The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification.

"xxx.

Petitioner and entervenors' posture that Section 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of the law33 because its enactment was particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases in the Sandiganbayan, is a contention too shallow to deserve merit. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant a declaration of an act of the entire Congress and signed into law by the highest officer of the co-equal executive department as unconstitutional. Every classification made by law is presumed reasonable. Thus, the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness.34

It is an established precept in constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when there is concurrence of four elements, namely:

(1) it must rest on substantial distinction;

(2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law;

(3) must not be limited to existing conditions only, and

(4) must apply equaly to all members of the same class,35

all of which are present in this case.

The challengers of Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality and reasonables of the questioned provisions. The classification between those pending cases involving the concerned public officials whose trial has not yet commence and whose cases could have been affected by the amendments of the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under R.A. 8249, as against those cases where trial had already started as of the approval of the law, rests on substantial distinction that makes real differences.36 In the first instance, evidence against them were not yet presented, whereas in the latter the parties had already submitted their respective proofs, examined witnesses and presented documents. Since it is within the power of Congress to define the jurisdiction of courts subject to the constitutional limitations,37 it can be reasonably anticipated that an alteration of that jurisdiction would necessarily affect pending cases, which is why it has to privide for a remedy in the form of a transitory provision. Thus, petitioner and intervenors cannot now claim that Sections 4 and 7 placed them under a different category from those similarly situated as them. Precisely, paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply to "all case involving" certain public officials and, under the transitory provision in Section 7, to "all cases pending in any court." Contrary to petitioner and intervenors' argument, the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in "any court." It just happened that Kuratong Baleleng cases are one of those affected by the law. Moreover, those cases where trial had already begun are not affected by the transitory provision under Section 7 of the new law (R.A. 8249).

In their futile attempt to have said sections nullified, heavy reliance is premised on what is perceived as bad faith on the part of a Senator and two Justices of the Sandiganbaya38 for their participation in the passage of the said provisions. In particular, it is stressed that the Senator had expressed strong sentiments against those officials involved in the Kuratong Baleleng cases during the hearings conducted on the matter by the committee headed by the Senator. Petitioner further contends that the legislature is biased against him as he claims to have been selected from among the 67 million other Filipinos as the object of the deletion of the word "principal" in paragraph a, Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended, and of the transitory provision of R.A. 8249.39 R.A 8249, while still a bill, was acted, deliberated, considered by 23 other Senators and by about 250 Representatives, and was separately approved by the Senate and House of Representatives and, finally, by the President of the Philippines.

On the perceived bias that the Sandiganbayan Justices allegedly had against petitioner during the committe hearings, the same would not constitute sufficient justification to nullify an otherwise valid law. Their presence and participation in the legislative hearings was deemed necessary by Congress since the matter before the committee involves the graft court of which one is the head of the Sandiganbayan and the other a member thereof. The Congress, in its plenary legislative powers, is particularly empowered by the Constitution to invite persons to appear before it whenever it decides to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.40

Xxx. "


G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999
PANFILO M. LACSON, petitioner,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
ROMEO M. ACOP AND FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., petitioner-intervenors.

Sandiganbayan jurisdiction

"xxx.

The creation of the Sandiganbayn was mandated in Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution, which provides:

Sec. 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law.

The said special court is retained in the new (1987) Constitution under the following provisions in Article XI, Section 4:

Sec. 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

Pursuant to the constitutional mandate, Presidential Decree No. 148621 created the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, the following laws on the Sandiganbayan, in chronological order, were enacted: P.D. No. 1606,22 Section 20 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 123,23 P.D. No. 1860,24 P.D. No. 1861,25 R.A. No. 7975, 26 and R.A. No. 8249.27 Under the latest amendments introduced by Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following cases:

Sec 4. Section 4 of the same decree [P.D. No. 1606, as amended] is hereby further amended to read as follows:

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Titile VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade "27" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippines National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher.

(f) City of provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;

(2) Members of Congress or officials thereof classified as-Grade "27" and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27" or higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection a of this section in relation to their office.

c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and connection with Executive Orders Nos. 1,2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary Grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their jurisdictions as privided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions of the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.

The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 4-A, issued in 1986.

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employee, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 8249 states:

Sec. 7. Transitory provision — This act shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. (Emphasis supplied)

The Sandiganbayan law prior to R.A. 8249 was R.A. 7975. Section 2 of R.A. 7975 provides:

Sec. 2. Section 4 of the same decree [Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended) is hereby further amended to read as follows:

Sec 4. Jurisdiction — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the pricipal accused are afficials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade "27" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineer, and other provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;

(2) Members of Congress or officials thereof classified as Grade "27" and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27" or higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection a of this section in relation to their office.

c. Civil and criminal cases files pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 4-A.

