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
under Article II of the law.
GRs. 157870, 158633 and 161658
Hence, a drug test can be made upon persons who are apprehended or
arrested for, among others, the "importation,"9 "sale, trading, November 3, 2008
administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and
transportation",10"manufacture"11 and "possession"12 of dangerous drugs
Velasco Jr.,J
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession thereof
"during parties, social gatherings or meetings"13 ; being "employees and
visitors of a den, dive or resort";14 "maintenance of a den, dive or FACTS:
resort";15 "illegal chemical diversion of controlled precursors and
essential chemicals"16 ; "manufacture or delivery"17 or "possession"18 of Before the Court are 3 consolidated petitions assailing the constitutionality
equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous of Section 3610 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession of
dangerous drugs "during parties, social gatherings or meetings"19 ;
"unnecessary"20 or "unlawful"21 prescription thereof; "cultivation or 10 SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. - Authorized drug testing shall be
culture of plantsclassified as dangerous drugs or are sources thereof";22 done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing
and "maintenance and keeping of original records of transactions on laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of
dangerous drugs and/orcontrolled precursors and essential chemicals."23 the test results. x x x The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2)
To make the provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as
for any crime not listed under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding well as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a
its meaning. Note thataccused appellant here was arrested in the alleged positive screening test. x x x The following shall be subjected to undergo drug
act of extortion. testing:
xxxx
Furthermore, making the phrase "a person apprehended or arrested" in (c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. - Students of secondary and
Section 15 applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations as contained
acts, not only under R.A. 9165 but for all other crimes, is tantamount to a in the school's student handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a
mandatory drug testing of all persons apprehended or arrested for any random drug testing x x x;
crime. To overextend the application of thisprovision would run counter to (d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. - Officers and
our pronouncement in Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall
and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency,25 to wit: be subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the company's
x x x [M]andatory drug testing can never be random and work rules and regulations, x x x for purposes of reducing the risk in the
workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs
41
 2002 insofar as it requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public For another, the random drug testing shall be undertaken under conditions
office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees calculated to protect as much as possible the employee's privacy and
of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s dignity. As to the mechanics of the test, the law specifies that the
office with certain offenses. procedure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening test and the
confirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as much as possible the
trustworthiness of the results. But the more important consideration lies in
the fact that the test shall be conducted by trained professionals in access -
According to Aquilino Pimentel Jr., a senator of the RP and a candidate for controlled laboratories monitored by the Department of Health (DOH) to
re-election in May 2004 elections, said mandatory drug testing imposes an safeguard against results tampering and to ensure an accurate chain of
additional qualification for Senators beyond that which are provided by the custody. All told, therefore, the intrusion into the employees' privacy,
Constitution. No provision in the Constitution authorizes the Congress or under RA 9165, is accompanied by proper safeguards, particularly against
the COMELEC to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for embarrassing leakages of test results, and is relatively minimal.
senator.

The essence of privacy is the right to be left alone. In context, the right
Meanwhile, SJS contends that Section 36(c)(d)(f) and (g) are to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of
constitutionally infirm as it constitutes undue delegation of legislative one's person or from intrusion into one's private activities in such a way as
power when they give unbridled discretion to schools and employers to to cause humiliation to a person's ordinary sensibilities. And while there
determine the manner of drug testing. It also violates the equal protection has been general agreement as to the basic function of the guarantee
clause as it can be used to harass a student or employee deemed against unwarranted search, "translation of the abstract prohibition against
undesirable. The constitutional right against unreasonable searches is also ‘unreasonable searches and seizures' into workable broad guidelines for
breached. the decision of particular cases is a difficult task," to borrow from C.
Camara v. Municipal Court. Authorities are agreed though that the right to
privacy yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the
state's exercise of police power.
In addition to the abovementioned contentions, Atty. Manuel J. Laserna,
Jr., as a citizen and taxpayers maintains that said provision should be
struck down as unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional right to
privacy, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right The first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the nature of
against self-incrimination, and for being contrary to the due process and the privacy interest upon which the drug testing, which effects a search
equal protection guarantees. within the meaning of Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution, intrudes. Just as
defining as the first factor is the character of the intrusion authorized by
the challenged law. Reduced to a question form, is the scope of the search
or intrusion clearly set forth, or, as formulated in Ople v. Torres, is the
Issue: WON Section 36 (c), (d), (f) and (g) are unconstitutional enabling law authorizing a search "narrowly drawn" or "narrowly
focused"?

