People vs Tulin l G.R. No.
111709 l August accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was
30, 2001 l Melo
Facts:
The vessel, manned by 21 crew members,
including Captain Edilberto Libo-on, Second
Mate Christian Torralba, and Operator Isaias
Ervas, was suddenly boarded, with the use of
an aluminum ladder, by seven fully armed
pirates led by Emilio Changco, older brother of
accused-appellant Cecilio Changco. The
pirates, including accused-appellants Tulin,
Loyola, and Infante, Jr. were armed with M-16
rifles, .45 and .38 caliber handguns, and bolos.
They detained the crew and took complete
control of the vessel.  deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the
Held:
To summarize, Article 122 of the Revised
Penal Code, before its amendment, provided
that piracy must be committed on the high
seas by any person not a member of its
complement nor a passenger thereof.
- Upon its amendment by Republic Act No.
7659, the coverage of the pertinent
provision was widened to include offenses
committed "in Philippine waters." On the
other hand, under Presidential Decree No.
532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the
law on piracy embraces any
person including "a passenger or member
of the complement of said vessel in
Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or
not, a member of the complement or not,
any person is covered by the law.
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor
amended the provisions on piracy under
Presidential Decree No. 532.
- There is no contradiction between the two
laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and
hence, there is no need to construe or
interpret the law.
- All the presidential decree did was to
widen the coverage of the law, in keeping
with the intent to protect the citizenry as
well as neighboring states from crimes
against the law of nations.
- As expressed in one of the "whereas"
clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532,
piracy is "among the highest forms of
lawlessness condemned by the penal
statutes of all countries."
- For this reason, piracy under the Article
122, as amended, and piracy under
Presidential Decree No. 532 exist
harmoniously as separate laws.
As regards the contention that the trial court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it
to state that unquestionably, the attack on and
seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T
Galilee" by the pirates) and its cargo were
committed in Philippine waters, although the
captive vessel was later brought by the pirates
to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded,
transferred, and sold. And such transfer was
done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct
supervision. Although Presidential Decree No.
532 requires that the attack and seizure of the
vessel and its cargo be committed in
Philippine waters, the disposition by the
pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still
same need not be committed in Philippine
waters.
- Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of
Book Two of the Revised Penal Code.
- As such, it is an exception to the rule on
territoriality in criminal law.
- The same principle applies even if Hiong,
in the instant case, were charged, not with
a violation of qualified piracy under the
penal code but under a special law,
- Presidential Decree No. 532 which
penalizes piracy in Philippine waters.
- Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532 should
be applied with more force here since its
purpose is precisely to discourage and
prevent piracy in Philippine waters
(People v. Catantan, 278 SCRA 761
[1997])
- It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of
the law penalizing the same, piracy is a
reprehensible crime against the whole
world (People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19 [1922]).
AGBAY VS OMBUDSMAN
G.R. No. 134503 July 2, 1999
Complaint for violation of R.A. 7610 was filed
against petitioner and Jugalbot before the 7th
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan, Metro
Cebu.
Office of Ombudsman
The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military,
despite his designation as such, is by no
means a member of the military establishment.
The said Office was established "to extend the
Office of the Ombudsman to the military
establishment just as it champions the
common people against bureaucratic
indifference". The Office was intended to help
the "ordinary foot soldiers" to obtain redress
for their grievances against higher authorities
and the drafters of the Constitution were
aware that the creation of the Office, which is
seemingly independent of the President, to
perform functions which constitutionally should
be performed by the President, might be in
derogation of the powers of the President as
Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces20.
It must be borne in mind that the Office of the
Ombudsman was envisioned by the framers of
the 1987 Constitution as the "eyes and ears of
the people"21 and "a champion of the citizen.22"
Sec. 12, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution
describes the Ombudsman and his deputies
as "protectors of the people." Thus, first and
foremost, the Ombudsman and his deputies,
including the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military owe their allegiance to the people and
ordinary citizens, it is clearly not a part of the
military. We fail to see how the assumption of
jurisdiction by the said office over the
investigation of cases involving the PNP would
detract from or violate the civilian character of
the police force when precisely the Office of
the Ombudsman is a civilian office.
Art. 125
Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code is
intended to prevent any abuse resulting
from confining a person without informing
him of his offense and without permitting
him to go on bail28. More specifically, it
punishes public officials or employees who
shall detain any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such person
to the proper judicial authorities within the
periods prescribed by law. The continued
detention of the accused becomes illegal
upon the expiration of the periods provided
for by Art. 125 without such detainee having
been delivered to the corresponding judicial
authorities29.
The words "judicial authority" as
contemplated by Art. 125 mean "the
courts of justices or judges of said
courts vested with judicial power to
order the temporary detention or
confinement of a person charged with
having committed a public offense, that
is, the Supreme Court and other such
inferior courts as may be established by
law.30"
Petitioner takes great pains in arguing that
when a municipal trial court judge, as in the
instant case, conducts a preliminary
investigation, he is not acting as a judge but as
a fiscal. In support, petitioner cites the cases
of Sangguniang Bayan ng Batac, Ilocos Norte
vs. Albano, 260 SCRA 561, and Castillo vs.
Villaluz, 171 SCRA 39, where it was held that
"when a preliminary investigation is conducted
by a judge, he performs a non-judicial function
as an exception to his usual duties." Thus,
petitioner opines, the ruling in Sayo v. Chief of
Police of Manila, 80 Phil. 862, that the city
fiscal is not the proper judicial authority
referred to in Art. 125 is applicable.
Petitioner's reliance on the cited cases is
misplaced. The cited cases of Sangguniang
Bayan and Castillo dealt with the issue of
whether or not the findings of the Municipal
Court Judge in a preliminary investigation are
subject to review by provincial and city fiscals.
There was no pronoucement in these cases as
to whether or not a municipal trial court, in the
exercise of its power to conduct preliminary
investigations, is a proper judicial authority as
contemplated by Art. 125.
Neither can petitioner rely on the doctrine
enunciated in Sayo vs. Chief of Police, supra,
since the facts of this case are different. In
Sayo, the complainant was filed with the city
fiscal of Manila who could not issue an order
of release or commitment while in the instant
case, the complaint was filed with a judge who
had the power to issue such an order.
Furthermore, in the Resolution denying the
Motion for Reconsideration of the Sayo case 31,
this Court even made a pronouncement that
the delivery of a detained person "is a legal
one and consists in making a charge or filing a
complaint against the prisoner with the proper
justice of the peace or judge of Court of First
Instance in provinces, and in filing by the city
fiscal of an information with the corresponding
city courts after an investigation if the evidence
against said person warrants."
The power to order the release or
confinement of an accused is determinative
of the issue. In contrast with a city fiscal, it is
undisputed that a municipal court judge,
even in the performance of his function to
conduct preliminary investigations, retains
the power to issue an order of release or
commitment32.
Furthermore, upon the filing of the complaint
with the Municipal Trial Court, the intent
behind art. 125 is satisfied considering that
by such act, the detained person is informed
of the crime imputed against him and, upon
his application with the court, he may be
released on bail33. Petitioner himself
acknowledged this power of the MCTC to
order his release when he applied for and
 was granted his release upon posting bail 34.
Thus, the very purpose underlying Article
125 has been duly served with the filing of
the complaint with the MCTC. We agree
with the postion of the Ombudsman that
such filing of the complaint with the MCTC
interrupted the period prescribed in said
Article.
Astorga vs People
G.R. No. 154130
Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public
officer or employee who, without legal
grounds, detains a person.30 The elements of
the crime are:
1. That the offender is a public officer or
employee.
2. That he detains a person.
3. That the detention is without legal
grounds.31
G.R. No. 116488 l May 31, 2001 l YNARES-
SANTIAGO
Facts:
The victim, Samson Sayam, was drinking beer
at the store owned by Terry Cabrillos located
at Barangay Tabu, Ilog, Negros Occidental.
Sgt. Wennie Tampioc, Aaron Flores, Sulpecio
Silpao and Edgar Villeran were at the same
store drinking beer. Sayam joined the four
accused at their table. Sometime later, all the
accused and the victim left the store and
walked towards the direction of the military
detachment headquarters. After the accused
left the store with Samson Sayam, witnesses
heard a single gunshot followed by rapid firing
coming from the direction of the detachment
headquarters.2 That was the last time Samson
Sayam was seen, and despite diligent efforts
of Sayam's mother and relatives, he has not
been found.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the accused are guilty
of arbitrary detention. ANS. NO!
***The crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention is defined and penalized under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The
elements of the offense are:
1. That the offender is a private individual.
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in
any other manner deprives the latter of
his liberty.
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must
be illegal.
4. That in the commission of the offense, any
of the following circumstances are present:
(a) That the kidnapping or detention lasts for
more than 3 days;
(b) That it is committed simulating public
authority;
(c) That any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained or threats to kill him are made; or
(d) That the person kidnapped is a minor,
female or public officer.8
Clearly, accused-appellants cannot be charged
with or convicted of the crime of Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention, since the first
element of the said crime is that the offender
must be a private individual. In the case at bar,
accused-appellants were members of the local
CAFGU at the time the alleged crime was
committed.
The CAFGU was created pursuant to
Executive Order No. 264 for the purpose of
complementing the operations of the regular
force formations in a locality.9 It was composed
of civilian volunteers who were tasked to
maintain peace and order in their localities, as
well as to respond to threats to national
security. As such, they were provided with
weapons, and given the authority to detain or
order detention of individuals.10
** The Solicitor General recognizes the error of
charging and convicting accused-appellants of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for
the reason that the appellants are not private
individuals, but public officers.
- As such, the Solicitor General submits
that, under the facts alleged, accused-
appellants can only be liable for the crime
of Arbitrary Detention, defined and
penalized in Article 124 of the Revised
Penal Code.
- The prosecution maintains that inasmuch
as all the other elements of Arbitrary
Detention were alleged in the criminal
information filed against the accused-
appellants, they may still be convicted of
said crime.
*** Arbitrary detention is committed by any
public officer or employee who, without
legal grounds, detains a person. 11 Since it
is settled that accused-appellants are
public officers, the question that remains
to be resolved is whether or not the
evidence adduced before the trial court
proved that Samson Sayam was arbitrarily
detained by accused-appellants.
*** U.S. v. Cabanag,12 it was held that in the
crime of illegal or arbitrary detention, it is
essential that there is actual confinement or
restriction of the person of the offended
party.
- The deprivation of liberty must be
proved,13 just as the intent of the accused
to deprive the victim of his liberty must
also be established by indubitable proof.14  9:00 a.m. of 28 August 1990, petitioner and a
- In the more recent case of People v.
Fajardo,15 this Court reiterated the ruling
in U.S. v. Cabanag, i.e., there must be
uncontroverted proof of both intent to
deprive the victim of his liberty, as well as
actual confinement or restriction.
DEF:
Detention is defined as the actual
confinement of a person in an enclosure,
or in any manner detaining and depriving
him of his liberty.16  wherein petitioner admitted possession of the
2. Whether or not circumstantial evidence is
satisfied. ANS. NO
People v. Comesario,37 we had occasion to
rule that:
- Accused-appellant's conviction by the trial
court hinged on circumstantial evidence.
- To validly invoke circumstantial evidence,
it must be shown that there is more than
one circumstance and the facts from which
the inferences are derived are proven.
- The combination of all the circumstances
is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
- The circumstances must constitute an
unbroken chain of events that can lead
reasonably to the conclusion pointing to
the accused to the exclusion of all others
as the author of the crime. 
 Logically, it is where the evidence is
purely circumstantial that there
should be an even greater need than
usual to apply with vigor the rule that
the prosecution cannot depend on
the weakness of the defense and
that any conviction must rest on
nothing less than a moral certainty of
guilt of the accused.
 Like a tapestry made of strands
which create a pattern when
interwoven, a judgment of conviction
based on circumstantial evidence
can be upheld only if the
circumstances proved constitute an
unbroken chain which leads to one
fair and reasonable conclusion
pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person.
SAMMY MALACAT y MANDAR vs COURT
OF APPEALS l G.R. No. 123595 l December
12, 1997 l DAVIDE (Consti, Bill of Rights)
Facts:
Josefino G. Serapio declared that at about
certain Abdul Casan were brought in by Sgt.
Saquilla 10 for investigation. Forthwith, Serapio
conducted the inquest of the two suspects,
informing them of their rights to remain silent
and to be assisted by competent and
independent counsel. Despite Serapio's
advice, petitioner and Casan manifested their
willingness to answer questions even without
the assistance of a lawyer. Serapio then took
petitioner's uncounselled confession (Exh.
"E"), there being no PAO lawyer available,
grenade. Thereafter, Serapio prepared the
affidavit of arrest and booking sheet of
petitioner and Casan. Later, Serapio turned
over the grenade to the Intelligence and
Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Explosive
Ordinance Disposal Unit for examination. 11
Issue/s:
Constitutional Discussion:
Finally, even assuming that petitioner
admitted possession of the grenade during
his custodial investigation by police officer
Serapio, such admission was inadmissible
in evidence for it was taken in palpable
violation of Section 12(1) and (3) of Article
III of the Constitution, which provide as
follows:
Sec. 12 (1). Any person under investigation
for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain
silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided
with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
Serapio conducted the custodial
investigation on petitioner the day following
his arrest. No lawyer was present and
Serapio could not have requested a lawyer
to assist petitioner as no PAO lawyer was
then available. Thus, even if petitioner
consented to the investigation and waived
his rights to remain silent and to counsel,
the waiver was invalid as it was not in
writing, neither was it executed in the
presence of counsel.
GR:  General rule as regards arrests,
searches and seizures is that a warrant
is needed in order to validly effect the
same.
The Constitutional prohibition against
unreasonable arrests, searches and
seizures refers to those effected without a
validly issued warrant, 32 subject to certain
exceptions. As regards valid warrantless
arrests, these are found in Section 5, Rule
113 of the Rules of Court, which reads, in
part:
Sec. 5. — Arrest, without warrant; when
lawful — A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped . . .
A warrantless arrest under the
circumstances contemplated under
Section 5(a) has been denominated as
one "in flagrante delicto," while that
under Section 5(b) has been described
as a "hot pursuit" arrest.
Turning to valid warrantless searches, they
are limited to the following:
(1) customs searches;
(2) search of moving vehicles;
(3) seizure of evidence in plain view;
(4) consent searches; 33  the intent behind Art. 125 is satisfied
(5) a search incidental to a lawful
arrest; 34 and
(6) a "stop and frisk."35
 