In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary Grade "27" or higher, as presribed in the said Republic Act 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction on appelas from the final judgment, resolutions or orders of regular court where all the accused are occupying positions lower than grade "27," or not otherwise covered by the preceding enumeration.

x x x x x x x x x

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall have exclusive jurisdiction over them.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 7975 reads:

Sec. 7. Upon the effectivity of this Act, all criminal cases in which trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the proper courts.

Under paragraphs a and c, Section 4 of R.A. 8249, the word "principal" before the word "accused" appearing in the above-quoted Section 2 (paragraphs a and c) of R.A. 7975, was deleted. It is due to this deletion of the word "principal" that the parties herein are at loggerheads over the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner and intervenors, relying on R.A. 7975, argue that the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases since none of the principal accused under the amended information has the rank of Superintendent28 or higher. On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Special Prosecutor who is tasked to represent the People before the Supreme Court except in certain cases,29 contends that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction pursuant to R.A. 8249.

A perusal of the aforequoted Section 4 of R.A. 8249 reveals that to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law on bribery),30 (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A, issued in 1986 (sequestration cases),31 or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes; (2) the offender comitting the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or employee32 holding any of the positions enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4; and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office.

Considering that herein petitioner and intervenors are being charged with murder which is a felony punishable under Title VIII of the Revised Penal Code, the governing on the jurisdictional offense is not paragraph a but paragraph b, Section 4 of R.A. 8249. This paragraph b pertains to "other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of (Section 4, R.A. 8249) in relation to their office. "The phrase" other offenses or felonies" is too broad as to include the crime of murder, provided it was committed in relation to the accused's officials functions. Thus, under said paragraph b, what determines the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender — that is, whether he is one of those public officers or employees enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4. The offenses mentioned in pargraphs a, b and c of the same Section 4 do not make any reference to the criminal participation of the accused public officer as to whether he is charged as a principal, accomplice or accessory. In enacting R.A. 8249, the Congress simply restored the original provisions of P.D. 1606 which does not mention the criminal participation of the public officer as a requisite to determine the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Xxx."


G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999
PANFILO M. LACSON, petitioner,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
ROMEO M. ACOP AND FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., petitioner-intervenors.

Presumption of constitutionality of laws

"xxx.

The established rule is that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one. 20 The burden of proving the invalidity of the law lies with those who challenge it. That burden, we regret to say, was not convincingly discharged in the present case.

Xxx. "


G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999
PANFILO M. LACSON, petitioner,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
ROMEO M. ACOP AND FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., petitioner-intervenors.

Provisional dismissal of criminal case

"xxx.


The issue is whether Section 8, Rule 117 bars the filing of the eleven (11) informations against the respondent Lacson involving the killing of some members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. This rule which took effect on December 1, 2000 provides:

"SEC. 8. Provisional dismissal.- A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party.

The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived."

Like any other favorable procedural rule, this new rule can be given retroactive effect. However, this Court cannot rule on this jugular issue due to the lack of sufficient factual bases. Thus, there is need of proof of the following facts, viz: (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the accused; (2) whether it was ordered by the court after notice to the offended party, (3) whether the 2-year period to revive has already lapsed, and (4) whether there is any justification for the filing of the cases beyond the 2-year period.

There is no uncertainty with respect to the fact that the provisional dismissal of the cases against respondent Lacson bears his express consent. It was respondent Lacson himself who moved to dismiss the subject cases for lack of probable cause before then Judge Agnir, hence, it is beyond argument that their dismissal bears his express consent.

The records of the case, however, do not reveal with equal clarity and conclusiveness whether notices to the offended parties were given before the cases against the respondent Lacson were dismissed by then Judge Agnir. It appears from the resolution of then Judge Agnir that the relatives of the victims who desisted did not appear during the hearing to affirm their affidavits. Their affidavits of desistance were only presented by Atty. Godwin Valdez who testified that he assisted the private complainants in preparing their affidavits and he signed them as a witness. It also appears that only seven (7) persons submitted their affidavits of desistance, namely:

a. Myrna Abalora, mother of the victims Sherwin Abalora and Rey Abalora

b. Carmelita Elcamel, wife of Wilbur Elcamel;

c. Leonora Amora, mother of victim Joel Amora;

d. Nenita Alap-ap, wife of victim Carlito Alap-ap;

e. Imelda Montero, wife of victim Manuel Montero;

f. Margarita Redillas, mother of victim Hilario Jevy Redillas; and

g. Rolando Siplon.

From the records of the case before us, it cannot be determined whether there were affidavits of desistance executed by the relatives of the three (3)38 other victims, namely: Meleubren Soronda, Pacifico Montero, Jr., and Alex Neri. The same records do not show whether they were notified of the hearing or had knowledge thereof. To be sure, it is not fair to expect the element of notice to be litigated before then Judge Agnir for Section 8, Rule 117 was yet inexistent at that time.