Held: Section 36 (c) and (d) are constitutional while (f) and (g) are not.
To reiterate, RA 9165 was enacted as a measure to stamp out illegal drug
in the country and thus protect the well - being of the citizens, especially
the youth, from the deleterious effects of dangerous drugs. Taking into
Ratio: account the foregoing factors, i.e., the reduced expectation of privacy on
the part of the employees, the compelling state concern likely to be met by
Section 36 (c) and (d) – as to students and employees of private and public the search, and the well - defined limits set forth in the law to properly
offices guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we hold that the
challenged drug test requirement is, under the limited context of the case,
Using US authorities, the Court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of
reasonable and, ergo, constitutional.
Section 36(c) applying the following reasonable deductions: (1) schools
and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to their
students; (2) minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult,
and are subject to the custody and supervision of their parents, guardians, Like their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and
and schools; (3) schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions
the health and well - being of their students and may adopt such measures imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws on public officers, all
as may reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty; and (4) schools enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. And if
have the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the
fair, just, and non-discriminatory. more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, by
constitutional command, are required to be accountable at all times to the
people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency.

Therefore, the provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory, random, and

suspicionless drug testing of students are constitutional. Indeed, it is within
the prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a condition for On the charge of being an undue delegation, the provision in question is
admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and not so extensively drawn as to give unbridled options to schools and
policies. To be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, employers to determine the manner of drug testing. It expressly provides
reasonable, and equitable requirements. Just as in the case of secondary how drug testing for students of secondary and tertiary schools and
and tertiary level students, the mandatory but random drug test prescribed officers/employees of public/private offices should be conducted. It
by Sec. 36 of RA 9165 for officers and employees of public and private enumerates the persons who shall undergo drug testing. In the case of
offices is justifiable, albeit not exactly for the same reason. students, the testing shall be in accordance with the school rules as
contained in the student handbook and with notice to parents. On the part
of officers/employees, the testing shall take into account the company's
work rules. In either case, the random procedure shall be observed,
meaning that the persons to be subjected to drug test shall be picked by
shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or
termination, subject to the provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and chance or in an unplanned
pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law;
xxxx way. And in all cases, safeguards against misusing and compromising the
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense confidentiality of the test results are established.
having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years
and one (1) day shall undergo a mandatory drug Section 36 (f) – as to persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with
test; criminal offenses
(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the
national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.
42
The Court found the situation entirely different in the case of persons quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his possession.
charged before the public prosecutor's office with criminal offenses
punishable with six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment. The operative
concepts in the mandatory drug testing are "randomness" and
"suspicionless." In the case of persons charged with a crime before the Petitioner argues that Section 23 of RA 9165 which prohibits plea
prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or bargaining in all violations of said law violates:
suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are
antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. 1. The intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof;
They are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion. 2. The rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5),
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; and
When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are
3. The principle of separation of powers among the three
singled out and are impleaded against their will. The persons thus charged, equal branchesof the government.
by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor's office and peaceably
submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not
necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy. ISSUES:
To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to
harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the 1. Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional as it
stated objectives of RA 9165. encroached upon the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate
rules of procedure.
2. Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for being
violative of the Constitutional right to equal protection of the law.
Drug testing in this case would violate a persons' right to privacy
HELD:
guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the
accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves.
FIRST ISSUE: YES

The Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate rules of pleading,
practice and procedure is now Their exclusive domain and no longer
Section 36 (g)- as to candidates for public office
shared with the Executive and Legislative departments.