Law requires that there first be a lawful
arrest before a search can be made — the
process cannot be reversed.
Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-
fold interest:
(1) the general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which
underlies the recognition that a police
officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate
manner, approach a person for
purposes of investigating possible
criminal behavior even without probable
cause; and
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and
self-preservation which permit the
police officer to take steps to assure
himself that the person with whom he
deals is not armed with a deadly
weapon that could unexpectedly and
fatally be used against the police officer.
RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA vs
HON. ANIANO DESIERTO l G.R. Nos.
153524-25 l January 31, 2005 l CHICO-
NAZARIO (Art. 125, RPC)
Facts:
On or about 8:30 in the evening of 13 May
2001 (a Sunday and the day before the 14
May 2001 Elections3 ), petitioners were
arrested without a warrant by respondents
police officers for alleged illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition;
Petitioner Soria was arrested for alleged illegal
possession of .38 cal. revolver (a crime which
carries with it the penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period) and for
violation of Article 261 par. (f) of the Omnibus
Election Code in relation to the Commission
on Election Resolution No. 3328 (which carries
the penalty of imprisonment of not less than
one [1] year but not more than six [6] years);
 Petitioner Bista was arrested for alleged
illegal possession of sub-machine pistol UZI,
cal. 9mm and a .22 cal. revolver with
ammunition.
Issue/s:
Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military
Furthermore, upon the filing of the
complaint with the Municipal Trial Court,
considering that by such act, the detained
person is informed of the crime imputed
against him and, upon his application with
the court, he may be released on bail.
Petitioner himself acknowledged this
power of the MCTC to order his release
when he applied for and was granted his
release upon posting bail. Thus, the very
purpose underlying Article 125 has been
duly served with the filing of the complaint
with the MCTC. We agree with the
 position of the Ombudsman that such
filing of the complaint with the MCTC
interrupted the period prescribed in said
Article.
JASPER AGBAY vs THE HONORABLE
DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY
l G.R. No. 134503 l July 2, 1999 l
GONZAGA-REYES
Issue:
whether the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military has the authority to investigate civilian
personnel of the government was resolved in
the affirmative in the case of Acop v. Office of
the Ombudsman
Held:
***The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military,
despite his designation as such, is by no
means a member of the military establishment.
The said Office was established "to extend the
Office of the Ombudsman to the military
establishment just as it champions the
common people against bureaucratic
indifference".
***The Office was intended to help the
"ordinary foot soldiers" to obtain redress for
their grievances against higher authorities and
the drafters of the Constitution were aware
that the creation of the Office, which is
seemingly independent of the President, to
perform functions which constitutionally should
be performed by the President, might be in
derogation of the powers of the President as
Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces20.
It must be borne in mind that the Office of the
Ombudsman was envisioned by the framers of
the 1987 Constitution as the "eyes and ears of
the people"21 and "a champion of the citizen.22"
Sec. 12, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution
describes the Ombudsman and his deputies
as "protectors of the people." Thus, first and
foremost, the Ombudsman and his deputies,
including the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military owe their allegiance to the people and
ordinary citizens, it is clearly not a part of the
military.  Sayo vs. Chief of
1. The core issue is whether the filing of
the complaint with the Municipal Trial
Court constitutes to a "proper judicial
authority" as contemplated by Art. 125 of
the Revised Penal Code.
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained
persons to the proper judicial authorities. —
The penalties provided in the next
preceding article shall be imposed upon the
public officer or employee who shall detain
any person for some legal ground and shall
fail to deliver such person for the proper
judicial authorities within the period of:
twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes
or offenses punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent; and thirty-six
hours (36) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable by afflictive or capital penalties,
or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be
informed of the cause of his detention and
shall be allowed, upon his request, to
communicate and confer at any time with
his attorney or counsel
IMPT!!!
- Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code is
intended to prevent any abuse resulting
from confining a person without informing
him of his offense and without permitting
him to go on bail28. More specifically, it
punishes public officials or employees who
shall detain any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such
person to the proper judicial authorities
within the periods prescribed by law.
 The continued detention of the
accused becomes illegal upon the
expiration of the periods provided for
by Art. 125 without such detainee
having been delivered to the
corresponding judicial authorities29.
- The words "judicial authority" as
contemplated by Art. 125 mean "the
courts of justices or judges of said courts
vested with judicial power to order the
temporary detention or confinement of a
person charged with having committed a
public offense, that is, the Supreme Court
and other such inferior courts as may be
established by law.30"
-
*** The power to
Police, supra, since order the release or
the facts of this case confinement of an
are different. accused is
determinative of the
***In Sayo, the issue. In contrast
complainant was with a city fiscal, it is
filed with the city undisputed that a
fiscal of Manila who municipal court
could not issue an judge, even in the
order of release or performance of his
 commitment while in function to conduct "invitation" to the petitioner requesting him to
the instant case, the preliminary appear for investigation at Camp Vicente Lim
complaint was filed investigations, in Canlubang, Laguna.
with a judge who retains the power to
had the power to issue an order of Issue/s:
issue such an order. release or 1. Criminal Procedure
commitment32. Section 3, Paragraph (d), Rule 112 of the
Furthermore, in the Rules of Court, provides that if the
Resolution denying Furthermore, upon respondent cannot be subpoenaed or, if
the Motion for the filing of the subpoenaed, does not submit counter-
Reconsideration of complaint with the affidavits, the investigating officer shall base
the Sayo case31, this Municipal Trial his resolution on the evidence presented by
Court even made a Court, the intent the complainant.
pronouncement that behind art. 125 is
the delivery of a satisfied considering Just as the accused may renounce the right
detained person "is that by such act, the to be present at the preliminary
a legal one and detained person is investigation5, so may he waive the right to
consists in making a informed of the present counter-affidavits or any other
charge or filing a crime imputed evidence in his defense.
complaint against against him and,
the prisoner with the upon his application At any rate, it is settled that the absence
proper justice of the with the court, he of a preliminary investigation does not
peace or judge of may be released on impair the validity of the information or
Court of First bail33. Petitioner otherwise render the same defective and
Instance in himself neither does it affect the jurisdiction of
provinces, and in acknowledged this the court over the case or constitute a
filing by the city power of the MCTC ground for quashing the information.6
fiscal of an to order his release
information with the when he applied for If no preliminary investigation has been
corresponding city and was granted his held, or if it is flawed, the trial court may,
courts after an release upon on motion of the accused, order an
investigation if the posting bail34. Thus, investigation or reinvestigation and hold
evidence against the very purpose the proceedings in the criminal case in
said person underlying Article abeyance. 7
warrants." 125 has been duly
served with the filing Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA. 545 (1990),
of the complaint with the Court held that the Ombudsman has
the MCTC. We authority to investigate charges of illegal or
agree with the omissions on the part of any public official,
postion of the i.e., any crime imputed to a public official. It
Ombudsman that must, however, be pointed out that the
such filing of the authority of the Ombudsman to investigate
complaint with the "any [illegal] act or omission of any public
MCTC interrupted official" (191 SCRA at 550)
the period is not an exclusive authority but rather a
prescribed in said shared or concurrent authority in respect
Article. of the offense here charged, i.e., the crime
of sedition. Thus, the non-involvement of the
ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ vs The Honorable office of the Ombudsman in the present case
HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU l G.R. Nos. does not have any adverse legal consequence
111771-77 l November 9, 1993 l CRUZ upon the authority the panel of prosecutors to
file and prosecute the information or amended
Facts: information.
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested
the filing of appropriate charges against 1.A. Discussion on Arrest
several persons, including the petitioner, in "Arrest" is defined under Section 1, Rule
connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen 113 of the Rules of Court as the taking of a
Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. person into custody in order that he may
be bound to answer for the commission of
PNP Commander Rex Piad issued an an offense. Under Section 2 of the same
Rule, an arrest is effected by an actual
restraint of the person to be arrested or by
his voluntary submission to the custody of
the person making the arrest.
**Application of actual force, manual touching
of the body, physical restraint or a formal
declaration of arrest is not, required. It is
enough that there be an intent on the part of
one of the parties to arrest the other and an
intent onthe part of the other to submit, under
the belief and impression that submission is
necessary. 12
It may not be amiss to observe that under R.A.
No. 7438, the requisites of a "custodial
investigation" are applicable even to a person
not formally arrested but merely "invited" for
questioning.
2. Rape with Homicide
This argument was correctly refuted by the
Solicitor General in this wise:
Thus, where there are two or more
offenders who commit rape, the homicide
committed on the occasion or by reason
of each rape, must be deemed as a
constituent of the special complex crime
of rape with homicide. Therefore, there
will be as many crimes of rape with
homicide as there are rapes committed.
In effect, the presence of homicide qualifies
the crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty to
the highest degree. Thus, homicide committed
on the occasion or by reason of rape, loses its
character as an independent offense, but
assumes a new character, and functions like a
qualifying circumstance. However,by fiction of
law, it merged with rape to constitute an
constituent element of a special complex crime
of rape with homicide with a specific penalty
which is in the highest degree, i.e. death
(reduced to reclusion perpetua with the
suspension of the application of the death
penalty by the Constitution).
IMPT! Sandiganbayan!
Montilla v, Hilario
[T]he relation between the crime and the
office contemplated by the Constitution is, in
our opinion, direct and not accidental. To fall
into the intent of the Constitution, the
relation has to be such that, in the legal
sense, the offense cannot exist without the
office. In other words, the office must be a
constituent element of the crime as
defined in the statute, such as, for
instance, the crimes defined and punished
in Chapter Two to Six, Title Seven, of the
Revised Penal Code.
Public office is not of the essence of
murder. The taking of human life is either
murder or homicide whether done by a
private citizen or public servant, and the
penalty is the same except when the
perpetrator. being a public functionary took
advantage of his office, as alleged in this
case, in which event the penalty is
increased.
But the use or abuse of office does not
adhere to the crime as an element; and
even as an aggravating circumstance, its
materiality arises not from the allegations
but on the proof, not from the fact that the
criminals are public officials but from the
manner of the commission of the crime.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs HON.
MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION l G.R. Nos.
83837-42 l April 22, 1992 l NOCON
Facts:
Conspiring together, confederating with and
mutually helping one another by overt acts
with the common objective to overthrow the
duly constituted government of the Republic of
the Philippines, did, then and there, willfully
and unlawfully and feloniously affiliate
themselves with, become and remain
members of the Communist Party of the
Philippines/National Democratic Front and/or
its successor or of any subversive association
in violation of said law
Held:
People v. Liwanag,11 the Court categorically
distinguished subversion from rebellion, and
held:
Violation of Republic Act No. 1700, or
subversion, as it is more commonly called, is a
crime distinct from that of actual rebellion.
Rebellion Subversion
The crime of Anti-Subversion Act
rebellion is (Republic Act No.
committed by rising 1700)
publicly and taking punishes affiliation
up arms against the or membership in a
Government for any subversive
of the purposes organization as
specified in Article defined therein.
134 of the Revised
Penal Code
 In rebellion, there Mere membership in
must be a public a subversive
uprising and taking association is
of arms against the sufficient and the
Government taking up of arms by
a member of a
subversive
organization against
the Government is
but a circumstance
which raises the
penalty to be
imposed upon the
offender.
Buscayno vs. Military Commissions:
This Court said that subversion, like treason, is
a crime against national security, while
rebellion is a crime against public order. Rising
publicly and taking arms against the
Government is the very element of the crime
of rebellion. 13 On the other hand, R.A. 1700
was enacted to outlaw the Communist Party of
the Philippines (CPP), other similar
associations and its successors because their
existence and activities constitute a clear,
present and grave danger to national
security. 14
The first Whereas clause of R.A. 1700 states
that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to
overthrow the Government, not only by force
and violence but also by deceit, subversion
and other illegal means. This is a recognition
that subversive acts do not only constitute
force and violence (contra to the arguments of
private respondents), but may partake of other
forms as well. One may in fact be guilty of
subversion by authoring subversive materials,
where force and violence is neither necessary
or indispensable.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ELIAS
LOVEDIORO y CASTRO l G.R. No. 112235 l
November 29, 1995 l KAPUNAN
Facts:
Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was
walking 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, aimed the gun at
the policeman's right ear and fired. The man
who shot Lucilo had three other companions
with him, one of whom shot the fallen
policeman four times as he lay on the ground.
After taking the latter's gun, the man and his
companions boarded a tricycle and fled.
Held: Th0e crime committed was murder and
not rebellion
A. Discussion on Rebellion
The gravamen of the crime of rebellion is an
armed public uprising against the
government.7 By its very nature, rebellion is
essentially a crime of masses or multitudes
involving crowd action, which cannot be
confined a priori within predetermined
bounds.8 One aspect noteworthy in the
commission of rebellion is that other acts
committed in its pursuance are, by law,
absorbed in the crime itself because they
acquire a political character.
People v. Hernandez
Political crimes are those directly aimed
against the political order, as well as such
common crimes as may be committed to
achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor
is the intent or motive. If a crime usually
regarded as common, like homicide, is
perpetrated for the purpose of removing from
the allegiance "to the Government the territory
of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof,"
then it becomes stripped of its "common"
complexion, inasmuch as, being part and
parcel of the crime of rebellion, the former
acquires the political character of the latter.
From the foregoing, it is plainly obvious that it
is 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. In fact, even in
cases where the act complained of were
committed simultaneously with or in the course
of the rebellion, if the killing, robbing, or etc.,
were accomplished 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 would not
be absorbed by the crime rebellion.11
Note:
It follows, therefore, that if no political
motive is established and proved, the
accused should be convicted of the
common crime and not of rebellion. 
FRANCISCO CHAVEZ vs RAUL M.
GONZALES l G.R. No. 168338 l February 15,
2008 l PUNO
Facts:
The case originates from events that occurred
a year after the 2004 national and local
elections. On June 5, 2005, Press Secretary
Ignacio Bunye told reporters that the
opposition was planning to destabilize the
administration by releasing an audiotape of a
mobile phone conversation allegedly between
the President of the Philippines, Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, and a high-ranking official
of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
The conversation was audiotaped allegedly
through wire-tapping.5
Held:
A. Constitutional Discussion:
Generally, restraints on freedom of speech and
expression are evaluated by either or a
combination of three tests, i.e.,  fundamental law is the hostility against all prior
(a) the dangerous tendency
doctrine which permits
limitations on speech once a
rational connection has been
established between the speech
restrained and the danger
contemplated;   invalid.
(b) the balancing of interests
tests, used as a standard when
courts need to balance
conflicting social values and
individual interests, and requires
a conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of
interests observable in a given
situation of type of situation; and
(c) the clear and present danger
rule which rests on the premise
that speech may be restrained
because there is substantial
danger that the speech will likely
lead to an evil the government
has a right to prevent.
i. This rule requires that the
evil consequences sought to
be prevented must be
substantive, “extremely
serious and the degree of
imminence extremely
high.”   The cast of the restriction
Prior restraint refers to official governmental
restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or
dissemination.
- Freedom from prior restraint is largely
freedom from government censorship of
publications, whatever the form of
censorship, and regardless of whether it is
wielded by the executive, legislative or
judicial branch of the government.
- Thus, it precludes governmental acts that
required approval of a proposal to publish;
licensing or permits as prerequisites to
publication including the payment of
license taxes for the privilege to publish;
and even injunctions against publication.
- Even the closure of the business and
printing offices of certain newspapers,
resulting in the discontinuation of their
printing and publication, are deemed as
previous restraint or censorship. 
- Any law or official that requires some form
of permission to be had before publication
can be made, commits an infringement of
the constitutional right, and remedy can be
had at the courts.
Given that deeply ensconced in our
restraints on speech, and any act that
restrains speech is presumed invalid, and “any
act that restrains speech is hobbled by the
presumption of invalidity and should be
greeted with furrowed brows,” it is important to
stress not all prior restraints on speech are
 