The fact of notice to the offended parties was not raised either in the petition for prohibition with application for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction filed by respondent Lacson in the RTC of Manila, presided by Judge Pasamba, to enjoin the prosecutors from reinvestigating the said cases against him. The only question raised in said petition is whether the reinvestigation will violate the right of respondent Lacson against double jeopardy. Thus, the issue of whether or not the reinvestigation is barred by Section 8, Rule 117 was not tackled by the litigants.

Nor was the fact of notice to the offended parties the subject of proof after the eleven (11) informations for murder against respondent Lacson and company were revived in the RTC of Quezon City presided by Judge Yadao. There was hardly any proceeding conducted in the case for respondent Lacson immediately filed a petition for certiorari in the appellate court challenging, among others, the authority of Judge Yadao to entertain the revived informations for multiple murder against him.

This is not to be wondered at. The applicability of Section 8, Rule 117 was never considered in the trial court. It was in the Court of Appeals where respondent Lacson raised for the first time the argument that Section 8, Rule 117 bars the revival of the multiple murder cases against him. But even then, the appellate court did not require the parties to elucidate the crucial issue of whether notices were given to the offended parties before Judge Agnir ordered the dismissal of the cases against respondent Lacson and company. To be sure, there is a statement in the Decision of the appellate court to the effect that "records show that the prosecution and the private offended parties were notified of the hearing x x x."39 It is doubtful whether this finding is supported by the records of the case. It appears to be contrary to Judge Agnir's finding that only seven (7) of the complainants submitted affidavits of desistance.

Indeed, the records of this case are inconclusive on the factual issue of whether the multiple murder cases against respondent Lacson are being revived within or beyond the 2-year bar. The reckoning date of the 2-year bar has to be first determined - - - whether it is from the date of the Order of then Judge Agnir dismissing the cases or from the dates the Order were received by the various offended parties or from the date of the effectivity of the new rule.

If the cases were revived only after the 2-year bar, the State must be given the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with said timeline. The new rule fixes a timeline to penalize the State for its inexcusable delay in prosecuting cases already filed in courts. It can therefore present compelling reasons to justify the revival of cases beyond the 2-year bar.

In light of the lack of or the conflicting evidence on the various requirements to determine the applicability of Section 8, Rule 117, this Court is not in a position to rule whether or not the re-filing of the cases for multiple murder against respondent Lacson should be enjoined. Fundamental fairness requires that both the prosecution and the respondent Lacson should be afforded the opportunity to be heard and to adduce evidence on the presence or absence of the predicate facts upon which the application of the new rule depends. They involve disputed facts and arguable questions of law. The reception of evidence on these various issues cannot be done in this Court but before the trial court.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the case at bar is remanded to the RTC - Quezon City, Branch 81 so that the State prosecutors and the respondent Lacson can adduce evidence and be heard on whether the requirements of Section 8, Rule 117 have been complied with on the basis of the evidence of which the trial court should make a ruling on whether the Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 should be dismissed or not. Pending the ruling, the trial court is restrained from issuing any warrant of arrest against the respondent Lacson. Melo and Carpio, JJ., take no part.

SO ORDERED.

Xxx."



G.R. No. 149453 May 28, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.,

vs.

PANFILO M. LACSON

Duterte, panay ang banat mo sa COA nang wala sa lugar. Gusto mong itago sa bayan ang COA audit reports na naglalantad sa kasamaan ng gobyerno mo. Kung umasta ka para kang hari ng Pilipinas. Basahin mo ang Konstitusyon!

Article II, Declaration of State Policies,

1987 Constitution:


Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION in nation-building.


Section 27. The State shall maintain HONESTY AND INTEGRITY in the public service and take positive and effective measures against GRAFT AND CORRUPTION.


Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a POLICY OF FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE of all its transactions involving public interest.


Article III, Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution :


Section 7. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO INFORMATION on matters of public concern shall be recognized. ACCESS TO OFFICIAL RECORDS, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.


Article IX (A), Constitutional Commissions,

1987 Constitution:


Section 1. The CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, which shall be INDEPENDENT, are the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the COMMISSION ON AUDIT.



Article IX (D), Commission on Audit,

1987 Constitution:


Section 1.


There shall be a Commission on Audit composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners, who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, Certified Public Accountants with not less than ten years of auditing experience, or members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment. At no time shall all Members of the Commission belong to the same profession.


The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years, and the other Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.


Section 2.


The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty TO EXAMINE, AUDIT, AND SETTLE all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post- audit basis:


constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution;


autonomous state colleges and universities;


other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and


such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.


The Commission shall have EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY, subject to the limitations in this Article, TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF ITS AUDIT AND EXAMINATION, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.


Section 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiaries in any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.


Section 4. The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress, within the time fixed by law, an annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the Government, its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and non-governmental entities subject to its audit, and recommend measures necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. It shall submit such other reports as may be required by law.