It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the

Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The
Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall The Court further held that the separation of powers among the three co-
be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution. In the discharge of their
equal branches of our government has erected an impregnable wall that
defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice but keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure
to yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it
within the sole province of this Court.  The other branches trespass upon
imposes must be observed. this prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal,
alter or modify any of the procedural rules promulgated by the Court.

Congress' inherent legislative powers, broad as they may be, are subject to
certain limitations. Thus, legislative power remains limited in the sense
SECOND ISSUE: UNRESOLVED
that it is subject to substantive and constitutional limitations which
circumscribe both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable The Supreme Court did not resolve the issue of whether Section 23 of R.A.
subjects of legislation. The substantive constitutional limitations are No. 9165 is contrary to the constitutional right to equal protection of the
chiefly found in the Bill of Rights and other provisions, such as Sec. 3, law in order not to preempt any future discussion by the Court on the
Art. VI of the Constitution prescribing the qualifications of candidates for policy considerations behind Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165.
senators.

Pending deliberation on whether or not to adopt the statutory provision in

In the same vein, the COMELEC cannot, in the guise of enforcing and toto or a qualified version thereof, the Court deemed it proper to declare
administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to as invalid the prohibition against plea bargaining on drug cases until and
implement Sec. 36(g), validly impose qualifications on candidates for unless it is made part of the rules of procedure through an
senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. If Congress cannot administrative circularduly issued for the purpose.
require a candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification, the
COMELEC, to be sure, is also without such power. The right of a citizen
in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by
unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the PLEA BARGAINING:
Constitution.
Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure

ESTIPONA vs. LOBRIGO Fabian v. Hon. Desierto laid down the test for determining whether a rule
is substantive or procedural in nature.
G.R. No. 226679 August 15, 2017

 
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the
Section 23 of RA 9165, rule-making power of Supreme Court, equal
practice and procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies
protection clause
any substantive right, the test is whether the rule really regulates
procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties
FACTS:
recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and
redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested
Petitioner Estipona, Jr. was charged with violation of Section 11 of RA
right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to
9165.
appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a
means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with
procedure.
On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter
into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea
and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12 (NOTE:
In several occasions, We dismissed the argument that a procedural rule
should have been Section 15?) of the same law, with a penalty of
violates substantive rights. By the same token, it is towards the provision
rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time offender and the minimal
of a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases in all courts that the rules on plea bargaining was introduced. As a
43
way of disposing criminal charges by agreement of the parties, plea
bargaining is considered to be an “important,” “essential,” “highly
desirable,” and “legitimate” component of the administration of justice.

In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as “a process

whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory
disposition of the case subject to court approval.” There is give-and-take
negotiation common in plea bargaining.  The essence of the agreement is
that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid
potential losses. Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be
encouraged because the chief virtues of the system – speed, economy, and
finality – can benefit the accused, the offended party, the prosecution, and
the court.

Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea

bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right.Instead,
it operates as a means to implement an existing right by regulating the
judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive
law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or
infraction of them.

No constitutional right to plea bargain

Yet a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No basic rights

are infringed by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the
prosecutor need not do so if he prefers to go to trial.  Under the present
Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right
but depends on the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, which
is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is
necessarily included in the offense charged.  The reason for this is that the
prosecutor has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his duty
is to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one,
based on what the evidence on hand can sustain.

Plea bargaining, when allowed

Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the pre-trial, or even up

to the point when the prosecution already rested its case.

As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, the trial court’s

exercise of discretion should not amount to a grave abuse thereof.

If the accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense subsequent to a

bail hearing or after the prosecution rested its case, the rules allow such
a plea only when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to
establish the guilt of the crime charged. The only basis on which the
prosecutor and the court could rightfully act in allowing change in the
former plea of not guilty could be nothing more and nothing less than the
evidence on record. The ruling on the motion must disclose the strength or
weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. Absent any finding on the weight
of the evidence on hand, the judge’s acceptance of the defendant’s change
of plea is improper and irregular.

44