You are on page 1of 6

11- Office of the Provincial Prosecutor vs CA

G.R. No. 125796, Promulgated: December 27, 2000

LEGAL BASIS:
The fact is that the Revised Penal Code treats rebellion or insurrection as a crime distinct from murder, homicide, arson, or other felonies
that might conceivably be committed in the course of rebellion. It is the Code, therefore, in relation to the evidence in the hands of the
public prosecutor, and not the latter’s whim or caprice, which gives the choice. The Code allows, for example, separate prosecutions for
either murder or rebellion, although not for both where the indictment alleges that the former has been committed in furtherance of or in
connection with the latter.

In deciding if the crime is rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act was done in
furtherance of a political end. The political motive of the act should be conclusively demonstrated.

In such cases the burden of demonstrating political motive falls on the defense, motive, being a state of mind which the accused better
than any individual knows.
Its not enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime. With
either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally does not exist.

If an NPA fighter (terrorist, according to the military lexicon) commits homicide, murder, arson, robbery, illegal possession of firearms
and ammunition in furtherance or on the occasion of his revolutionary pursuit, the only crime he has committed is rebellion because all
those common crimes are absorbed in the latter one pursuant to the ruling in People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 and several subsequent
cases.
Those accused of common crimes can then show proof that the crime with which they were charged is really rebellion.

ISSUE:
Weather or not the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor erred in charging the private respondent for the Crime of Murder with frustrated
murder instead of rebellion based on the affidavit of the accused.

APPLICATION:
A joint affidavit executed by five individuals, who claim to be former members of the New People’s Army (NPA), affiants stated that on
May 1, 1988, their group, which included private respondents, figured in an armed encounter with elements of the Philippine Army in
Campo Uno, Femagas, Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte, as a result of which one solider, Cpl. Alfredo de la Cruz, was killed while four
others were seriously wounded. Although private respondents did not appear nor submit affidavits in the preliminary investigation, they
appealed the resolution of the provincial prosecutor to the Secretary of Justice accusing them of murder and multiple frustrated murder,
the provincial prosecutor disregarded the political motivation which made the crime committed rebellion.

12- RUZOL vs.THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
G.R. Nos. 186739-960 April 17, 2013

LEGAL BASIS:
It is settled that an accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and that to overcome the presumption,
nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that Ruzol possessed that "criminal mind" when he issued the subject permits. What is clear from the records is that
Ruzol, as municipal mayor, intended to regulate and monitor salvaged forest products within General Nakar in order to avert the
occurrence of illegal logging in the area. We emphasize that the burden of protecting the environment is placed not on the shoulders of
DENR alone––each and every one of us, whether in an official or private capacity, has his or her significant role to play. In that
compliance with statutory requirements for the issuance of permits to transport foregoes the necessity of obtaining the Wood Recovery
Permit from the DENR. The permits to transport may be issued to complement, and not substitute, the Wood Recovery Permit, and may
be used only as an additional measure in the regulation of salvaged forest products. To elucidate, a person seeking to transport salvaged
forest products still has to acquire a Wood Recovery Permit from the DENR as a prerequisite before obtaining the corresponding permit
to transport issued by the LGU.

ISSUE:
Weather Mayor Ruzol guilty of Art 177 of RPC for Usurpation of Official Function when he issued a permit of Transport?

APPLICATION:
Ruzol was the mayor of General Nakar, Quezon earlier in his term, he organized a Multi-Sectoral Consultative Assembly composed of
civil society groups, public officials and concerned stakeholders with the end in view of regulating and monitoring the transportation of
salvaged forest products within the vicinity of General Nakar and subsequently the participants agreed that to regulate the salvaged
forests products, the Office of the Mayor, through Ruzol, shall issue a permit to transport after payment of the corresponding fees to the
municipal treasurer.

13- Union Bank of the Philippines vs People


G.R. No. 192565 February 28, 2012

LEGAL BASIS:
Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be
instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case.

Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC for making a false Certificate against Forum Shopping. The
elements of perjury under Article 183 are:
(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or 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 the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.
Certificate against Forum Shopping to be under oath before a notary public, were also sufficiently alleged in the Information to have
been made in Makati City,

ISSUE:
Whether, in a crime of perjury, the proper venue is where it was notarized or where it was used.
.
APPLICATION:

Desi Tomas was charged in court for perjury when she falsely declared under oath in the Certificate against Forum Shopping. Tomas
filed a motion to quash citing that the Makati MTC has no jurisdiction as the document was submitted and used in Pasay and that there
was no crime committed as not all of the elements of perjury was present. The lower courts denied the motion saying that Makati has
jurisdiction as it was notarized there and ruled that she was sufficiently charged with perjury.

14- DAAN vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN


G.R. Nos. 163972-77 March 28, 2008

LEGAL BASIS:
Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of
the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the
counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge. Thus, the Court has held that it is
immaterial that plea-bargaining was not made during the pre-trial stage or that it was made only after the prosecution already
presented several witnesses. But it may also be made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has finished presenting its
evidence and rested its case. Basic requisite under Sec 2 of Rule 116 it should be with consent of the offended party and the prosecutor.
With Petitioner acquires all upon voluntary surrender.

ISSUE:
Whether or Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the plea bargaining offer.

APPLICATION:
Said accused, together with accused Benedicto E. Kuizon, were charged before this Court for three counts of malversation of public
funds. In the falsification cases, the accused offered to withdraw their plea of "not guilty" and substitute the same with a plea of "guilty",
provided, the mitigating circumstances of confession or plea of guilt and voluntary surrender will be appreciated in their favor. JOSELITO
RANIERO J. DAAN has already restituted the total amount as per official receipt issued by the provincial government of Leyte dated
February 26, 2002. Petitioner filed a Motion to Plea Bargain and subsequently denied by the Sandiganbayan.

15- TEODORO C. BORLONGAN vs. MAGDALENO M. PEA


G.R. No. 143591 November 23, 2007

LEGAL BASIS:
The elements of Introduction of Falsified Documents in a Judicial Proceeding are as follow

1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
2. That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any subdivisions No. 1 or 2 of Article 172.
3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding.45
The falsity of the document and the defendant’s knowledge of its falsity are essential elements of the offense
The Documents filed must have a sufficient prove so support the existence of the probable cause. Specifically, the respondent failed to
sufficiently establish prima facie that the alleged documents were falsified. It must be emphasized that the affidavit of the complainant,
or any of his witnesses, shall allege facts within their (affiants) personal knowledge.

At the very least, the affidavit was based on respondent’s "personal belief" and not "personal knowledge."

The petitioners should not be burdened with court proceedings, more particularly a criminal proceeding, if in the first place, there is no
evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that an offense was committed.

ISSUE:
Weather or not Pea Failed to proof under Par 2 Article 172 od Revised Penal Code, Introduction of Falsified Documents in a Judicial
Proceeding.

APPLICATION:
Respondent Pea instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s compensation and expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees, against Urban
Bank and the petitioners before RTC. Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the contract of agency allegedly entered into
with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to perform such acts necessary to prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully
occupying Urban Bank’s property located along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. He claimed that said documents were falsified because the
alleged signatories did not actually affix their signatures, and the signatories were neither stockholders nor officers and employees of
ISCI. Worse, petitioners introduced said documents as evidence before the RTC knowing that they were falsified.

16- ALFONSO C. CHOA vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and LENI CHOA


G.R. No. 142011 March 14, 2003

LEGAL BASIS:
At the time he filed his petition for naturalization, he had committed perjury. All the elements of the crime were already present then. He
knew all along that he wilfully stated material falsities in his verified petition. Surprisingly, he withdrew his petition without even stating
any reason therefor.19 But such withdrawal only terminated the proceedings for naturalization. It did not extinguish his culpability for
perjury he already committed.
The elements of perjury are:
1. The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter;
2. The statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oath;
3. In that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.

ISSUE:
Whether petitioner may be convicted of perjury based on the alleged false statements he stated in his petition for naturalization
withdrawn almost two years prior to the filing of the Information for perjury.

APPLICATION:
On or about 30th day of March, 1989, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly made untruthful statements or falsehoods upon material
matters required by the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 473). in his verified ‘Petition for Naturalization’ dated April 13, 1989
(sic),5 subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Felomino B. Tan, Jr., who is authorized to administer oath, which petition bears
Doc. No. 140, Page No. 29, Book No. XXIII, series of 1989, in the Notarial Register of said Notary Public.

17-PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and THE HONORABLE SPECIAL DIVISION OF THE
SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 164368-69 April 2, 2009

LEGAL BASIS:
Under the Revised Penal Code Using the Fictuitous name and conceling true name under following elements, first that the offender uses
a name other than his real name Second that he uses that fictuitos name publicly third that the purpose of the offender is to conceal a
crime, to evade the execution of a judgment or to cause damage to the public interest. The SC ruled that there must be publicly and
habitually use of Alias in the evidence showed by testimonies the use of the disjunctive "or" between "on or about 04 February 2000"
and "sometime prior or subsequent thereto" means that the act/s allegedly committed on February 4, 2000 could have actually taken
place prior to or subsequent thereto. For, to our mind, the repeated use of an alias within a single day cannot be deemed "habitual," as
it does not amount to a customary practice or use. Under CA No. 142 that no banking law provision allowing the use of aliases in the
opening of bank accounts existed. Therefor Supreme Court Deny the petition for lack of merit.

ISSUE:
Whether Estrada committed a violation for illegal use of alias.

APPLICATION:
On April 4, 2001, an Information for plunder filed with Sandiganbayan. Separate Information for illegal use of alias, docketed as Crim.
Case No. 26565, was likewise filed against Estrada. That on or about 04 February 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the
City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then President of the
Republic of the Philippines, without having been duly authorized, judicially or administratively, taking advantage of his position and
committing the offense in relation to office, i.e., in order to CONCEAL THE ill-gotten wealth HE ACQUIRED during his tenure and his true
identity as THE President of the Republic of the Philippines, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally REPRESENT HIMSELF
AS ‘JOSE VELARDE’ IN SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS AND use and employ the SAID alias "Jose Velarde" which IS neither his registered
name at birth nor his baptismal name, in signing documents with Equitable PCI Bank and/or other corporate entities.

18-LEONILA BATULANON vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 139857 September 15, 2006

LEGAL BASIS:
Batulanon is guilty of 3 counts of Falsification of Private Document and Estafa. Medallos testimony is credible as he is familiar with the
handwriting of Batulanon. Under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, the acts that may constitute falsification are the following:1.
Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric;2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements
other than those in fact made by them;4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any
alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting
to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original; or;8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official
book. In Criminal case falsifying Dennis Batulanon signature fall within the elements of conversion or misappropriation under Art 315
Estafa . The essence of falsification is the act of making untruthful or false statements, which is not attendant in this case

ISSUE:
Whether Butalanon is guilty of Falcification of Private Document

APPLICATION:
Complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed Batulanon as its Cashier and in charge of receiving deposits
from and releasing loans to the member of the cooperative. During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities
concerning the release of loans were discovered. Records shows Omadlao, Oroacion and Arroyo made it appear that they obtained a loan
and received its proceeds when they did not in fact secure said loan nor receive the amounts reflected in the cash voucher in addition,
some Dennis Butalanon received a load, in fact that it was her 3 year old son for reason that she is no longer qualified for another loan
and under company policy no minor shall be allowed to apply for the load.

19- VIVIAN T. DABU vs. EDUARDO RODEN E. KAPUNAN


A.M. No. RTJ-00-1600**February 1, 2011

LEGAL BASIS:
As evidence for the charge of falsification of court records, complainant presented that there was a submission of Report that no
collusion exists between the parties" but no such Report is attached to the records of the case and someone testified but none of the
parties is his client and that he never appeared in the said case. Judge Kapunan suffered from cardio-pulmonary arrest and died.
According to his heirs, the evidence of the complainant was insufficient to support the charges against their late father and, thus, sought
the dismissal of the complaint. From a mere examination it is clear that his signatures were not forged As a rule, forgery cannot be
presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging
forgery.11 This, unfortunately, Judge Kapunan failed to do. The Court finds specious the allegation of Judge Kapunan that the
"processing" of cases were committed by Galo all by herself, and that he conducted a "discreet investigation" when he learned of her
activities. SC ruled that Cortez and Galo is guilty of falsification of official documents and dishonesty. Upon the Court hereby orders
their DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with
prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

ISSUE: Whether Theresa Cortez and Leila O.Galo guilty of Falsification of Official Documents?