Certain previous restraints may be permitted
by the Constitution, but determined only upon
a careful evaluation of the challenged act as
against the appropriate test by which it should
be measured against.
Hence, it is not enough to determine whether
the challenged act constitutes some form of
restraint on freedom of speech.
- A distinction has to be made whether the
restraint is
 (1) a content-
neutral regulation, i.e., merely
concerned with the incidents of the
speech, or one that merely controls
the time, place or manner, and under
well defined standards; or
 (2) a content-based restraint or
censorship, i.e., the restriction is
based on the subject matter of the
utterance or speech. 
determines the test by which the
challenged act is assayed with.
When the speech restraints take the form of
a content-neutral regulation, only a substantial
governmental interest is required for its
validity.62 Because regulations of this type are
not designed to suppress any particular
message, they are not subject to the strictest
form of judicial scrutiny but an intermediate
approach—somewhere between the mere
rationality that is required of any other law and
the compelling interest standard applied to
content-based restrictions.
The test is called intermediate because
 the Court will not merely rubberstamp the
validity of a law but also require that the
restrictions be narrowly-tailored to
promote an important or significant
governmental interest that is unrelated to
the suppression of expression. The
intermediate approach has been
formulated in this manner:
A governmental regulation is
sufficiently justified if it is within
the constitutional power of the
Government, if it furthers an
important or substantial
governmental interest; if the
governmental interest is
unrelated to the suppression of
free expression; and if the
incident restriction on alleged
[freedom of speech & Definition:
expression] is no greater than is
essential to the furtherance of
that interest.  damaging the reputation.
On the other hand, a governmental action that
restricts freedom of speech or of the
press based on content is given the strictest
scrutiny in light of its inherent and invasive
impact. Only when the challenged act has
overcome the clear and present danger
rule will it pass constitutional muster,65 with
the government having the burden of
overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality.
Unless the government can overthrow this
presumption, the content-based restraint will
be struck down.66
With respect to content-based restrictions, the
government must also show the type of harm
the speech sought to be restrained would
bring about—especially the gravity and the
imminence of the threatened harm—otherwise
the prior restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint
on speech based on its content cannot be
justified by hypothetical fears, “but only by
showing a substantive and imminent evil that
has taken the life of a reality already on
ground.”67 As formulated, “the question in
every case is whether the words used are
used in such circumstances and are of such a
nature as to create a clear and present danger
that they will bring about the substantive evils
that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a
question of proximity and degree.”
Also, the incidental restriction on speech must
be no greater than what is essential to the
furtherance of that interest. A restriction that is
so broad that it encompasses more than what
is required to satisfy the governmental interest
will be invalidated. The regulation, therefore,
must be reasonable and narrowly drawn to fit
the regulatory purpose, with the least
restrictive means undertaken. 
B. Jfjf
**Having settled the applicable standard to
content-based restrictions on broadcast
media, let us go to its application to the case
at bar. To recapitulate, a governmental action
that restricts freedom of speech or of the press
based on content is given the strictest scrutiny,
with the government having the burden of
overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality
by the clear and present danger rule. This rule
applies equally to all kinds of media, including
broadcast media.
Scurrilous – making or spreading scandalous
claims about someone with the intention of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs
TIBURCIO ABALOS l G.R. No. 88189 l July
9, 1996 l REGALADO
Facts:
P/Pfc. Sofronio Labine, a duly appointed and
qualified member of the said INP, was
engaged in the performance of his official
duties or on the occasion of such
performance, that is, maintaining peace and
order during the barangay fiesta of
Canlapwas, of said municipality, thereby
inflicting upon him "Lacerated wound 2 inches
parietal area right.
Held:
Complex crime of direct assault with murder
There are two modes of committing atentados
contra la autoridad o sus agentes under Article
148 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The first is not a true atentado as it is
tantamount to rebellion or sedition, except
that there is no public uprising.
- On the other hand, the second mode is the
more common way of committing assault
and is aggravated when there is a weapon
employed in the attack, or the offender is a
public officer, or the offender lays hands
upon a person in authority. 
***Appellant committed the second form of
assault, the elements of which are that there
must be:
- An attack, use of force, or serious
intimidation or resistance upon a person in
authority or his agent;
- The assault was made when the said
 person was performing his duties or on the
occasion of such performance;
- The accused knew that the victim is a
person in authority or his agent, that is,
that the accused must have the intention
to offend, injure or assault the offended
party as a person in authority or an agent
of a person in authority.  damage caused to another person or at least
*Constitutional Law Discussion*
CECILIA ZULUETA vs COURT OF APPEALS
and ALFREDO MARTIN l G.R. No. 107383 l
February 20, 1996 l MENDOZA
Facts:
- Indeed the documents and papers in
question are inadmissible in evidence. The
constitutional injunction declaring "the
privacy of communication and
correspondence [to be] inviolable"is no
less applicable simply because it is the
wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her
husband's infidelity) who is the party
against whom the constitutional provision
is to be enforced.
 The only exception to the prohibition
in the Constitution is if there is a
"lawful order [from a] court or when
public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law."
 Any violation of this provision renders
the evidence obtained inadmissible
"for any purpose in any proceeding."  cause such damage.55
MICHAEL T. DAVA vs THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and the INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT l G.R. No. 73905 l
September 30, 1991 l FERNAN
Facts:
While driving a car along Shaw Boulevard,
Mandaluyong, Rizal, petitioner Michael T.
Dava, then holder of non-professional driver's
license No. 14744271 with official receipt No.
7023037,2 bumped pedestrians Bernadette
Roxas Clamor and Dolores E. Roxas, causing
death to former and physical injuries to the
latter.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not driver’s license is a
public document? ANS. Yes.
A driver's license is a public document within
the purview of Articles 171 and 172. The blank
form of the drivers license becomes a public
document the moment it is
accomplished.61 Thus, when driver's license
No. 2706887 was filled up with petitioner's
personal data and the signature of the region
of the San Fernando LTC agency was affixed
therein, even if the same was simulated, the
driver's license became a public document.
***The driver's license being a public
document, proof of the fourth element of
an intent to cause such damage has become
immaterial.
In falsification of public or official documents,
the principal thing being punished is the
violation of the public faith and the destruction
of the truth proclaimed therein.62
2. Whether or not Art. 171 and 172 of RPC
are violated. ANS. Yes.
The elements of the crime of using a falsified
document in transaction (other than as
evidence in a judicial proceed penalized under
the last paragraph of Article 172 are following:
(a) the offender knew that a document
was falsified by another person;
(b) the false document is embraced in
Article 171 or in any of subdivisions Nos.
1 and 2 of Article 172;
(c he used such document (not in judicial
proceedings), and
(d) the use of the false document
caused damage to another or at
last it was used with intent to
 
