BATHAN, PAULYN MARIE R.

CASE DIGEST 1
MARIA VIRGINIA V. REMO, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Respondent.

Why it was passed in the Supreme Court: Petition for review

Reason: The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Office of the President

FACTS:
The petitioner, Maria Virginia V. Remo, is a Filipino Citizen and was married
to Francisco R. Rallonza. On October 27, 2000, her passport was about to expire. Her
passport indicated her surname as "Ralloza," her given name as "Maria Virginia," and
her middle name as "Remo." Petitioner, whose marriage is still intact, applied for a
passport renewal with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) office in Chicago,
Illinois, United States of America, prior to the validity of her passport expiring,
requesting that the replacement passport be issued in her maiden name and surname.
This request was denied by the DFA.

A married woman is not obligated to use her husband's name, and the office is
aware of this provision in the law. The use of a maiden name in a passport application
is permitted only if the married name has not previously been used.The Philippine
Passport Act of 1996 Implementing Rules and Regulations explicitly describe the
circumstances under which a woman applicant may revert to her maiden name,
namely, annulment of marriage, divorce, and death of the spouse. None of these
requirements are met in Ms. Remo's situation.

Appeal with the Office of the President was filed by the petitioner. The said
appeal was dismissed and rule the Sec 5(d) of Republic Act No. 8239 (RA 8239) or
the Philippine Passport Act of 1996. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration was
denied by the Office of the President.

A petition for review with the Court of Appeals was filed by the petitioner.
The petition was denied and asserted the ruling of the Office of the President.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED, and the

resolution dated July 27, 2004, and the order dated October 28, 2004 of the Office of
the President in O.P. Case No. 001-A-9344 are hereby AFFIRMED.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's request for reconsideration in

a Resolution dated August 2, 2005.

Petitioner cannot simply revert to her maiden name in the replacement

passport after adopting her husband's surname in her previous passport since there
was no evidence that her marriage to Francisco Rallonza had been dissolved, declared
void, or that a divorce decree had been given to them. According to the Court of
Appeals, respondent was right in refusing petitioner's request to change her passport
with her maiden name.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner, who originally used her husband’s surname in her
expired passport, can revert to the use of her maiden name in the replacement
passport, despite the subsistence of her marriage.

HELD:
NO. Title XIII of the Civil Code governs the use of surnames and in the case of a
married woman, the provision of Article 370 of the Civil Code will apply.

On this instance, the petitioner, whose marriage is still going strong and who
chose to use her husband's surname in her previous passport, sought that her maiden
name be reinstated in the new passport, claiming that no law prevents her from doing
so.

The law governing passport issuance is RA 8239 and the applicable provision
in this case is Section 5(d), which states:
Sec. 5. Requirements for the Issuance of Passport. — No passport shall be issued to
an applicant unless the Secretary or his duly authorized representative is satisfied that
the applicant is a Filipino citizen who has complied with the following requirements:

(d) In case of a woman who is married, separated, divorced or widowed or whose

marriage has been annulled or declared by court as void, a copy of the certificate of
marriage, court decree of separation, divorce or annulment or certificate of death of
the deceased spouse duly issued and authenticated by the Office of the Civil Registrar
General: Provided, That in case of a divorce decree, annulment or declaration of
marriage as void, the woman applicant may revert to the use of her maiden name:
Provided, further, That such divorce is recognized under existing laws of the
Philippines;

The Court points out that if petitioner had chosen to use her maiden name
from the time she married until she first sought for a Philippine passport, she would
not have had any issues with the new passport. Petitioner, on the other hand, opted to
use her husband's surname in a prior passport application and now want to return to
her maiden name. Nothing prohibits petitioner from seeking to use her husband's
surname in the future if we grant her current request.Such unjustified name and
identity changes on a passport, which is regarded superior to all other official
documents, cannot be permitted. Otherwise, there would be a lot of confusion and
inconsistency in passport holders' records. As a result, a married woman, such as
petitioner, who has a valid marriage, cannot alter her surname at whim for passport
reasons.
 CASE DIGEST 2
ARNOLD JAMES M. YSIDORO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:
When the construction for calamity victims in Sitio Luy-a, Barangay
Tinugtogan, was 70% complete on June 15, 2001, the beneficiaries ceased reporting
for work because they needed to feed their families. This concerned CSAP Officer-in-
Charge Lolita Garcia (Garcia), because a construction halt could result in the loss of
construction materials, particularly cement. As a result, she sought the assistance of
Cristina Polinio (Polinio), an MSWDO officer in charge of the municipality's
Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP), which provided food rationing to
malnourished children. Polinio informed Garcia that the SFP's storehouse still
included sacks of rice and cartons of sardines. And, because she had previously
donated food to the mother volunteers, what was left could be distributed to the CSAP
beneficiaries.