APPLICATION:
On August 24, 2000, Complainant Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Vivian T. Dabu executed an Affidavit citing several incidents wherein
the court records of cases for annulment of marriage, lost titles and declaration of presumptive death were being falsified. The Affidavit
was treated as a Complaint for falsification of court records against Judge Eduardo Roden E. Kapunan and court stenographers Ma.
Theresa Cortez but acted as a secretary for respondent Judge and Researcher Leila O.Galo.

20- JAIME D. DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 200748 July 23, 2014

LEGAL BASIS:
In prevailing jurisprudence, which states that drug testing conducted under circumstances similar to his would violate a person’s right to
privacy. Court Ruled We declare that the drug test conducted upon petitioner is not grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence.
The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act. In the case at bench, the presence of
dangerous drugs was only in the form of residue on the drug paraphernalia, and the accused were found positive for use of dangerous
drugs. The drug test is not covered by allowable non-testimonial compulsion. In the instant case, we fail to see how a urine sample could
be material to the charge of extortion.In extracting a urine for purposes of drug testing was "merely a mechanical act, hence, falling
outside the concept of a custodial investigation." The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-
incrimination. . Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal.

APPLICATION:
Jaime D Dela Cruz, a public officer, having been duly appointed and qualified to such public position as Police Officer 2 of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) assigned in the Security Service Group of the Cebu City Police Office, after having been arrested by agents of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in an entrapment operation, was found positive for use of "Shabu", the dangerous drug after a
confirmatory test conducted which was outside the concept of custodial investigation.

37- LAURO G. SORIANO, JR vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-65952 July 31, 1984

LEGAL BASIS:
The prosecution showed that: the accused is a public officer; in consideration of P4,000.00 which was allegedly solicited, P2,000.00 of
which was allegedly received, the petitioner undertook or promised to dismiss a criminal complaint pending preliminary investigation
before him, which may or may not constitute a crime; that the act of dismissing the criminal complaint pending before petitioner was
related to the exercise of the function of his office. Therefore, it is with pristine clarity that the offense proved, if at all is Direct Bribery.
The term 'transaction' as used thereof is not limited in its scope or meaning to a commercial or business transaction but includes all
kinds of transaction, whether commercial, civil or administrative in nature, pending with the government. Corrupt practices of public
officers direct or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law.

ISSUE:
Whether the Soriano violates Section 3, paragraph (b), of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act

APPLICATION:
The above-named accused, a public officer, being then and still is an Assistant City Fiscal of the Quezon City Fiscal's Office, an
Investiagtion Fiscal taking advantage of his official position and with grave abuse of authority, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously demand and request from Thomas N. Tan the amount of 4,000 Philippine Currency, and actually received from said Thomas
N. Tan the amount of P2,000.00 Philippine Currency, in consideration for a favorable resolution by dismissing the abovementioned case
therefore Section 3, paragraph (b), of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

38-ROSALIA M. DUGAYON vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 147333 August 12, 2004

LEGAL BASIS:
Petitioner certified the disbursement vouchers; she chaired the Procurement Board, and she signed the report of the Inspection and
Acceptance Committee. She could not have been unaware that the 19 typewriters were secondhand, rebuilt and reconditioned. She
accepted the secondhand typewriters, contrary to the requirement to buy brand new units, and allowed payment for them at the price of
brand new units. She admitted that the specification for the typewriters should be brand new. The essential elements of this crime under
Sec 3 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: (1) the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2)
said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public position; (3)
they caused undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party; (4) such injury is caused by giving unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence On the whole, she had an extensive and active participation in this transaction for which she cannot
disclaim responsibility and liabilityWithout hesitation we find that this transaction defrauded and caused injury to the government.
Inspection and Acceptance Committee, she also clearly acted with evident bad faith. It imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral
obliquity and conscious wrongdoing.

ISSUE:
Whether Dugayon violated Sec 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

APPLICATION:
The (DSWD) embarked a project involving the procurement of 19 typewriters. Petitioner is Assistant Regional Director of DSWD and
Head of Procurement Board, the Auditors Office was not informed on the opening of the biffing and violated Sec 391 of Government
Accounting and Auditing Manual subsequently found out that the typewriters were not brand new, but merely rebuilt and reconditioned
violates Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan.

40- VENANCIO R. NAVA, Petitioner, vs.The Honorable Justices RODOLFO G. PALATTAO


G.R. No. 160211 August 28, 2006

LEGAL BASIS:
The principal evidence presented during trial was the COA Special Audit Report (COA Report). The COA has exclusive authority to define
the scope of its audit and examination and to establish the required techniques and methods. Thus, COA’s findings are accorded not only
respect but also finality, when they are not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Unfortunately for petitioner, there was no showing of
any immediate and compelling justification for dispensing with the requirement of public bidding. We cannot accept his unsubstantiated
reasoning that a public bidding would unnecessarily delay the purchase of the SLTDs. Not only would he have to prove that indeed there
would be a delay but, more important, he would have to show how a public bidding would be detrimental and antithetical to public
service. To sustain a conviction under Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, it must be clearly proven that 1) the accused is a public
officer; 2) the public officer entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and 3) the contract or transaction was
grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. Indeed, the absence of a public bidding may mean that the government was
not able to secure the lowest bargain in its favor and may open the door to graft and corruption.

ISSUE:
Whether Nava is guilty of violating Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, or entering on behalf of the government any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the latter, whether or not the public officer profited or would profit
thereby.

APPLICATION:
In the Audit Report, the amount of P603,265.00 was shown to have been released to the DECS Division of Davao del Sur and through
the initiative of accused Venancio Nava, a meeting was called among his seven (7) schools division superintendents whom he persuaded
to use the money or allotment for the purchase of Science Laboratory Tools and Devices (SLTD). Project was done through negotiation of
materials without public biding. Audit made a report that there was a overprice in the amount of P380,013.60 therefore violate Section
3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019.

27- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSEPH ROBELO y TUNGALA


G.R. No. 184181 November 26, 2012

LEGAL BASIS: A buy-bust operation has been proven to be an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In this regard, police
authorities are given a wide latitude in employing their own ways of trapping or apprehending drug dealers in flagrante delicto. There is
no prescribed method on how the operation is to be conducted. As ruled in People v. Garcia,15 the absence of a prior surveillance or
test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation as there is no text book method of conducting the same. As long as the
constitutional rights of the suspected drug dealer are not violated, the regularity of the operation will always be upheld. Thus, in People
v. Salazar,16 we ruled that "if carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, buy-bust operation deserves judicial
sanction. Neither impressive is appellant’s contention that it is contrary to human nature to sell the illegal stuff to a complete stranger.
The law does not prescribe as an element of the crime that the vendor and the vendee be familiar with each other. It should be noted
that the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not raised before the trial court but only for the first
time on appeal. This cannot be done.

ISSUE: Whether there is a failure on part of apprehending officers to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the physical
inventory and photocopy of the seized items and validity of buy bust operation.

APPLICATION: Chief of SAID organized a team composed of eight police officers to conduct a "buy-bust" operation to entrap appellant
upon receiving information from a civilian informer that a certain alias "Kalbo" (appellant) is involved in the sale of illegal drugs. And was
able to obtain a drugs using the marked money and one plastic sachet suspected to contain shabu was found inside appellant’s pocket.
Making him liable under Section 5, and Section 11(3) Article II of R.A. No. 9165 cannot invoke validly of buy bust operation when there
is no proof to the contrary and alleging non compliance when not raised before court.

28- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. CARLO MAGNO AURE y ARNALDO and MELCHOR AUSTRIACO y AGUILA,
G.R. No. 185163 January 17, 2011

Held:
Evidence of the prosecution to be more credible than that adduced by accused-appellant. When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s
assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses’ deportment
and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly. If the
accused-appellants failed to show any palpable error, arbitrariness, or oversight on the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts as
to warrant a review of such findings. In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165,
the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment for it.36 What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.37 In the instant case,
all these were sufficiently established by the prosecution.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the decision of trial court.
Application:
Respondents is conspiring and confederating and both of them mutually helping and aiding with one another, without the necessary
license or prescription and without being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, and give
away P6,000.00 worth of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) weighing three point ninety-one (3.91) grams, a dangerous drug
through buy-bust operation and handed a marked money as evidence.

29- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs HADJA JARMA LALLI y PURIH, RONNIE ARINGOY y MASION, and
NESTOR RELAMPAGOS (at large), Accused. HADJA JARMA LALLI y PURIH and RONNIE ARINGOY Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 195419 October 12, 2011

Held:
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 (RA 8042) defines illegal recruitment, as follows: Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another and Section 4 of RA 9208
enumerates the prohibited acts of Trafficking in Persons, one of which is: a) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a
person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage. The crime of
Trafficking in Persons is qualified when committed by a syndicate, as provided in Section 6(c) of RA 9208:(c) When the crime is
committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or
more persons, individually or as a group. Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not only limited to
transportation of victims, but also includes the act of recruitment of victims for trafficking. In this case, since it has been sufficiently
proven beyond reasonable doubt, that all the three accused (Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos) conspired and confederated with one
another to illegally recruit Lolita to become a prostitute in Malaysia, it follows that they are also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate under RA 9208 because the crime of recruitment for prostitution also
constitutes trafficking. When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two different offenses, a prosecution under
one will not bar a prosecution under the other
Issue:
Whether or not RTC and CA erred in prosecuting two offenses making respondent liable under illegal recruitment and Anti- Trafficking in
Persons

Application:
Upon the credibility of the testimony of Lolita all the three accused (Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos) conspired and confederated with one
another to illegally recruit Lolita to become a prostitute in Malaysia. Without the authority in Recruitment or not buy not having obtaining
a license to do so making them liable under Sec 6 of RA 8042 and Section 6 of RA 9208.

30-RAOUL B. DEL MAR vs PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, BELLE JAI-ALAI CORPORATION,
FILIPINAS GAMING ENTERTAINMENT TOTALIZATOR CORPORATION
G.R. No. 138298 August 24, 2001

Legal Basis: A franchise to operate jai-alai is granted solely for that purpose and the terms and conditions of the grant are
unequivocably defined by the grantor. Such express grant and its conditionalities protective of the public interest are evidently wanting
in P.D. No. 1869, the present Charter of PAGCOR. P.D. No. 1869, the present Charter of PAGCOR, is a consolidation of P.D. Nos. 1067-A,
1067-B and 1067-C all issued on January 1, 1977. P.D. No. 1067-A created the PAGCOR and defined its powers and functions; P.D. No.
1067-B granted to PAGCOR a franchise to establish, operate, and maintain gambling casinos on land or water within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines; and P.D. No. 1067-C granted PAGCOR the exclusive right, privilege and authority to
operate and maintain gambling casinos, subject only to the exception of existing franchises and games of chance permitted by law.In
fine, P.D. No. 1869 does not have the standard marks of a law granting a franchise to operate jai-alai as those found under P.D. No. 810
or E.O. 135. P.D. No. 1869 deals with details pertinent alone to the operation of gambling casinos. P.D. No. 1869 adopted substantially
the provisions of said prior decrees, with some additions which, however, have no bearing on the franchise granted to PAGCOR to
operate gambling casinos alone

Issue: Whether the franchise granted to the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) includes the right to manage and
operate jai-alai.

Application: Respondents PAGCOR, Belle Jai Alai Corporation and Filipinas Gaming Entertainment Totalizator Corporation are enjoined
from managing, maintaining and operating jai-alai games, and from enforcing the agreement entered into by them for that purpose. It
is self-evident that there is a need to be extra cautious in treating this alleged grant of a franchise as a grant by the legislature, as a
grant by the representatives of our people, for plainly it is not.

You might also like