i. Except for last, all of these
elements have been proven
beyond reason doubt in this
case.
GR: People vs. Sendaydiego
The rule is that if a person had in his
possession a falsified document and he made
use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and
profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is
the material author of the falsification.
Exception: In the absence of a satisfactory
explanation, one who is found in possession of
a forged document and who used or uttered it
is presumed to be the forger (Alarcon vs.
Court of Appeals, L-21846, March 31, 1967,
19 SCRA 688; People vs. Caragao,
SPOUSES REVELO VILLAMAR and
CORAZON PENULIAR- VILLAMAR vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES l G.R. No.
178652 l December 8, 2010 l CARPIO
Facts:
In the deed, it was made to appear that all of
Elena’s children, including Modesta and
Felipe, sold the property to the spouses. The That petitioners were the authors and/or
signatures of Modesta, Hermogenes, and masterminds of the falsification is
Lucia were forged. Corazon and Revelo presumed from the fact that they actually
alleged that "employees of the Assessor’s benefited from it.
Office" committed the falsification.
Maliwat vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme
In 1999, Modesta discovered the 23 Court held that in the absence of satisfactory
November 1989 deed of sale. In an explanation, one found in possession of and
information5 dated 7 September 2000, Second who used a forged document is the forger and
Assistant City Prosecutor Regulus V. Reyes therefore guilty of falsification. "If a person had
charged Corazon and Revelo with falsification in his possession a falsified document and he
of public document. made use of it, taking advantage of it and
profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that
Issue/s: he is the material author of the falsification."
1. Whether or not the offenders are guilty
of Arts. 171 and 172? ANS. Yes 1. Whether or not this case is a question
of law or fact? ANS. Question of Fact
Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
"Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
and use of falsified documents. — The penalty states that petitions for review on certiorari
of prision correccional in its medium and "shall raise only questions of law which must
maximum periods and a fine of not more than be distinctly set forth."
5,000 shall be imposed upon:
In Pagsibigan v. People, the Court held that:
"1. Any private individual who shall commit any A petition for review under Rule 45 of the
of the falsifications enumerated in the next Rules of Court should cover only questions of
preceding article in any public or official law.
document or letter of exchange or any other
kind of commercial document; and Questions of fact are not reviewable.
x x x           x x x          x x x"
A question of law A question of fact
On the other hand, Article 171 of the same exists when the exists when the
Code provides: doubt centers on doubt centers on the
what the law is on a truth or falsity of the
"Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, certain set of facts. alleged facts.
employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister. There is a question Once the issue
— The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not of law if the issue invites a review of
to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon raised is capable of the evidence, the
any public officer, employee, or notary who, being resolved question posed is
taking advantage of his official position, shall without need of one of fact.
falsify a document by committing any of the reviewing the
following acts: probative value of
the evidence. The
"1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, issue to be resolved
signature, or rubric; must be limited to
x x x           x x x          x x x" determining what
the law is on a
***From the foregoing, the elements of the certain set of facts.
crime of falsification under paragraph 1 of
Article 172 are: Exceptions to this rule are:
(i) that the offender is a private individual; (1) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
(ii) (ii) that he committed any of the acts (2) when the findings are grounded on
of falsification enumerated in Art. 171; speculation;
and (3) when the inference made is manifestly
(iii) (iii) that the falsification was committed mistaken;
in a public or official or commercial (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals
document. is based on a misapprehension of facts;
i. All these elements are present (5) when the factual findings are conflicting;
in the instant case. (6) when the Court of Appeals went beyond
 the issues of the case and its findings are
contrary to the admissions of the parties;
(7) when the Court of Appeals overlooked
undisputed facts which, if properly
considered, would justify a different
conclusion;
(8) when the facts set forth by the petitioner
are not disputed by the respondent; and
(9) when the findings of the Court of Appeals
are premised on the absence of evidence
and are contradicted by the evidence on
record.  ***The proper designation of the felony
VENANCIO M. SEVILLA vs PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES l G.R. No. 194390 l
August 13, 2014 l REYES
Facts:
The truth of which he is legally bound to
disclose, by stating in his C.S. Form 212,
dated 02 July 2001 or Personal Data Sheet,
an official document, which he submitted to the
Office of the Secretariat, Malabon City Council
and, in answer to Question No. 25 therein, he
stated that no criminal case is pending against
him, when in fact, as the accused fully well
knew, he is an accused in Criminal Case No.
6718-97, entitled "People of the Philippines
versus Venancio Sevilla and Artemio Sevilla",
for Assault Upon AnAgent Of A Person In
Authority, pending before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Malabon City, Branch 55, thereby
perverting the truth.
Issue/s:
Quasi-offenses under Article 365 of the RPC
are distinct and separate crimes and not a
mere modality in the commission of a crime.
In negligence or imprudence, what isprincipally
penalized is the mental attitude or condition
behind the act, the dangerous recklessness,
lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia
punible.x x x
Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation v.
People,16 the Court clarified that:
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code,
criminal negligence "is treated as a mere quasi
offense, and dealt with separately from willful
offenses. It is not a question of classification or
terminology.
In intentional In negligence or
crimes, the act imprudence, what is
itselfis punished principally penalized is
the mental attitude or
condition behind the
act, the
dangerousrecklessness,
lack of care or foresight,
the imprudencia
punible.
Much of the confusion has arisen from the
common use of such descriptive phrase as
‘homicide through reckless imprudence’, and
the like; when the strict technical sense is,
more accurately, ‘reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide’; or ‘simple imprudence
causing damages to property’."
should be reckless imprudence resulting to
falsification of public documents and not
falsification of public documents through
reckless imprudence.***
2. Variance
While a criminal negligent act is not a simple
modality of a wilful crime, as we held in
Quizon v. Justice of the Peace of Bacolor, x
x x, but a distinct crime in itself,
designated asa quasi offense, in our Penal
Code, it may however be said that a
conviction for the former can be had under
an information exclusively charging the
commission of a wilful offense, upon the
theory that the greater includes the lesser
offense. 
***ATTY. BERNARDO T. CONSTANTINO vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES l G.R. No.
225696 l April 08, 2019 l LEONEN
Facts:
Cause to appear in the LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT executed by Severino C.
Cabrales in favor of the accused TERESITA C.
SALIGANAN, that SEVERINO C. CABRALES
participated in the execution of the LAST WILL
AND TESTAMENT, when in fact he did not so
participate, and making it appear that the
testator Severino Cabrales and the attesting
witnesses, Dr. Eliezer Asuncion, Mary
Balintona and Dr. Justino Balintona
acknowledge the Last Will and Testament
before Atty. Bernardo Constantino while in
truth they never appeared to acknowledge the
same.
Discussion:
Criminal Procedure:
Ferrer v. People:
It is a well-settled rule that an appeal in a
criminal case throws the whole case wide
open for review and that it becomes the
duty of the Court to correct such errors as
may be found in the judgment appealed
 from, whether they are assigned as errors
or not.
Appeals of criminal cases confer upon the
reviewing court full jurisdiction and render it
competent to examine the records, revise
the judgment from which an appeal arose,
increase the penalty, and cite the
appropriate penal law provision.
Thus, this Court may still review the factual
findings of the trial court "if it is not
convinced that [such findings] are
conformable to the evidence of record and
to its own impressions of the credibility of
the witnesses."Significant facts and
circumstances may have been overlooked,
which, if properly considered, could affect
the result of the case.
A. Whether or not the accused were guilty
of falsification: ANS. No. Set aside and
reversed.
ARTICLE 171. Falsification by Public
Officer, Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastic
Minister. — The penalty of prisión
mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any public officer,
employee, or notary who, taking advantage
of his official position, shall falsify a
document by committing any of the
following acts:
....
2. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate
There is falsification of a public document
when the public document is simulated "in a
manner so as to give it the appearance of a
true and genuine instrument, thus, leading
others to errors as to its
authenticity[.]"65 Moreover, "[w]hat is punished
in falsification of public document is principally
the undermining of the public faith and the
destruction of truth as solemnly proclaimed
therein."66
When a notary public falsifies a public
document, his or her act effectively
undermines the public's trust and reliance on
notarized documents as evidence. Thus, he or
she is held criminally liable for the offense
when the falsity committed leads others to
believe the document was authentic when it is
not.
In falsification of public documents under
Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code,
the prosecution must prove that these
elements exist:
1. That the offender is a public officer,
employee, or notary public.
2. That he takes advantage of his official
position.
3. That he falsifies a document by causing it
to appear that persons have participated in
any act or proceeding.
4. That such person or persons did not in
fact so participate in the proceeding.67
B. Whether or not Notarized Documents
are public documents. ANS. Yes (CIVIL
LAW AND RULES OF COURT,
EVIDENCE)
Before one can be held criminally liable for
falsification of public documents, it is essential
that the document allegedly falsified is a public
document.
Public documents are defined in Cacnio v.
Baens53 as "those instruments authorized by a
notary public or by a competent public official
with all the solemnities required by law[.]" 54 By
this definition, any notarized document is
considered a public document.
Notarization confers a public character upon
private documents so that, for the purposes of
admissibility in court, no further evidence is
required to prove the document's
authenticity.55 The notary public swears to the
truth of the document's contents and its due
execution. In Antillon v. Barcelon:56
The principal function of a notary public is
to authenticate documents. When a notary
public certifies the due execution and
delivery of a document under his hand and
seal he thereby gives such a document the
force of evidence.
....
Indeed, one of the very purposes of requiring
documents to be acknowledged before a
notary public, in addition to the solemnity
which should surround the execution and
delivery of documents, is to authorize such
documents to be given in evidence without
further proof of their execution and delivery.57
Thus, notaries public are cautioned to take
due care in notarizing documents to ensure
the public's confidence in notarized
documents.
In Ramirez v. Ner:58
A notarial document is by law entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face, and for
this reason notaries public must observe
the utmost care to comply with the
elementary formalities in the performance
of their duties. Otherwise the confidence of
the public in the integrity of this form of
conveyancing would be undermined.59
Under the Rules on Evidence, notarized
documents are clothed with the presumption of
regularity; that is, that the notary public had
the authority to certify the documents as duly
executed. A last will and testament, however,
is specifically excluded from the application of
Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court.
This implies that when the document being
presented as evidence is a last will and
testament, further evidence is necessary to
prove its due execution, whether notarized or
not.
A last will and testament is a "species of
conveyance whereby a person is permitted,
with the formalities prescribed by law, to
control to a certain degree the disposition
of his estate after his death." 60 A notarial
will is one that is "acknowledged before a
notary public by a testator and the
attesting witnesses[.]"61 Moreover, Article
806 of the Civil Code provides:
ARTICLE 806. Every will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses. The notary public
shall not be required to retain a copy of the
will, or file another with the office of the Clerk
of Court.
This acknowledgment is embodied in an
attestation clause at the end of the instrument.
An attestation clause, in Caneda v. Court of
Appeals,62 is:
. . . that part of an ordinary will whereby the
attesting witnesses certify that the instrument
has been executed before them and to the
manner of the execution of the same. It is a
separate memorandum or record of the facts
surrounding the conduct of execution and
once signed by the witnesses, it gives
affirmation to the fact that compliance with the
essential formalities required by law has been
observed. It is made for the purpose of
preserving in a permanent form a record of the
facts that attended the execution of a
particular will, so that in case of failure of the
memory of the attesting witnesses, or other
casualty, such facts may still be proved.63
By this definition, the formalities required by
law to prove a notarial will's authenticity do not
pertain to the notarization, but to
the attestation and subscription of the testator
and the attesting witnesses. In Caneda, this
Court further explained:
[T]he subscription of the signatures of the
testator and the attesting witnesses is
made for the purpose of authentication and
identification, and thus indicates that the
will is the very same instrument executed
by the testator and attested to by the
witnesses.
Further, by attesting and subscribing to the
will, the witnesses thereby declare the due
execution of the will as embodied in the
attestation clause. The attestation clause,
therefore, provides strong legal guaranties for
the due execution of a will and to insure the
authenticity thereof. As it appertains only to the
witnesses and not to the testator, it need be
signed only by them. Where it is left unsigned,
it would result in the invalidation of the will as it
would be possible and easy to add the clause
on a subsequent occasion in the absence of
the testator and the witnesses.64
C. Whether or not Atty. Accused should be
sanctioned administratively. Ans. Yes.
Incomplete Notarization (LEGAL
ETHICS)
Petitioner's failure to cross out Dr. Asuncion's
name when he notarized the Joint
Acknowledgment has allowed Dr. Asuncion to
still sign the document despite not having
participated in its due execution. This is the
mischief being guarded against in disallowing
notaries public to notarize incomplete
documents. Rule XI, Section l(b)(9), in
relation to Rule IV, Section 5 69 of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, states:
RULE XI
Revocation of Commission and
Disciplinary Sanctions
SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative
Sanctions. — . . .
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may
revoke the commission of, or impose
appropriate administrative sanctions upon,
any notary public who:
...
(9) executes a false or incomplete
certificate under Section 5, Rule IV[.]
***MIGUEL D. ESCOBAR vs PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES l G.R. No. 205576 l
November 20, 2017 l LEONEN***
Facts:
 while committing the offense in relation to
office, taking advantage of their respective
positions, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, convert, and
misappropriate the amount of THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(₱300,000.00), Philippine Currency, in public
funds under their custody, and for which they
are accountable, by falsifying or causing to be
falsified the corresponding Disbursement
Voucher.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the accused are guilty of
Estafa by deceit. ANS. YES
Although not expressly stated by the
Sandiganbayan, petitioners Alzate, Maglinte,
and co-accused Zoleta were convicted of
estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), and
not l(b) of the Revised Penal Code as claimed
by petitioners. Article 315, paragraph 2(a)
provides that estafa may be committed:
2. By means of any of the following false
pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits.
Thus, the elements of estafa by means of
deceit are:
a. That there must be a false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means.
b. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or
executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud.
c. That the offended party must have
relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act,
or fraudulent means, that is, he was
induced to part with his money or property
because of the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means.
d. That as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.122 (Emphasis in the
original)
2. Whether or not there was conspiracy?
***Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan***
- Direct proof is not essential to show
conspiracy.
- It need not be shown that the parties
actually came together and agreed in
express terms to enter into and pursue a
common design.
- The existence of the assent of minds
which is involved in a conspiracy may be,
and from the secrecy of the crime, usually
must be, inferred by the court from proof of
facts and circumstances which, taken
together, apparently indicate that they are
merely parts of some complete whole.
- If it is proved that two or more persons
aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful
object, each doing a part so that their acts,
though apparently independent, were in
fact connected and cooperative, indicating
a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiments, then a
conspiracy may be inferred though no
actual meeting among them to concert
means is proved.
- Thus, the proof of conspiracy, which is
essentially hatched under cover and out of
view of others than those directly
concerned, is perhaps most frequently
made by evidence of a chain of
circumstances only.
3. Arias Doctrine
Arias doctrine which states that "[a]ll
heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable
extent on their subordinates and on the
good faith of those who prepare bids,
purchase supplies, or enter into
negotiations." He contends that he merely
relied on the vouchers and reports prepared
by his subordinates and released the
payments in good faith.
EXP: Cruz v. Sandiganbayan carved out an
exception to the Arias doctrine, stating that:
Unlike in Arias, however, there exists in the
present case an exceptional circumstance
which should have prodded petitioner, if he
were out to protect the interest of the
municipality he swore to serve, to be
curious and go beyond what his
subordinates prepared or recommended. In
fine, the added reason contemplated in
Arias which would have put petitioner on his
guard and examine the check/s and
vouchers with some degree of
circumspection before signing the same
was obtaining in this case.
4. Whether or not the accused should be
accountable in observing
circumspection of public funds? ANS.
Yes.
The Local Government Code provides that
local officials, other than those considered
accountable officers by reason of their duties,
may be held accountable for local government
funds:
Section 340. Persons Accountable for
Local Government Funds. - Any officer of
the local government unit whose duty
permits or requires the possession or
custody of local government funds shall be
accountable and responsible for the
safekeeping thereof in conformity with the
provisions of this Title. Other local officers
who, though not accountable by the nature
of their duties, may likewise be similarly
held accountable and responsible for local
government funds through their participation
in the use or application thereof.
Thus, local government officials, such as
petitioners Escobar and Telesforo, may
become accountable officers by reason of their
participation in the application of public funds.
Petitioners claim that to be accountable
officers, they must receive and acquire
custody or control over government funds or
property by reason of their office and they
must be required to account for them. Thus,
only the Provincial Treasurer is an accountable
officer over the funds disbursed under the
Local Government Code.
However, this argument is unmeritorious.
***In Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan,150 this
Court applied Section 340 of the Local
Government Code and held officials
whose signatures were necessary for
disbursement of funds as accountable
officers:
Third, Vice-Governor Constantino and
Camanay were accountable public officers.
Under the Government Auditing Code of the
Philippines, an accountable public officer is a
public officer who, by reason of his office, is
accountable for public funds or property. The
Local Government Code expanded this
definition with regard to local government
officials. Section 340 of the [Local Government
Code] reads:
Section 340.  Persons Accountable for Local
Government Funds.  - Any officer of the local
government unit whose duty permits or
requires the possession or custody of local
government funds shall be accountable and
responsible for the safekeeping thereof in
conformity with the provisions of this title.
Other local officials, though not accountable
by the nature of their duties, may likewise be
similarly held accountable and responsible for
local government funds through their
participation in the use or application thereof.
(Emphasis ours.)
***Local government officials become
accountable public officers either (1)
because of the nature of their functions; or
(2) on account of their participation in the
use or application of public funds.
As a required standard procedure, the
signatures of, among others, the Vice-
Governor and the Provincial Accountant are
needed before any disbursement of public
funds can be made. No checks can be
prepared and no payment can be effected
without their signatures on a disbursement
voucher and the corresponding check. In other
words, any disbursement and release of public
funds require their approval. Thus,
Constantino and Camanay, in their capacities
as Vice-Governor and Provincial Accountant,
had control and responsibility over the subject
funds.151 (Citation omitted)
Tecson v. Sandiganbayan, the petitioner
maintained that considering the rule
prohibiting the relitigation of matters
resolved by competent judicial authority, the
dismissal of an administrative case against
him was conclusive and binding upon the
parties. This Court rejected this contention:
- [R]es judicata is a doctrine of civil
law.
- It thus has no bearing in the criminal
proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.
- Second, it is a basic principle of the law
on public officers that a public official or
employee is under a three-fold
responsibility for violation of duty or for
a wrongful act or omission.
- This simply means that a public officer
may be held civilly, criminally, and
administratively liable for a wrongful
doing.
- Thus, if such violation or wrongful act
results in damages to an individual, the
public officer may be held civilly liable to
reimburse the injured party.
- If the law violated attaches a penal
sanction, the erring officer may be
punished criminally.
- Finally, such violation may also lead to
suspension, removal from office, or
other administrative sanctions.
- This administrative liability is separate
and distinct from the penal and civil
liabilities.
- Thus, the dismissal of an administrative
 case does not necessarily bar the filing
of a criminal prosecution for the same
or similar acts, which were the subject
of the administrative complaint.156
TEODORO C. TORTONA vs JULIAN C.
GREGORIO l G.R. No. 202612 l January 17,
2018 l LEONEN
Summary: Documents acknowledged before
a notary public are presumed to have been
duly executed. This presumption may be
contradicted by clear and convincing evidence.
A notarized Deed of Absolute Sale where the
thumbmark of a party is shown to be a forgery
is void.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not Question of Fact may still
be reviewed under R45 of RCP?
The Rules of Court require that only
questions of law should be raised in
petitions filed under Rule 45. This court is
not a trier of facts. It will not entertain
questions of fact as the factual findings of
the appellate courts are "final, binding[,] or
conclusive on the parties and upon this
[c]ourt" when supported by substantial
evidence. Factual findings of the appellate
courts will not be reviewed nor disturbed on
appeal to this court.
However, these rules do admit exceptions.
Over time, the exceptions to these rules
have expanded. At present, there are 10
recognized exceptions that were first listed
in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.:
1. When the conclusion is a finding
grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures;
2. When the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible;
3. Where there is a grave abuse of
discretion;
4. When the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts;
5. When the findings of fact are conflicting;
6. When the Court of Appeals, in making
its findings, went beyond the issues of
the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and
appellee;
7. The findings of the Court of Appeals are
contrary to those of the trial court;
8. When the findings of fact are
conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based;
9. When the facts set forth in the petition
as well as in the petitioner's main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondents; and
10. The finding of fact of the Court of
Appeals is premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and is
contradicted by the evidence on record.
These exceptions similarly apply in petitions
for review filed before this court involving
civil, labor, tax, or criminal cases.
2. Whether or not Notary Public is imbued
with public interest? ANS. Yes.
***Notarization enables a notary public to
ascertain the voluntariness of the party's act
and to verify the genuineness of his or her
signature. Through notarization, the public and
the courts may rely on the face of the
instrument, without need of further examining
its authenticity and due execution. It is an act
that is imbued with public interest.***
In Nunga v. Atty. Viray:
[N]otarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinary act. It is invested
with substantive public interest, such that
only those who are qualified or authorized
may act as notaries public. The protection of
that interest necessarily requires that those not
qualified or authorized to act must be
prevented from imposing upon the public, the
courts, and the administrative offices in
general.
- It must be underscored that the
notarization by a notary public
converts a private document into a
public document making that
document admissible in evidence
without further proof of the authenticity
thereof.
- A notarial document is by law entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face. For this
reason, notaries public must observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties.]
Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of
regularity. They are accorded evidentiary
weight as regards their due execution:
Generally, a notarized document carries the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
respect to its due execution, and documents
acknowledged before a notary public have in
their favor the presumption of regularity.[32]
However, any such presumption is disputable.
It can be refuted by clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary:
It is true that notarized documents are
accorded evidentiary weight as regards their
due execution. Nevertheless, while notarized
documents enjoy the presumption of regularity,
this presumption is disputable. They can be
contradicted by evidence that is clear,
convincing, and more than merely
preponderant.[33] (Citations omitted)
Whether or not Expert Witnesses are of
mandatory or discretionary upon the court.
ANS. Discretionary.
Opinions, when admissible, must have proper
factual basis. They must be supported by facts
or circumstances from which they draw logical
inferences. An opinion berefts of factual basis
merits no probative value.  Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net
People v. Malejana[43] stated the following
regarding expert opinions:
The probative force of the testimony of an
expert does not lie in a mere statement of the
theory or opinion of the expert, but rather in
the aid that he can render to the courts in
showing the facts which serve as a basis for
his criterion and the reasons upon which the
logic of his conclusion is founded.
[44] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
The witness rendering an opinion must be
credible,[45] in addition to possessing all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications
specified in the Revised Rules on Evidence.
[46] 
In the case of an expert witness, he or she
must be shown to possess knowledge, skill,
experience, or training on the subject matter of
his or her testimony.[47] On the other hand, an
ordinary witness may give an opinion on
matters which are within his or her knowledge
or with which he or she has sufficient
familiarity.[48]
Heirs of Gregorio v. Court of Appeals,
[65] outlined standards for establishing
forgery:
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. The best
evidence of a forged signature in an
instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the
alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery
can only be established by a comparison
between the alleged forged signature and the
authentic and genuine signature of the person
whose signature is theorized upon to have
been forged. Without the original document
containing the alleged forged signature, one
cannot make a definitive comparison which
would establish forgery. A comparison based
on a mere xerox copy or reproduction of the
document under controversy cannot produce
reliable results.[66] (Citation omitted)
ALBERTA DE JOYA IGLESIAS vs THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN L
GR#180745 l 2017 l LEONEN
Facts:
Petitioner Iglesias was employed as Acting
District Collector by the Bureau of Customs on
October 1, 2002. tty. Acuña and Pizarro
claimed that Iglesias failed to file her
Worth (SALNs) prior to the year 2000.
They also alleged that Iglesias made false
entries in her 2000, 2001, and 2002 SALNs
with respect to two (2) real properties in
Quezon City and Pangasinan. The Quezon
City property's tax declarations revealed that
Iglesias purchased the property on August 1,
1996 from the spouses Rosario and Elpidio
Ablang. Likewise, the Pangasinan property's
Transfer Certificate of Title was issued by
virtue of a deed of sale showing that she
purchased a portion of this property from
Marina Lopez de Joya (Marina). However, in
her SALNs, Iglesias indicated that these
properties were acquired through inheritance.
1. Whether or not the accused was not given
due process?
***Administrative due process demands that
the party being charged is given an
opportunity to be heard.[106] Due process is
complied with "if the party who is properly
notified of allegations against him or her is
given an opportunity to defend himself or
herself against those allegations, and such
defense was considered by the tribunal in
arriving at its own independent
conclusions."[107]
In F/O Ledesma v. Court of Appeals:[108]
Due process is satisfied when a person is
notified of the charge against him and given an
opportunity to explain or defend himself. In
administrative proceedings, the filing of
charges and giving reasonable opportunity for
the person so charged to answer the
accusations against him constitute the
minimum requirements of due process. The
essence of due process is simply to be heard,
or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one's side, or an
o£portunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.[109]
An important component of due process is the
right of the accused to be informed of the
nature of the charges against him or her.
[110] A proper appraisal of the accusations
would give the accused an opportunity to
adequately prepare for his or her defense.
Otherwise, substantial justice would be
undermined.[111]
ALFONSO C. CHOA vs PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and LENI CHOA l G.R. No.
142011 l  March 14, 2003 l SANDOVAL-
GUTIERREZ
Facts:
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.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of
perjury? ANS. YES.
Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code
under which petitioner has been charged
and convicted, provides:
"Art. 183. False testimony in other cases and
perjury in solemn affirmation. – The penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional  in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any person who,
knowingly making untruthful statements and
not being included in the provisions of the next
preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or
make an affidavit, upon any material matter
before a competent person authorized to
administer an oath in cases in which the law
so requires.
"Any person who, in case of a solemn
affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall
commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in
this and the three preceding articles of this
section, shall suffer the respective penalties
provided therein."
***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.***
All these elements are present in the instant
case. Petitioner willfully and deliberately
alleged false statements concerning his
"residence" and "moral character" in his
petition for naturalization. This was sufficiently
proven by the prosecution, as succinctly noted
by the Court of Appeals in its assailed
Decision.
2. In petition for naturalization causing to
declare untruthful residence is material
to deny citizen? ANS. YES.
The necessity of declaring a truthful and
specific information on the "residence" and
"moral character" in the petition for
naturalization has been underscored by this
Court in Chua Kian Lai vs. Republic,16 thus:
"One qualification for Philippine citizenship
is that the petitioner ‘must be of good moral
character.’ That circumstance should be
specifically alleged in the petition.
x x x           x x x           x x x
"The law explicitly requires that the
applicant should indicate in his petition
‘his present and former places of
residence’ (Sec. 7, Com. Act No. 473).
That requirement is designed to facilitate
the verification of petitioner’s
activities  which  have a bearing on his
petition for naturalization, especially so as to
his qualifications and moral character, either
by private individuals or by investigative
agencies of the government, by pointing to
them the localities or places wherein
appropriate inquiries may be made (Keng
Giok vs. Republic, 112 Phil. 896).
Moreover, the suppression of that
information might constitute falsehood
which signifies that the applicant lacks good
moral character and is not, therefore,
qualified to be admitted as a citizen of the
Philippines." (italics supplied)
UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES and
DESI TOMAS vs PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES l G.R. No. 192565 l February
28, 2012 l BRION
Facts:
Untruthful statements under oath upon a
material matter before a competent person
authorized to administer oath which the law
requires to wit: said accused stated in the
Verification/Certification/Affidavit of merit of a
complaint for sum of money with prayer for a
writ of replevin docketed as [Civil] Case No.
342-00 of the Metropolitan Trial Court[,] Pasay
City, that the Union Bank of the Philippines has
not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in
another tribunal or agency, accused knowing
well that said material statement was false
thereby making a willful and deliberate
assertion of falsehood.2
Issue/s:
1. Discussion on VENUE.
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. The
reason for this rule is two-fold.
a. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is
limited to well-defined territories such that
a trial court can only hear and try cases
involving crimes committed within its
territorial jurisdiction.12  
b. Second, laying the venue in the locus
criminis is grounded on the necessity and
justice of having an accused on trial in the
municipality of province where witnesses
and other facilities for his defense are
available.13
Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper
venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional
consequences. In determining the venue
where the criminal action is to be instituted
and the court which has jurisdiction over it,
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Subject to existing laws, the criminal
action shall be instituted and tried in the
court or municipality or territory  where the
offense was committed or where any of
its essential ingredients occurred.
[emphasis ours]
The above provision should be read in light of
Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure which states:
Place of commission of the offense. – The
complaint or information is sufficient if it can
be understood from its allegations that the
offense was committed or some of its
essential ingredients occurred at some place
within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the
particular place where it was committed
constitutes an essential element of the offense
charged or is necessary for its identification.
2. Certification against forum shopping
Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, contains the
requirement for a Certificate against Forum
Shopping.
 The Certificate against Forum
Shopping can be made either by a
statement under oath in the
complaint or initiatory pleading
asserting a claim or relief;
 it may also be in a sworn certification
annexed to the complaint or initiatory
pleading.
3. Perjury
In this 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:
That the accused made a statement
under oath or executed an affidavit
upon a material matter.
 That the statement or affidavit was
made before a competent officer,
authorized to receive and administer
oath.
 That in the statement or affidavit, the
accused made a willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood.
That the sworn statement or affidavit
containing the falsity is required by law or
made for a legal purpose.15 (emphasis ours)
JUVY DESMOPARAN A.K.A. "MASYADOR”
vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 233598 l March 27, 2019 l
PERALTA
Facts:
Desmoparan applied for a salary loan in the
amount of P105,000.00 from Cebu CFI
Community Cooperative -Dumaguete City
Branch (CFI). He misrepresented himself to be
an employee of the City Engineer's Office, by
using the name "Rodulfo M. Cordura," to
Chiyenne Mirasol (Mirasol), loan clerk of CFI.

When Mirasol asked for his identification card,
Desmoparan presented his employee's I.D.
from the City Engineer's Office with his picture
on it, but bearing the name "Rodulfo M.
Cordura."
To support his application for loan,
Desmoparan submitted the following
documents, namely: a) application for
membership form of CFI; b) special power of
attorney coupled with interest; c) deed of
assignment; d) certification from the City
Human Resource Office; e) certificate of
employment from the City Human Resource
Office; f) service record signed by Henrietta N.
Zerna; and g) promissory note dated February
27, 2012. All said documents reflected the
name of “Rodulfo M. Cordura” as the loan
applicant and debtor.4
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of
falsification of public document? ANS.
Yes.
The elements of the crime of falsification
of commercial documents under Article
172 (1), in relation to Article 171, of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. (RA) 10951, are:
 That the offender is a private individual
x x x;
 That [the offender] committed any of
the acts of falsification enumerated in
Article 171 of the [Revised Penal
Code];
 That the [act of] falsification [is]
committed in a x x x commercial
document."
***The absence of a direct proof that
Desmoparan was the author of the falsification
is of no moment for the rule remains that
whenever someone has in his possession
falsified documents and uttered or used
the same for his advantage and benefit, the
presumption that he authored it arises.24
In the absence of a satisfactory
explanation, as in this case, one who is
found in possession of a forged document
and who used or uttered it is presumed to
be the forger.
2. Whether or not there is a complex
crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Public Document? ANS. Yes
Corrollarily, after the existence of falsification
of commercial documents has been
established, we also find that the falsification
of loan documents was a necessary means to
commit estafa.
In general, the elements of estafa are:
(1) that the accused defrauded another
(a) by abuse of confidence or
(b) by means of deceit; and
C. that damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third person.
Deceit is the false representation of a
matter of fact, whether by words or conduct,
by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have
been disclosed; and which deceives or is
intended to deceive another so that he shall
act upon it, to his legal injury.
It must be emphasized anew that when the
offender commits on a public, official, or
commercial document any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code as a necessary means to
commit another crime like estafa, the two
crimes form a complex crime.
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code,there are two classes of a complex
crime. - A complex crime may refer to a single
act which constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies or to an offense as a
necessary means for committing another.
***Domingo v. People, we have held that
falsification of a commercial document may
be a means of 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 document. In other words, the
crime of falsification has already existed.
Actually utilizing that falsified public, official
or commercial document to defraud another
is estafa. But the damage is caused by the
commission of estafa, not by the falsification
of the document.
Desmoparan is found guilty of the complex
crime of estafa through falsification of
commercial documents since the crime of
falsification was established to be a
necessary means to commit estafa.
***De Castro v. People, citing Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code, the Court held that in the
complex crime of estafa through falsification of
commercial documents, the penalty for the
graver offense should be imposed in the
maximum period.
Thus, the penalty of imprisonment in the crime
of estafa under RA 10951 is now lighter than
the penalty of imprisonment for falsification of
commercial documents. Applying then the
provisions of Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code for the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of commercial documents, the
penalty for the graver offense should be
imposed in the maximum period. Thus, the
penalty for falsification of commercial
documents should be imposed in the
maximum period, being the more serious
crime than estafa. However, the penalty of fine
of not more than Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00) under the old law should be
imposed because this is more favorable to the
petitioner than the penalty of fine of not more
than One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) under
the present law.
MIGUEL D. ESCOBAR vs PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES l G.R. No. 205576 l November
20, 2017 l LEONEN
Facts:
Committing the offense in relation to office,
taking advantage of their respective positions,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, convert, and misappropriate
the amount of THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (₱300,000.00),
Philippine Currency, in public funds under
their custody, and for which they are
accountable, by falsifying or causing to be
falsified the corresponding Disbursement
Voucher dated May 27, 2002 and its
supporting documents, making it appear that
financial assistance had been sought by Nema
Tamayo.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not there was an implied
conspiracy? ANS. Yes.
The conspiracy among petitioners Alzate,
Maglinte, and co-accused Zoleta to commit the
crime was also sufficiently established.
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is a
conspiracy "when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to
commit it."
Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan
Direct proof is not essential to show
conspiracy.
- It need not be shown that the parties
actually came together and agreed in
express terms to enter into and pursue
a common design.
- The existence of the assent of minds
which is involved in a conspiracy may
be, and from the secrecy of the crime,
usually must be, inferred by the court
from proof of facts and circumstances
which, taken together, apparently
indicate that they are merely parts of
some complete whole.
- If it is proved that two or more persons
aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful
object, each doing a part so that their
acts, though apparently independent,
were in fact connected and cooperative,
indicating a closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of
sentiments, then a conspiracy may be
inferred though no actual meeting
among them to concert means is
proved.
- Thus, the proof of conspiracy, which is
essentially hatched under cover and out
of view of others than those directly
concerned, is perhaps most frequently
made by evidence of a chain of
circumstances only.
2. Whether or not the accused are guilty
of Estafa? ANS. Yes.
By means of any of the following false
pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud:
By using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits.
Thus, the elements of estafa by means of
deceit are:
a. That there must be a false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means.
b. That such false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means must be made or
executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud.
c. That the offended party must have
relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was
 induced to part with his money or
property because of the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.
d. That as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.122 (Emphasis
in the original)
3. ARIAS DOCTRINE
***Where there are circumstances that
should have alerted heads of offices to
exercise more diligence in the performance
of their duties, they cannot escape liability
by claiming that they relied on good faith
on the submissions of their
subordinates.***
In such cases, this Court's ruling in Arias v.
Sandiganbayan does not apply. In Rivera v.
People, this Court held:
Arias v. Sandiganbayan is not applicable in
the present case Perez invokes
the Arias doctrine which states that "[a]ll
heads of offices have to rely to a
reasonable extent on their subordinates
and on the good faith of those who prepare
bids, purchase supplies, or enter into
negotiations."
He contends that he merely relied on the
vouchers and reports prepared by his
subordinates and released the payments
in good faith.
To clarify, the Arias doctrine is not an
absolute rule. It is not a magic cloak that can
be used as a cover by a public officer to
conceal himself in the shadows of his
subordinates and necessarily escape liability.
Thus, this ruling cannot be applied to
exculpate the petitioners in view of the peculiar
circumstances in this case which should have
prompted them, as heads of offices, to
exercise a higher degree of circumspection
and, necessarily, go beyond what their
subordinates had prepared.
The case of Cruz v. Sandiganbayan  carved
out an exception to the Arias doctrine, stating
that:
- Unlike in Arias, however, there exists in
the present case an exceptional
circumstance which should have prodded
petitioner, if he were out to protect the
interest of the municipality he swore to
serve, to be curious and go beyond what
his subordinates prepared or
recommended.
- In fine, the added reason contemplated in
Arias which would have put petitioner on
his guard and examine the check/s and
vouchers with some degree of
circumspection before signing the same
was obtaining in this case.
4. Whether or not the accused are guilty
under LGC? ANS. Yes.
The Local Government Code expanded this
definition with regard to local government
officials. Section 340 of the [Local Government
Code] reads:
Section 340. Persons Accountable for Local
Government Funds. - Any officer of the local
government unit whose duty permits or
requires the possession or custody of local
government funds shall be accountable and
responsible for the safekeeping thereof in
conformity with the provisions of this title.
Other local officials, though not accountable by
the nature of their duties, may likewise be
similarly held accountable and responsible for
local government funds through their
participation in the use or application thereof.
(Emphasis ours.)
***Local government officials become
accountable public officers either:
(1) because of the nature of their
functions; or
(2) (2) on account of their participation in
the use or application of public
funds.***
MARIA C. OSORIO vs PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES l G.R. No. 207711 l JULY 2,
2018 l LEONEN
Note: Persons who receive money for
investment in a particular company but divert
the same to another without the investor's
consent may be held criminally liable for other
deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is
broad in scope intended to cover all other
kinds of deceit not falling under Articles 315,
316, and 317 of the Revised Penal Code.
Facts:
By means of false manifestations and
fraudulent representations which she made to
said JOSEFINA O. GABRIEL, prior to and
even simultaneous with the commission of the
fraud, to the effect that her money, if invested
with Philamlife Fund Management will earn
20% interest per annum, and by means of
other similar deceits.
Held:
1. Whether or not the accused will be liable
under Other Deceits? ANS. Yes.
Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is broad
in application. It is intended as a catch-all
provision to cover all other kinds of deceit not
falling under Articles 315, 316, and 317 of the
Revised Penal Code.
For an accused to be held criminally liable
under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code,
the following elements must exist:
(a) [The accused makes a] false pretense,
fraudulent act or pretense other than those
in [Articles 315, 316, and 317];
(b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or
pretense must be made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud; and
(c) as a result, the offended party suffered
damage or prejudice.  RULE 120
All the elements of Article 318 of the Revised
Penal Code are present in this case.
2. Whether the nature of the transaction
was money market? ANS. No.
The present case is different from money
market transactions where dealers are
usually given full discretion on where to place
their client's investments.
In MERALCO v. Atilano, this Court explained
the nature of money market transactions and
the corresponding liabilities that dealers may
face when dealing with their clients'
investments:
[I]n money market transactions, the
dealer is given discretion on where
investments are to be placed, absent any
agreement with or instruction from the
investor to place the investments in specific
securities.
Money market transactions may be
conducted in various ways.
1. One instance is when an investor
enters into an investment contract
with a dealer under terms that oblige
the dealer to place investments only
in designated securities.
2. Another is when there is no stipulation
for placement on designated securities;
thus, the dealer is given discretion to
choose the placement of the
investment made.
Under the first situation, a dealer who
deviates from the specified instruction may
be exposed to civil and criminal prosecution;
in contrast, the second situation may only
give rise to a civil action for recovery of the
amount invested. 67 (Emphasis in the
original)
3. Variance between allegation discussion
Rule: An accused can only be convicted of the
crime with which he or she is charged.
This rule proceeds from the Constitutional
guarantee that an accused shall always
be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him or her.
EXP: An exception to this is the rule on
variance under Rule 120, Section 4 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
states:
Judgment
Section 4. Judgment in Case of Variance
Between Allegation and Proof - When there
is variance between the offense charged in the
complaint or information and that proved, and
the offense as charged is included in or
necessarily includes the offense proved, the
accused shall be convicted of the offense
proved which is included in the offense
charged, or of the offense charged which is
included in the offense proved.
***Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure simply means that if there
is a variance between the offense charged and
the offense proved, an accused may be
convicted of the offense proved if it is included
in the offense charged. An accused may also
be convicted of the offense charged if it is
necessarily included in the offense proved.***
Under the aforequoted provision, the
elements of estafa as defined therein are
as follows:
(1) postdating or issuance of a check in
payment of an obligation contracted at
the time the check was issued;
(2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover
the check and
(3) damage to the payee thereof. . .
Basically, the two essential requisites of
fraud or deceit and damage or injury must
be established by sufficient and competent
 evidence in order that the crime of estafa
may be established.
In the present case, the crime of other deceits
under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is
necessarily included in the crime of estafa by
means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the
Revised Penal Code. Therefore, petitioner
may be convicted of other deceits under Article
318 of the Revised Penal Code.
DANILO D. ANSALDO vs PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES l G.R. No. 159381 l  March 26,
2010 l DEL CASTILLO
Facts:
The said accused, with intent to defraud and
cause damage, forged and falsified a Deed of
Real Estate Mortgage which was subsequently
notarized by Notary Public Juan N. Domingo.
Issue/s:
1. Whether the accused are guilty of
estafa?
For petitioner to be convicted of the
complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document committed
in the manner described in the Information,
all the elements of the two crimes of estafa
and falsification of public document must
exist.
***To secure a conviction for estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), the following requisites
must concur:
- The accused made false pretenses or
fraudulent representations as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary
transactions;
- The false pretenses or fraudulent
representations were made prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the
fraud;
- The false pretenses or fraudulent
representations constitute the very cause
which induced the offended party to part
with his money or property;
- That as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
***On the other hand, we find that we cannot
convict petitioner of the crime of falsification of
a public document penalized under Article 172
of the RPC.
The following requisites must concur, to
wit:
- That the offender is a private
individual or a public officer or
employee who took advantage of his
official position;
- That he committed any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in article 171
of the Revised Penal Code (which in
this case involves forging a
signature);
- That the falsification was committed
in a public or official or commercial
document.
ESTHER PASCUAL vs PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES l G.R. No. 204873 l July 27,
2016 l DEL CASTILLO
(Estafa through Falsification of Public
Document)
Facts:
Pascual and Remegio Montero (Montero)
were indicted for the crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Public Document for colluding
and making it appear that they had facilitated
the payment of the capital gains tax of private
complainant Ernesto Y. Wee to the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) when, in truth and in
fact, they converted and misappropriated the
money for their own personal benefit. 
Held:
The State was able to satisfactorily
establish the elements of estafa, to wit:
(1) that the accused defrauded another by
abuse of confidence or by means of deceit,
and
(2) that damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third person."
Here, Pascual defrauded Tiongco by
pretending that she had "connections" or
"contacts" within the BIR to whom she could
allegedly directly pay the capital gains tax at a
reduced amount and also with whose help and
assistance the transfer certificate of title to the
property purchased could be expedited.
In fact, in their first meeting, Pascual
impressed upon Tiongco that she is a person
of some power and influence because she
was an employee of the Las Piñas City
Assessor’s Office and thus had "connections"
or "contacts" within the BIR and the City
Registry of Deeds.
Moreover, the State was also able to
establish the following elements of the
crime of Falsification of Public
Document: (1) that the offender is a public
 officer, employee, or notary public; litigations while serving as such.
(2) that he takes advantage of his official - Furthermore, it is important that he be
position; freed from any form of harassment,
(3) that he falsifies a document by causing it hindrance or distraction to enable him
to appear that persons have participated in to fully attend to the performance of
any act or proceeding; his official duties and functions.
(4) [and] that such person or persons did - Unlike the legislative and judicial
not in fact so participate in the proceeding." branch, only one constitutes the
executive branch and anything which
The crime committed was estafa through impairs his usefulness in the
falsification of public document. Being a discharge of the many great and
complex crime, the penalty for the more important duties imposed upon him
serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum by the Constitution necessarily
period.  impairs the operation of the
Government.
KILUSANG MAYO UNO, represented by its - However, this does not mean that the
Secretary General ROGELIO SOLUTA vs President is not accountable to
Hon. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III l anyone.
G.R. No. 210500 l April 2, 2019 l LEONEN - Like any other official, he remains
accountable to the people but he may
Facts: be removed from office only in the
On October 2, 2013, the Social Security mode provided by law and that is by
System, through President and Chief impeachment.
Executive Officer Emilio S. De Quiros, Jr.,
issued Circular No. 2013-010,9 which provided In Araullo v. Aquino III, this Court
the revised schedule of contributions that differentiated certiorari from prohibition, and
would be in effect in January 2014. Per the clarified that Rule 65 is the remedy to "set
circular, the employer and the employee right, undo[,] and restrain any act of grave
shall equally shoulder the 0.6% increase in abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
contributions. Thus, the employer would pay a excess of jurisdiction by any branch or
contribution rate of 7.37% (from 7.07%); the instrumentality of the Government, even if the
employee, 3.63% (from 3.33%). latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial
or ministerial functions.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the President may be ***The present  Rules of Court uses two
sued? ANS. During his tenure, no. special civil actions for determining and
correcting grave abuse of discretion
The president is the head of the executive amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
branch, a co-equal of the judiciary under the These are the special civil actions
Constitution. His or her prerogative is entitled for  certiorari  and prohibition, and both are
to respect from other branches of governed by Rule 65***
government. Inter-branch courtesy is but a
consequence of the doctrine of separation of Delos Santos v. Holy Spirit
powers. Metropolitan Bank Homeowners
and Trust Association, Inc. v.
In David, this Court explained why it is Company Defensor
improper to implead the incumbent President
of the Philippines. The sole office of the A petition for
writ of certiorari is prohibition is also
The doctrine has both policy and practical the correction of not the proper
considerations: errors of jurisdiction, remedy to assail an
- Settled is the doctrine that the which includes the IRR issued in the
President, during his tenure of office commission of grave exercise of a quasi-
or actual incumbency, may not be abuse of discretion legislative function.
sued in any civil or criminal case, and amounting to lack of
there is no need to provide for it in the jurisdiction. Prohibition is an
Constitution or law. extraordinary writ
- It will degrade the dignity of the high In this regard, mere directed against any
office of the President, the Head of abuse of discretion tribunal, corporation,
State, if he can be dragged into court is not enough to board, officer or
warrant the issuance person, whether law by which such
of the writ. exercising judicial, relief can be
quasi-judicial or obtained.
The abuse of ministerial functions,
discretion must be ordering said entity Where the principal
grave, which means or person to desist relief sought is to
either that the from further invalidate an IRR,
judicial or quasi- proceedings when petitioners' remedy
judicial power was said proceedings is an ordinary action
exercised in an are without or in for its nullification,
arbitrary or despotic excess of said an action which
manner by reason of entity's or person's properly falls under
passion or personal jurisdiction, or are the jurisdiction of the
hostility, or that the accompanied with Regional Trial Court.
respondent judge, grave abuse of
tribunal or board discretion, and there In any case,
evaded a positive is no appeal or any petitioners'
duty, or virtually other plain, speedy allegation that
refused to perform and adequate "respondents are
the duty enjoined or remedy in the performing or
to act in ordinary course of threatening to
contemplation of law. perform functions
law, such as when without or in excess
such judge, tribunal Prohibition lies of their jurisdiction"
or board exercising against judicial or may appropriately
judicial or quasi- ministerial functions, be enjoined by the
judicial powers but not against trial court through a
acted in a capricious legislative or quasi- writ of injunction or a
or whimsical manner legislative functions. temporary
as to be equivalent restraining order.
to lack of Generally, the
jurisdiction. purpose of a writ of 2. Actual Case or Controversy
prohibition is to keep
a lower court within *** There is an actual case or controversy if
the limits of its there is a "conflict of legal right, an opposite
jurisdiction in order legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution."
to maintain the - A petitioner bringing a case before
administration of this Court must establish that there is
justice in orderly a legally demandable and
channels. enforceable right under the
Prohibition is the Constitution.
proper remedy to - There must be a real and substantial
afford relief against controversy, with definite and
usurpation of concrete issues involving the legal
jurisdiction or power relations of the parties, and admitting
by an inferior court, of specific relief that courts can
or when, in the grant.***
exercise of
jurisdiction in - Jurisprudence lays down guidelines
handling matters in determining an actual case or
clearly within its controversy.
cognizance the - In Information Technology
inferior court Foundation of the Philippines v.
transgresses the Commission on Elections, this Court
bounds prescribed required that "the pleadings must
to it by the law, or
show an active antagonistic assertion
where there is no
of a legal right, on the one hand, and
adequate remedy
available in the a denial thereof on the other; that is,
ordinary course of it must concern a real and not a
 merely theoretical question or issue." powers. 
- Further, there must be "an actual and
substantial controversy admitting of
specific relief through a decree
conclusive in nature, as distinguished
from an opinion advising what the
law would be upon a hypothetical Fff
state of facts."