Garcia and Polinio went to Leyte Municipal Mayor Arnold James M. Ysidoro,
the petitioner, for his consent. Ysidoro approved the release and signed the
withdrawal slip for four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines worth P3,396.00 to
CSAP after being briefed on the issue. Eldelissa Elises, the supervisory clerk of the
Municipal Accountant's Office, signed the withdrawal sheet after being consulted,
claiming that the products were being released due to an emergency. Following that,
CSAP delivered the supplies to their recipients. Garcia then reported the incident to
the MSWDO and the city auditor, as required by auditing rules.

The current complaint was brought against Ysidoro by Alfredo Doller, a

former member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte. The relevant SFP supplies were
intended for its target beneficiaries, Leyte's malnourished children, according to
Nierna Doller, Alfredo's wife and former MSWDO head. She further mentioned that
the distribution of SFP commodities was governed by the Supplemental Feeding
Implementation Guidelines for Local Government Units.   As a result, when Ysidoro
approved the delivery of SFP goods to CSAP beneficiaries, he committed technical
malversation.

In his defense, Ysidoro alleges that the subject goods were diverted to a
project that also benefited the municipality's needy because they came from the SFP
and the Calamity Fund's savings. Ysidoro likewise claims to be acting in good faith,
believing that the municipality's needy CSAP recipients were in desperate need of
assistance. Furthermore, Ysidoro stated that in 2001, the COA Municipal Auditor did
a complete audit of their municipality and discovered no irregularities in their
operations.

Ysidoro was found guilty of technical malversation by the Sandiganbayan

beyond a reasonable doubt. However, because his actions did not cause any harm or
disgrace to the public sector, he was merely penalized P1,698.00, or half of the
amount misapplied. Ysidoro used public property for a purpose other than that for
which it was authorized by law or ordinance, according to the Sandiganbayan.
Ysidoro's plea for reconsideration was rejected by the Sandiganbayan on May 12,
2010. Ysidoro filed an appeal to this Court on June 8, 2010, against the
Sandiganbayan decision.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not he approved the diversion of the subject goods to a public purpose
different from their originally intended purpose;
2. Whether or not the goods he approved for diversion were in the nature of savings
that could be used to augment the other authorized expenditures of the municipality;
3. Whether or not good faith is a valid defense for technical malversation.

HELD:
1. Technical malversation is a three-part crime punishable under Article 220 of the
Revised Penal Code: a) the offender is an accountable public officer; b) he applies
public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and c) the public
use for which such funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for
which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance.

The creation of the two items demonstrates the Sanggunian's intention to

provide separate funds for SFP and CSAP in the annual budget. When he allowed the
distribution of the goods to people providing free work for the rebuilding of their own
homes, Ysidoro ignored the guidelines. This is technical deception. If Ysidoro could
not lawfully transfer construction materials designated for CSAP housing
beneficiaries to SFP starving customers, he could not legally provide food intended
for CSAP beneficiaries to CSAP beneficiaries.

It can be observed here that the general fund allotment was expressly intended
for the two different beneficiaries and should not be read as a general appropriation of
public monies interchangeably with the two. Regardless of whether the money are
used for a public purpose, it should be highlighted that these funds were intentionally
assigned for two very different objectives, satisfying the third element of technical
malversation.

LEGAL BASIS:
 Expressio unius est exclusion alterius – The express mention of one person, thing
or consequence implies the exclusion of all others.
 Expressum facit cessare tacitum – what is expressed puts an end to that which is
implied where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it
may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters

2. The mentioned goods could not be considered savings. The SFP is a year-round
program. As a result, no one could argue in mid-June 2001 that SFP had already
completed its project, leaving finances or supplies that it no longer required. The fact
that Polinio had already given the food products required by SFP beneficiaries for the
second quarter of 2001 does not imply that the remaining food items in its storehouse
represented needless savings. Because the needs of hungry mouths are difficult to
foresee down to the last sack of rice or tin of sardines, the conclusion that the subject
commodities were no longer required for the remainder of the year was far too hasty.

LEGAL BASIS:
 Words in their ordinary sense > General rule: In the absence of legislative intent,
words and phrases shall be construed in their plain, ordinary, and common use
meaning.

3. Technical malversation does not require criminal intent. The act of diverting public
property designated by law or ordinance for one public purpose to another is
punishable by law. The offense is mala prohibita, which means that the forbidden
conduct is not inherently sinful but becomes a criminal violation when positive law
bans it from being committed for reasons of public policy, order, and convenience.
The conduct of an act as defined by the law, rather than the nature or consequence of
the act, determines whether or not the provision has been violated. As a result, malice
or criminal intent is irrelevant.
LEGAL BASIS:
 Doctrine of casus omissus - A person, object or thing omitted from an
enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally.