PP v ADRIANO

P. 401
What is the two-witness rule?
GR # L-477
June 30,1947

Ponente: TUASON, J.:

FACTS:
❖ Apolinario Adriano was a member of the Makapili -a military organization established and designed to assist and
aid militarily the Japanese Imperial forces in the Philippines in its war efforts and operations against the United
States and the Philippines.
❖ January and April 1945, Adriano joined and assisted the Japanese Military forces and the Makapili Army in
armed conflicts and engagements against the US and Philippine Forces in Nueva Ecija.
❖ The prosecution did not introduce any evidence to substantiate any of the facts alleged except that of defendant's
having joined the Makapili organization
❖ The People’s Court found out that Adriano participated with Japanese soldiers in certain raids and in confiscation
of personal property
➢ these acts had not been established by the testimony of two witnesses, and so regarded them merely as
evidence of adherence to the enemy
❖ the court did find established under the two-witness rule
➢ that the accused and other Makapilis had their headquarters in the enemy garrison in Nueva Ecija
➢ that the accused was in Makapili military uniform
➢ that he was armed with rifle
➢ and that he drilled with other Makapilis under a Japanese instructor
➢ that during the same period, the accused in Makapili military uniform and with a rifle, performed duties
as sentry at the Japanese garrison and Makapili headquarters in Gapan, Nueva Ecija
➢ that upon the liberation of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, by the American forces, the accused and other Makapilis
retreated to the mountains with the enemy and later surrendered to the Americans
❖ No two of the prosecution witnesses testified to a single one of the various acts of treason imputed by them to
Adriano
❖ only one item on which the witnesses agree
➢ it is that the defendant was a Makapili and was seen by them in Makapili uniform carrying arms.
❖ being a Makapili is in itself constitutive of an overt act
➢ must be established by the deposition of two witnesses
❖ The crime of treason was committed if he placed himself at the enemy's call to fight side by side with him when
the opportune time came even though an opportunity never presented itself
➢ Such membership by its very nature gave the enemy aid and comfort
❖ People’s court found him guilty of treason
➢ Life imprisonment
➢ P 10,000.00 fine and cost

ISSUE:
A. WON the evidence in the present case meets the two-witnesses rule?
B. WON the two-witness requirement fulfilled by the testimony of one witness who saw the appellant in Makapili
uniform bearing a gun one day, another witness another day, and so forth?

HELD:
❖ The Philippine law on treason is of Anglo-American origin and has to look for guidance from American sources
on its meaning and scope.
❖ Judicial interpretation has been placed on the two witness principle by American courts, and authoritative text
writers have commented on it.
➢ Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Vol. 3, section 1396, p. 2282
■ In England the original Statute of Edward, although requiring both witnesses to be to the same
overt act, was held to mean that there might be one witness to an overt act and another witness to
another overt act of the same species of treason.
■ The rule as adopted in this country by all the constitutional provisions, both state and Federal,
properly requires that two witnesses shall testify to the same overt act. This also is now the rule in
England.
➢ statement from VII Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., section 2038, p. 271
■ Each of the witnesses must testify to the whole of the overt act; or, if it is separable, there must be
two witnesses to each part of the overt act
❖ Every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the
testimony of two witnesses
❖ REVERSED and ACQUITTED with costs charged de oficio
 PP v FLORES
P. 418
Who can commit the crime of arbitrary detention?
Meaning of word “detain” in ART124.
FACTS:
❖ In, 1992, Samson Sayam (victim) was drinking beer outside Terry Cabrillos store.
❖ Accused Sgt. Tampioc, Aaron Flores, Silpao and Villeran were also drinking beer in front of the said store.
Sayam joined the group.
❖ After sometime they all left the store and walked towards the military detachment headquarters.
❖ Witnesses suddenly heard gunshots from the detachment headquarters.
❖ Despite the efforts his family made, that was the last time Sayam was been seen
❖ The four were charged with the crime of
❖ The four accused pleaded not guilty.
❖ Prosecution's contention that on that fateful evening, all four accused hatched a conspiracy to kidnap the victim
and thereafter detain him at the detachment headquarters
➢ They allegedly succeeded in their plot and, the prosecution avers, to this day the accused have not
released Samson Sayam
➢ All the accused denied the acts charged.
❖ RTC held testimonial evidence failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a conspiracy among the
four accused.
➢ the prosecution failed to show an apparent common design by and among the accused to kidnap and
detain Samson Sayam against his will.
➢ trial court proceeded to determine the individual liabilities of the four accused based on the degree of their
participation in the commission of the offense charged.
➢ gave credence to the prosecution's evidence that Samson Sayam was seen being forcibly dragged out of
the store and pulled towards the direction of the detachment headquarters by accused Flores, Silpao and
Villeran.
➢ Since Samson Sayam had not been seen nor heard from since then, the three accused were responsible for
the former's disappearance.
 As regards Sgt. Tampioc
■ he left the store ahead of the three co accused and, thus, had nothing to do with the disappearance
of Samson Sayam
■ the identity of Sgt. Tampioc as one of the perpetrators of the crime was doubtful
● notwithstanding the fact that Nelson Golez knew Wennie Tampioc even before
September 29, 1992, the original complaint filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial court
of Ilog Candoni, dated October 21, 1992, which was based on the affidavits of Golez and
Carlito Manlingit, did not mention Wennie Tampioc as one of the respondents
❖ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
■ Reclusion perpetua
■ 50,000 as damages
■ Tampioc was acquitted
■ The bail bonds of the said accused are ordered cancelled and the convicted accused ordered
confined pending appeal if they so file an appeal
❖ 2 separate appeals were brought before the court:
➢ As to Silpao, he contends that the
■ RTC ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS
ILLEGAL DETENTION,
■ IN HOLDING THAT HE FORCIBLY BROUGHT SAMSON SAYAM TO THEIR
HEADQUARTERS
 ■ AND IN FINDING HIM GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE OFFENSE
CHARGED
➢ As to Flores and Villeran, they contended that the
■ RTC ERRED IN FINDING THEM GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME OF KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION BASED ON
CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

ISSUE:
WON the evidence adduced before the trial court proved that Samson Sayam was arbitrarily detained by accused-
appellants

HELD:
❖ The Court held that the accused-appellants should be acquitted of the offense charged against
them
❖ One of the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is that the offender must be a
private individual
➢ During the time the alleged crime was committed, the accused were members of
CAFGU, which was created and tasked to maintain peace and order in their localities as
well as to respond to threats to national security
➢ They were provided with weapons and given the authority to order detention of
individuals
❖ Because of this, they are considered public officers and not private individuals and should not be
charged of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. They can only be liable for the crime of
Arbitrary Detention
❖ Detention
➢ the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure, or in any manner detaining and
depriving him of his liberty
➢ There must be actual proof of both intent to deprive the victim his liberty and actual
confinement or restriction.
➢ The fact that Samson Sayam has not been seen or heard from since he was last seen with
accused-appellants does not prove that he was detained and deprived of his liberty
❖ Careful review of the records of the instant case shows no evidence sufficient to prove that
Samson Sayam was detained arbitrarily by accused-appellants.
❖ testimony of Jerry Manlangit does not prove any of the elements of the crime of arbitrary
detention
❖ 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
➢ That the offender is a private individual.
➢ That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his
liberty.
➢ That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal.
➢ That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present:
■ That the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days
 ■ That it is committed simulating public authority
■ That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained or threats to kill him are made
■ That the person kidnapped is a minor, female or public officer
❖ 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
➢ accused-appellants were members of the local CAFGU at the time the alleged crime was
committed
❖ CAFGU was created pursuant to Executive Order No. 264 for the purpose of complementing the
operations of the regular force formations in a locality
➢ tasked to maintain peace and order in their localities, as well as to respond to threats to
national security
➢ provided with weapons, and given the authority to detain or order detention of
individuals.
❖ SG 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
➢ accused-appellants can only be liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention, defined and
penalized in Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code
❖ Arbitrary detention
➢ committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a
person
❖ U.S. v. Cabanag
➢ 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.
■ deprivation of liberty must be proved, just as the intent of the accused to deprive
the victim of his liberty must also be established by indubitable proof
❖ People v. Fajardo
➢ there must be uncontroverted proof of both intent to deprive the victim of his liberty, as
well as actual confinement or restriction.
 PP v LOL-LO
P. 409
If piracy was committed outside the Philippine waters, will the Philippine courts have jurisdiction?
GR#17958
February 27,1922
Ponente: MALCOLM, J.:

FACTS:
❖ On June 30, 1920 two boats left Matuta going to Peta which are both Dutch possessions.
➢ 1 boat was 1 individual - a Dutch subject
➢ 1 boat was filled with 11 individuals - subjects of Holland.
❖ After days of navigation the second boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies
➢ boat was surrounded by six vintas manned by twenty-four Moros all armed.
■ Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat, took for themselves all of the cargo,
attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two of the women by methods too horrible to the
described
➢ All of the persons on the Dutch boat, with the exception of the two young women, were again placed on it
and holes were made in it, the idea that it would submerge
■ these people, after eleven days of hardship and privation, were succored
■ The two women were taken, and the Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession
● Two of the Moro marauders were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women, and Saraw.
At Maruro the two women were able to escape.
❖ Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu
➢ were arrested and were charged in the CFI with the crime of piracy.
❖ A demurrer was interposed by counsel de officio for the Moros
➢ the offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the CFI nor any courts in the Philippines.
❖ CFI found the Lol-lo and Saraw guilty of piracy
➢ Life imprisonment
➢ return together with Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants in another case, to the offended parties, the
thirty-nine sacks of copras which had been robbed, or to indemnify them in the amount of 924 rupees,
➢ to pay a one-half part of the costs
ISSUE:
WON the Philippine Courts has jurisdiction over the offense charged against the appellants
WON ART 153-156 of the Penal Code dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force.

HELD:
❖ Yes. The proven facts are not disputed
➢ All of the elements of the crime of piracy are present
■ Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done
animo furandi (intent to steal), and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility
❖ Pirates are in law hostes humani generis (Crimes against family of nations)
➢ Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind
■ may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or
into which he may be carried
■ Jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits
❖ The crime of piracy was accompanied by
➢ an offense against chastity
➢ the abandonment of persons without apparent means of saving themselves
 ❖ Saraw’s judgment Affirmed but Lol-lo’s judgment MODIFIED to hung til death

General rules of Public Law of the US with regards to the transfer of territory from another state to the other are well
known.
➢ The political law of the former sovereignty is necessarily changed.
➢ The municipal law in so far as it is consistent with the Constitution, the laws of the
United States, or the characteristics and institutions of the government, remains in force.
➢ laws subsisting at the time of transfer, designed to secure good order and peace in the
community, which are strictly of a municipal character, continue until by direct action of
the new government they are altered or repealed

❖ These principles of the public law were given specific application to the Philippines by the
Instructions of President McKinley
❖ the articles of the Spanish Penal Code dealing with piracy were meant to include the Philippine
Islands
➢ Article 156 of the Penal Code in relation to article 1 of the Constitution of the Spanish
Monarchy, would also make the provisions of the Code applicable not only to Spaniards
but to Filipinos.
❖ opinion of Grotius
➢ piracy by the law of nations is the same thing as piracy by the civil law, and he has never
been disputed
■ The specific provisions of the Penal Code are similar in tenor to statutory
provisions elsewhere and to the concepts of the public law
❖ The Constitution of the United States declares that the Congress shall have the power to define
and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of
nations
❖ It is evident that the provisions of the Penal Code now in force in the Philippines relating to
piracy are not inconsistent with the corresponding provisions in force in the United States.
❖ By the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the United States. A logical
construction of articles of the Penal Code, like the articles dealing with the crime of piracy,
would be that wherever "Spain" is mentioned, it should be substituted by the words "United
States" and wherever "Spaniards" are mentioned, the word should be substituted by the
expression "citizens of the United States and citizens of the Philippine Islands."
❖ The Supreme Court held those provisions of the Penal code dealing with the crime of piracy,
notably articles 153 and 154, to be still in force in the Philippines
PP v TAN
PAGE 426
FACTS:
❖ On the morning of December 1988, Freddie Saavedra(victim) went to see his wife at a school in Atimonan,
Quezon to inform her that he will drive the accused Herson Tan and Lito Amido to Barangay Maligaya.
➢ This was the last time Saavedra was seen alive.
❖ When Saavedra was not able to go home that evening, the wife, Delfa, asked the relatives and friends of Saavedra
about his whereabouts.
➢ Arnel Villarama told her that the dead body of her husband was discovered on the diversion road at
Barangay Malinao in Atimonan.
❖ They went to the said place and found him sprawled on the ground with fourteen stab wounds in different parts of
his body.
❖ Lucena PNP led by Lt. Santos went to the crime scene and recovered a blue sidecar which they brought back to
the headquarters.
❖ Lt. Santos, and two others invited Tan in connection with this case and with respect to two other robbery cases
reported in Lucena City.
➢ Tan allegedly gave an explicit account of what actually transpired in the case
■ He narrated that he and co-accused Amido were responsible for the loss of the motorcycle and the
consequent death of Saavedra
■ they sold the motorcycle to a certain Danny Teves of Barrio Summit, Muntinlupa for a sum of
P4,000.00
❖ With the help of appellant as a guide, the Lucena PNP immediately dispatched a team to retrieve the motorcycle.
➢ After admitting that it was purchased from both the accused and upon failure to present any document
evidencing the purported sale, Teves voluntarily surrendered it to the police who turned it over, together
with the sidecar, to the Atimonan Police Station for safekeeping
❖ On trial, Lt. Carlos testified that when he invited Tan to their headquarters, he had no warrant for his arrest.
➢ he informed Tan that he was a suspect, not only in the instant case, but also in two other robbery cases
allegedly committed in Lucena City
➢ he admitted that he did not inform appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to the
assistance of counsel; nor did he reduce the supposed confession to writing.
❖ Tan alleged that he had no participation in the offense charged and contended that his only involvement in the
matter was the referral of accused Amido to Teves.
➢ He recounted that sometime in December 1988, Amido sought him at his house and told him that the
motorcycle he was riding on was being offered for sale
➢ Upon proof shown that it was indeed registered under Amido's name, he accompanied the latter to Manila
on board the said motorcycle and they approached Antonio Carandang
■ Carandang brought them to a certain Perlita Aguilar and Danilo Teves with whom the sale was
finally made.
● allegedly received P150.00 as his commission
❖ Amido presented alibi as his defense:
➢ And is seven kilometers from the town, busy assisting in the renovation of his mother's house
➢ He narrated that the victim was his friend and, therefore, he could not have participated in the gruesome
death of Saavedra.
❖ RTC found Tan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Highway Robbery with Murder
➢ Reclusion Perpetua
➢ indemnity=30,000.00 Php
❖ Amido was ACQUITTED
➢ insufficiency of evidence
 ❖ TAN assails the conviction
➢ Contending that the prosecution failed to positively identify him as the culprit of the crime and to present
clear and convincing circumstantial evidence that would overcome his innocence.

ISSUE:
WON a confession given to the police investigator upon invitation without the benefit of a counsel be admissible in
evidence against him.

HELD:
❖ The Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever information is derived therefrom
shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence against the confessant
❖ R.A. No. 7438 (Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested)
➢ re enforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of persons under custodial
investigation, providing that:
■ As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing
an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting"
officer for any violation of law.
❖ Custodial investigation
➢ involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken
into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner
➢ The rules on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to
be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect, the
suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that
tends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate.
❖ A confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements
➢ it must be voluntary
➢ it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel
➢ it must be express
➢ it must be in writing.

❖ Appealed decision is set aside and appellant ACQUITTED on the ground that his constitutional rights were
violated
 GARCIA-PADILLA v ENRILE
P. 401
NATURE OF REBELLION
GR # L-61388
July 19, 1985

PER CURIAM:

FACTS:
❖ In July 1982, Sabino Padilla, together w/ 8 others who were having a conference in a house in Bayombong,
Neuva Vizcaya, were arrested by members of the Philippine Constabulary
❖ The raid of the house was authorized by a search warrant issued by Judge Sayo.
❖ On the next day 4 other people were arrested by the same team that performed the arrest
❖ About a week after a certain Tom Vasquez was apprehended and his car was seized by the PC authorities
❖ They were all detained at the PC/INP Command Headquarters, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, until they were
transferred to an undisclosed place, reportedly to Quezon City, to Isabela and to Tugegarao, Cagayan
❖ Because of this, Josefina, mother of Sabino, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus and mandamus alleging
that no warrant of arrest was issued in making the arrest of her son the others
❖ The arrest was without just cause and the search warrant provided to seize subversive documents, firearms of
assorted calibers, medicine and other subversive paraphernalia in the said house was illegal per se as it did not
state the specific things to be seized
❖ It was also stated that despite the fact of the issuance of Presidential Commitment Order and the same being
shown to the detainees, the counsel and detainees themselves have not been given a copy nor notified of its
contents raising a doubt whether it has actually been issued
❖ Also alleged in the petition is the denial of the detainees’ constitutional right to counsel, as the visit by the
counsels was limited only to weekends.

❖ ISSUE:
❖ Whether or not the arrests done against Sabino and the others were legal

❖ RULING:
❖ Yes. At the time of the arrest of the 9 out of 14 detainees in a certain house, they were under surveillance as they
were they were then identified as members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) engaging in
subversive activities and using the house as their headquarters.
❖ As they were caught in flagrante delicto during the raid, they scampered in different directions and left several
subversive documents, pamphlets, books, several firearms and ammunitions, cash believed to be CPP/NPA funds
and also a plan to infiltrate a youth and student sector
❖ Because of this the arrest of the detainees are lawful even without a warrant and the claim of the petitioner that the
arrest was unjust is without basis. (justified by Section 6(a) Rule 113 of the Rules of Court – a peace officer or a
private person may without a warrant arrest a person when the person to be arrested has committed or actually
committing or is about to commit an offense in his presence)
❖ The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, are all in the
nature of continuing crimes which set them apart from the common offenses, aside from their essentially
involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude, hence rebels can be arrested at any time without a
warrant.
❖ NATURE OF ARREST IN REBELLION- the arrest of persons involved in rebellion violent or not, but in
furtherance of rebellion is more of an act capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, TO QUELL THE
REBELLION, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in a court for a statutory offense.
❖ The arrest therefore need not follow the usual procedure which requires determination of the judge of a probable
cause to execute a warrant of arrest if the offense is bailable.
❖ The absence of a judicial warrant is not a legal impediment to arresting persons committing overt acts of violence
agaianst government forces or other milder acts equal to rebellious movements.
❖ PETITION DISMISSED.

❖ 9 out of 14 detainees herein were arrested when the PC/ INP of Bayombong, Neuva Viscaya conducted a raid at
the residence of Dra. Aurora Parong. The remaining detainees were arrested thereafter.
❖ Apprehended, they were transferred to an undisclosed place.
❖ Hence this petition for writ of habeas corpus and mandamus filed by Josefina Garcia-Padilla, mother of the
detained petitioner Sabino Padilla, Jr.
❖ Alleged in petition was their contention that:
➢ The arrest was illegal. What the PC/INCP has was a search warrant to seize “subversive documents,
firearms of assorted calibers, medicine and other subversive paraphernalia.
➢ It does not give the authority to make arrest, much less, detention.
➢ No criminal charges have yet been diles against any of the detainees, but they were subsequently
transferred by helicopter to a place or safehouse that is known only to the respondents.
➢ No judgment or decision was issued that would validate the continued detention of the petitioner
➢ Furthermore, they were denied of their constitutional rights
■ Right to counsel
■ Right to silence
■ Against self-incrimination

❖ The detainees were transferred, and neither their counsel nor relatives was informed of the transfer. It seems that
it was a deliberate and concerted effort to conceal the place of detention which raised the apprehension that they
were using force, violence, threat, intimidation and other means.
❖ Records revealed that they were having a conference in the dining room of one of the detainee’s residence.
➢ They were caught in flagrante delicto, they scampered in different directions leaving in top of their
conference table numerous subversive documents, pamphlets and books including a plan on how they
would infiltrate the youth and student sector.
➢ They were also able to seize a revolver, bullets and ammunition, and cash believed to be CPP/NPA funds.
■ The arrest falls under Sec 6(a) of RoC that a peace officer or a private person may, without
warrant, arrest a person when the person to be arrested has committed or actually committing an
offense in his presence.

Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman

G.R. No 146731 January 13, 2004
Facts:
• Petitioner Agustina M. Enemecio is a utility worker at the Cebu State College of Science and
Technology, College of Fisheries Technology (CSCST-CFT), Carmen, Cebu
• Private respondent Servando Bernante is an Assistant Professor
• March 30, 1998: Enemecio filed an administrative complaint for gross misconduct, falsification of
public documents, malversation, dishonesty and defamation against Bernante before the office of the
Executive Dean of CSCSCT-CFT
-
Executive Dean indorsed the administrative complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman for the
Visayas
-
Enemecio also filed with the Ombudsman a criminal complaint against Bernante for
falsification of public document.
• Enemecio alleged that Bernante had caused the spray-painting of obscene and unprintable words
against her on the walls of the CSCST Campus
• Enemecio also claimed that Bernante shouted defamatory words against her while she was inside the
school premises
• Enemecio further asserted that that Bernante made it appear in his leave application that he was on forced
leave from May 15 to 21, 1996 and on vacation leave from May 22 to 31. In truth, Bernante was
serving a 20-day prison term for his conviction of the crime of slight physical injuries
-
According to Enemecio, Bernante is not entitled to receive the salary for that period because of
falsified leave applications
• The Ombudsman rendered a decision dismissing the administrative complaint against Bernante. On the
same date, the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint against Bernante finding no probable
cause to indict Bernante for falsification of public document
• Enemecio filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals questioning the
Ombudsman’s resolution dismissing the criminal case against Bernante
• Applying the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto, the appellate court dismissed Enemecio’s petition for having
been filed out of time. The appellate court also stated that the proper remedy available to Enemecio was
a petition for review under Rule 43 and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
• Enemecio contended that Fabian declared void only Section 27 of RA 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of
AO No. 07 insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the
Ombudsman to the Supreme Court.
• Enemecio asserted that the other provisions of Section 27 of RA 6770 and Section 7 of AO No.
07, including the “final and unappealable character” of orders, resolutions or decisions
exonerating a respondent from any criminal liability, still stand.
• Enemecio stated that she filed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals
because she considered Bernante’s absolution from the administrative complaint in OMB-VIS-
ADM-98-0201 as already final and unappealable. As there was no adequate remedy of appeal,
Enemecio claimed that her only recourse was a petition for certiorari before the appellate court
under Rule 65.
• The appellate court stated that what Fabian declared void was Section 27 of RA 6770, which authorized
appeals to the Supreme Court from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases.
Under the Fabian ruling, the appellant should take such appeal in administrative disciplinary cases to the
Court of Appeals under Rule 43. The Court of Appeals added that it follows that the power to review
decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases is retained by the Supreme Court under Section 14 of RA
6770. Thus, the appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction

Issue:
Whether or not Bernante is guilty of falsification?
Whether or not petitioner availed of the wrong remedy
Held:
 No. Under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the RPC the elements of falsification of public
documents through an untruthful narration of facts are:
o The offender makes in a document untruthful statements in narration of facts
o The offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated
o The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false
o The perversion of truth in the narration of facts is made with the wrongful intent to
injure a third person
 Enemecio failed to point out to any law imposing upon Bernante the legal obligation to disclose
where he was going to spend his leave of absence
o Legal obligation – means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the
facts narrated
 The Court also ruled that the Ombudsman may dismiss the complaint forthwith if he finds it
insufficient in form or substance and if otherwise, he may continue with the inquiry
 Since the Ombudsman has thoroughly examined the merits of the complaint, it is not proper
to subject the private respondent to prolonged anguish

YES. It is clear from the records that Atty. Fernandez filed with the Court of Appeals a certiorari
petition assailing the Ombudsman’s Resolution and Order dismissing the criminal case, not the
administrative case against Bernante. For this reason, the appellate court in its 7 December 2000
Resolution rectified itself and stated that Fabian does not apply to Enemecio’s petition as the
Fabian ruling applies only to administrative disciplinary actions.
Even if we consider Enemecio’s petition before the Court of Appeals as questioning the dismissal of the
administrative case against Bernante, the action must also fail. Appeals from decisions of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary actions should be brought to the Court of Appeals under
Rule 43. Where the findings of the Ombudsman on the existence of probable cause in criminal cases
is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved
party may file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65. Since Enemecio filed
a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals, instead of the Supreme Court, she availed of a
wrong remedy in the wrong forum. Hence, the instant petition should be dismissed outright.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

LAYUG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
 Ponciano Layug, the petitioner, applied with the Division Office of Davao del Sur for a
permanent teaching position in the Digos Provincial High School.was duly appointed as a
secondary public school teacher of Davao del Sur National High School. The subjects assigned
to him were English and Science. However, the petitioner refused to teach the Science subjects
because he said that he was inexperienced and incompetent with regard to the subject.
Thereafter, it was found out that the science classes assigned to him were unattended for almost
a week, even if he was inside the campus talking with friends and security guards.
 It was alleged that he has falsified his daily time record (DTR) from June 1986 to Arpil 1987.
In June 1986, he submitted a signed daily time record but the principal did not sign it.
 Thus, a complaint for estafa through falsification of documents against him was filed with the
Ombudsman
 It was alleged that he made it appear that he had completed the required number of work hours
in his DTR.
 On May 1986, the petitioner filed with Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (DECS) in
Davao City complaint for harassment and oppression and for unjustifiable refusal to release his
vacation salary.
 He wrote a letter indicating his request for the subjects that he was competent, experienced and
ready. It was found out the he was not paid his salary from June 1986 to April 1987.
 On March 30, 1990 the prosecutor filed ith the Sandiganbayan eleven counts of falsification of
public document against the petitioner.
o He pleaded not guilty to the charges
 The Sandiganbayan found him guilty of the crime charged, hence the appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of falsification of public documents.

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was not guilty.
 Under Article 171 of RPC, to convict an accused of crime of falsification of public documents,
the following requisites must be established:
o (1) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in narration of facts;
o (2) he has the legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him;
o (3) the facts narrated by him was absolutely false; and
o (4) the act of falsification was committed to the damage of a third party or with intent to
cause such damage.
 In falsification of public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public
faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
 However, the daily time record that a public official or employee must fill up is a public
document which has characteristics distinct from other public documents. It should contain a
“true and correct report of hours of work performed, record of which was made daily at the time
of arrival at and departure from office.
 The purpose of keeping a time record is to show their attendance in office to work and to be paid
accordingly. Closely adhering to the policy of no work no pay, a daily time record is primarily
intended to prevent damage or loss to the work done. The integrity of the daily time record as an
official document, however, remains untarnished if the damage sought to be prevented has not
 been produced.
 A time record is an official document, it is not criminally falsified if it does not pervert its
avowed purpose.
 It may be different in the case of a public document with continuing interest affecting the public
welfare which is naturally damaged if that document is falsified.
 There is no falsification of a public document if the acts of the accused are consistent with good
faith.
 There must be proof of damage to the government.
 The court allowed petitioner to receive an amount for the services he actually rendered which
proves that his DTR is not actually false. He was evidently reporting to work amidst the
conflicts because he was not even under suspension or any admin sanction that would prevent
him to report to work.
 A misstatement or erroneous assertion in a public document, would not give rise to falsification
as long as he acted in good faith and no one was prejudiced by the alteration or error.
 In the case at bar, the entry made by the petitioner in his daily time record was not absolutely
false as he did report for work at the DSNHS. The entry in his DTR was made in good faith, he
just acted in an erroneous belief that he had the choice of what subjects to be taught. Moreover,
with regard to the fourth requisite stated above, it was found that he did not unduly benefit from
his DTR because actually he was deprived of his salary from June 1986 to April 1987, thus no
government fund was paid to him.
 Decision reversed and set aside. Petitioner acquitted from 11 counts of estafa through
falsification.
G.R. No. 194390, August 13, 2014 VENANCIO M. SEVILLA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
REYES, J.:

Facts:

 Sevilla, a former councilor of Malabon City, was charged with falsification of public document
due to a false narration he made in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) when he answered “no” to the
question of whether there is a pending criminal case against him despite the pendency of a
criminal case against him for assault upon an agent of a person in authority.
 In an admin case filed against him, the OMBUDSNMAN found him guilty of dishonesty and
falsification of official document and was dismissed from service.
 Sevilla admitted that he indeed marked “no” in the question whether he has a pending criminal
case but it was a member of his staff that actually prepared the PDS.
 The PDS prepaed by the staff was actually just a copy of a previous one in which Sevilla averred
that he just signed the PDS without checking the same.
 The Sandiganbayan found him guilty of Falsification of Public Documents through
Reckless Imprudence (ARTICLE 365 RPC) by making an untruthful statement in his PDS.
That being the signatory of the same, he has the responsibility of preparing, accomplishing, and
submitting the document.
 The Sandiganbayan opined that Sevilla cannot be convicted of falsification of public document
under Article 171(4) of the RPC since he did not act with malicious intent to falsify the
aforementioned entry in his PDS.
 However, considering that Sevilla’s PDS was haphazardly and recklessly done, which resulted
in the false entry therein, the Sandiganbayan convicted Sevilla of falsification of public
document through reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the RPC.

Issue: Whether or not Sevilla can be convicted of the felony of falsification of public document
through reckless imprudence.

SC Ruling:
 YES. However, the designation of the felony is erroneous. The Sandiganbayan convicted
Sevilla of reckless imprudence, punished under Article 365 of the RPC, which resulted into the
falsification of a public document.
 However, the Sandiganbayan designated the felony committed as "falsification of public
document through reckless imprudence." The foregoing designation implies that reckless
imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply a modality of committing it.
 Quasi-offenses under Article 365 of the RPC are distinct and separate crimes and not a mere
modality in the commission of a crime.
 Were criminal negligence is but a modality in the commission of felonies, operating only to
reduce the penalty therefor, then it would be absorbed in the mitigating circumstances of Art.
 13, specially the lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as the one actually committed.
Furthermore, the theory would require that the corresponding penalty should be fixed in
proportion to the penalty prescribed for each crime when committed willfully.
 For each penalty for the willful offense, there would then be a corresponding penalty for the
negligent variety. But instead, our Revised Penal Code (Art. 365) fixes the penalty for reckless
imprudence at arresto mayor maximum, to prision correccional[medium], if the willful act
would constitute a grave felony, notwithstanding that the penalty for the latter could range all
the way from prision mayor to death, according to the case.
 It can be seen that the actual penalty for criminal negligence bears no relation to the individual
willful crime, but is set in relation to a whole class, or series, of crimes.
 THE PROPER DESIGNATION OF THE FELONY SHOUD BE RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
RESULTING TO FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
 The greater includes the lesser offense, reckless imprudence resulting to falsification is an
offense necessarily included in the willful act of falsifying.
 He can be convicted of reckless imprudence regardless tha the information charged only the
willful act of falsification.
 APPEAL DISMISSED. CA only erred in the wording of the offense.
LLAMOSO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
• The case is about a false entry in the payroll for March 16 to 31, 1981 of 12 laborers who worked

in the improvement of Sta. Rosa Street, municipality of E. Villanueva, Siquijor

• Gaudioso C. Llamos was the assistant highway engineer and officer-in-charge of the district

engineer’s office and was assigned as district engineer on February10, 1981

• Alfredo Cagais then worked as caretaker of the district engineer’s cottage and as a utility man

and messenger.
• Subsequently, Cagais complained that his wages had not been paid for a period of 10 days

• Llamoso called Guigue and Jumamoy to ask why Cagais had not been paid his wages, and found

out that he was listed in the payroll of Pisong Bridge project and could not be included in the
payroll for personnel of the district engineer’s office.
• In search for a legitimate way for Cagais payment of wages, a stand in was suggested by a former

municipal judge, provided it is done in good faith.

• Nicanor Aninipo was the proposed stand in by Cagais and was included in the Time and Book

payroll
• Aninipo collected the 10 day wage,130PHP and was given to Cagais as it was their arrangement

• However, Aninipo wanted to collect another 156PHP for his actual work in another project, but

the paymaster refused to pay him, leading to the discovery of the false entry.
• Jumamoy declare that the government was not defrauded as the first collection was for Cagais,

and the second one is for Aninipo’s actual work

• The Sandiganbayan convicted Llamoso, Guigue, Jumamoy, Cagais and Aninipo as conspirators

in the crime of falsification of public documents by allegedly having made it appear that Aninipo
worked in the Sta. Rosa project, where in fact he did not work therein.

ISSUE:
• Whether or not the accused are criminally liable for the crime of falsification of public
documents

RULING:
• The Supreme Court held that the accused are not criminally liable because they had no criminal
intent
• The accused did not conceal or evade the allegations, but admitted that there was a false entry,
and as such, they acted in good faith.
• They may be disciplined administratively for the irregularity, but the case at bar is not within
the ambit of criminal law.
• In the same manner, they cannot be guilty of falsification in the absence of proof that they
maliciously perverted the truth with the wrongful intent of injuring some third person. • Lack of
criminal intent can be shown in 2 circumstances:
o Accused did not benefit from the falsification
o No damage to government or third person
 • The inclusion of Aninipo in the payroll is not felonious, but rather an honest and sincere act to
enable Cagais to receive his due compensation because the same is needed very badly.
• Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
• ACCUSED ACQUITTED.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and THE
HONORABLE SPECIAL DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 164368-69. BRION,

April 2, 2009

WHEN IS THE USE OF ALIAS CONSIDERED HABITUAL?

Facts:

 On April 4, 2001, information for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against respondent
Estrada, among other accused.
 Separate information for illegal use of alias, was likewise filed against him.
 In the information, it was alleged that on or about February 4, 2000, in the city of Manila, then
President Estrada without having been duly authorized, judicially, administratively, taking
advantage of his position and committing the offense in relation to office i.e in order to
conceal the ill-gotten wealth he acquired during his tenure and his true identity as the
president of the Philippines, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally
represented himself as “Jose Velarde” in several transactions and use and employ the said
alias “Jose Velarde” which is neither his registered name at birth nor his baptismal name, in
signing documents with Equitable PCI Bank abd/or other corporate entities.
 At the trial, the People presented testimonial and documentary evidence to prove the
allegations of the Information for plunder, illegal use of alias, and perjury.

The SANDIGANBAYAN ruled that Estrada cannot be held liable unde CA 142.
 Coverage of indictment- the use of the disjunctive “or” between “on or about February 4
2000” means that the act or acts committed are committed on a single date.
 People’s failure to prove Estrada’s commission of the offense- Estrada did not use Jose
Velarde publicly. Opening of a Trust account in the bank in the presence of his chief of staff
and trusted lawyer, even in the face of the bank staff, did not constitute as representing himself
“ publicly”. The sandiganbayan also differentiated the meaning of publicly under the law of
libel which only requires a presence of third persons compared to “publicly” under CA 142
which should be construed strictly in favor of the accused. Present is the intention of Estrada
not to be known publicly by the alias as shown by the confidential nature of the transaction
done.
 Effect of the enacted of RA9160- the sandiganbayan said that the provisions of CA142,
RA1045 and RA9160 should be harmonized in this case. It led the court to conclude that the
use of an alis in then context of a numbered account bank transaction is protected by
secrecy provisions of ra 1405, hence outside the scope of CA142 until the passage of
RA9160.
 Issue: Whether or not the SANDIGANBAYAN erred in holding that the use by respondent Joseph
Estrada of his alias “Jose Velarde” was not public despite the presence of Messrs. Aprodicio Laquian
and Fernando Chua on 4 February 2000.

Held:
 No. There must be a sign or indication that the user intends to be known by this name (the alias)
in addition to his real name from that day forth for the use of alias to fall within the prohibition
contained in Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 142 as amended.—
 How this law is violated has been answered by the Ursua definition of an alias—“a name or
names used by a person or intended to be used by him publicly and habitually usually in
business transactions in addition to his real name by which he is registered at birth or baptized
the first time or substitute name authorized by a competent authority.”
 There must be, in the words of Ursua, a “sign or indication that the user intends to be known
by this name (the alias) in addition to his real name from that day forth… [for the use of
alias to] fall within the prohibition contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended.”
 PEOPLE failed to prove that Estrada used an alias publicly and habitually on the
following considerations:
 - The use of “or” as a conjunction clearly stated in the information was to be construed
pertaining to a date, on or before or subsequent thereto, refers only to one instance; a day on,
before, or after Feb.4 2000. The court ruled that repeated use of an alias within a single day
cannot be deemed as habitual.
 The presence of Lacquian and Chua when Estrada signed as Jose Velarde and opened Trust
Account No. C163 does not necessarily indicate his intention to be publicly known henceforth
as Jose Velarde.
 In relation to Estrada, Lacquian and Chua were not part of the public who had no access to
Estrada’s privacy and to the confidential matters that transpired in Malacañan where he sat as
President; Lacquian was the Chief of Staff with whom he shared matters of the highest and
strictest confidence, while Chua was a lawyer-friend bound by his oath of office and ties of
friendship to keep and maintain the privacy and secrecy of his affairs.
 Thus, Estrada could not be said to have intended his signing as Jose Velarde to be for public
consumption by the fact alone that Lacquian and Chua were also inside the room at that time.
The same holds true for Estrada’s alleged representations with Ortaliza and Dichavez, assuming
the evidence for these representations to be admissible.
 All of Estrada’s representations to these people were made in privacy and in secrecy, with no
iota of intention of publicity
 Petition denied for lack of Merit. SANDIGANBAYAN ruling affirmed.