***Southern Hemisphere Engagement

Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council
Without any justiciable controversy, the
petitions have become pleas for declaratory
relief, over which the Court has no original
jurisdiction.
Then again, declaratory actions characterized Dhd
by "double contingency," where both the
activity the petitioners intend to undertake and
the anticipated reaction to it of a public official
are merely theorized, lie beyond judicial review
for lack of ripeness.

The possibility of abuse in the implementation

of RA 9372 does not avail to take the present
petitions out of the realm of the surreal and
merely imagined, . . . Allegations of abuse
must be anchored on real events before courts
may step in to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable.***

3. Ripe for Judicial Determination

A case is ripe for adjudication when the

challenged governmental act is a completed
action such that there is a direct, concrete,
and adverse effect on the petitioner.  It is,58

thus, required that something had been

performed by the government branch or
instrumentality before the court may step in,
and the petitioner must allege the existence
of an immediate or threatened injury to itself
as a result of the challenged action. 59

In connection with acts of administrative

agencies, ripeness is ensured under the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies. Courts may only take cognizance
of a case or controversy if the petitioner has
exhausted all remedies available to it under
the law. The doctrine ensures that the
administrative agency exercised its power to
its full extent, including its authority to
correct or reconsider its actions. It would,
thus, be premature for courts to take
cognizance of the case prior to the
exhaustion of remedies, not to mention it
would violate the principle of separation of