Article XI, Accountability of Public Officers,

1987 Constitution:




Section 1. PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Mandatory "unbroken chain of custody of evidence" under Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165

 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MUSTAFA SALI Y ALAVVADDIN A.K.A. "TAPANG/PANG," Accused-Appellant.  G.R. No. 236596,  January 29, 2020.  

"x x x. 

The prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized sachets of shabu from the time they were recovered from Sali up to the time they were presented in court. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,21 which implements the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines chain of custody as follows:

Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]

To ensure an unbroken chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]

Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21 (a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non­ compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]

On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165. Among other modifications, it essentially incorporated the saving clause contained in the IRR, thus:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall, be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

In the present case, the physical inventory and photograph, as evidenced by the Certificate of inventory,22 were done at the PDEA, Regional Office 9, Upper Calarian, Zamboanga City, and not where the buy-bust operation was conducted. Although these processes may be excused in cases where the safety and security of the apprehending officers, witnesses required by law and item seized are threatened by immediate danger, the present case is not one of those. The allegation that the physical inventory and photograph were not done in the crime scene because of security reason will not suffice. The prosecution failed to expound what security threats the law enforcement agents were facing at the time of the buy-bust operation.

In the Joint-Affidavit of Arrest of IO1 Lanza and IO2 Natividad, it was mentioned that it was only after Sali was brought to their office, which is at the PDEA, Regional Office 9, when the proper documentation happened and not immediately upon seizure and arrest. There is also no justification contained in the Joint-Affidavit of Arrest of why the physical inventory and photograph were done away from the crime scene. It is hard to imagine that the apprehending officers were able to mark the items seized at the crime scene but were not able to photograph the same.

Moreover, it is apparent from the Certificate of Inventory that it was signed by the representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and by an elected public official, but there is no signature of Sali or his representative. No evidence was proffered to indicate that the inventory was conducted in the presence of Sali or his duly authorized representative. The photographs submitted as evidence could not conclusively determine whether Sali was present during the inventory.

Hence, the prosecution failed to prove valid causes for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. Worse, there is no showing that earnest efforts were done to secure the attendance of Sali 's representative. The witnesses' testimonies in open court and in the Joint-Affidavit miserably failed to mention the causes for non­ compliance with Section 21.

The Court stressed in People of the Philippines v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro:23

The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non­ compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.

The non-observance of the procedure mandated by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, casts serious doubt if the illegal drugs presented in court are the same illegal drugs seized from Sali. It is worthy to note the quantities of the illegal drugs seized which are only 0.0241 gram and 0.0155 gram. They are extremely small amounts which are highly susceptible to planting and tampering. This is the very reason why strict adherence to Section 21 is a must.

X x x. "

Robbery with rape - "Finally, for the crime of robbery with rape, the law does not distinguish whether the rape was committed before, during, or after the robbery, but only that it punishes robbery that was accompanied by rape. The facts do not bear out that the robbery was a mere afterthought, considering that AAA testified that accused-appellant "took time to disable her and then got away with her personal belongings."

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. PIO SALEN, JR. Y SENA, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 231013,  January 29, 2020. 

"x x x. 

For this Court's resolution is the lone issue of whether or not accused-appellant Pio Salen, Jr. y Sena is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape.

This Court dismisses the appeal and affirms accused-appellant's conviction.

Great respect is given to the trial court's factual findings, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This is the general rule, unless the lower courts have "overlooked or misconstrued substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of the case."42

This case is no exception. A scrutiny of the records shows no cogent reason for this Court to reverse the Regional Trial Court's findings and assessment of the witnesses' credibility, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The crime of robbery with rape is punished under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659:

ARTICLE 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.

The elements of robbery with rape are the following:

(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.43

Here, the prosecution has sufficiently showed that the elements of the crime are present.

AAA testified clearly and unequivocally to how accused-appellant raped then robbed her. While her testimony was uncorroborated, this Court has ruled in a plethora of cases that "[t]he victim's testimony alone, if credible, suffices to convict."44 The testimony of AAA, whom the trial court found to be a credible witness, was clear and straightforward.

Accused-appellant admitted that he had sex with AAA-insisting that it was consensual-and denied robbing her. However, these self-serving, unsubstantiated defenses of denial fail against the victim's positive identification.

What further bolsters the prosecution's case is the medico-legal officer's corroborative testimony. The medico-legal report showed that AAA had sustained "hematoma, abrasions, [and] lacerated and punctured wounds all over her body."45 These findings corroborate AAA's testimony that "accused-appellant stabbed her with a pointed weapon and inflicted force and violence against her in order for her to submit to him."46

The records back the trial court's ruling. Thus, contrary to accused­ appellant's contention, there is no reason to believe that the Regional Trial Court's presiding judge was biased.

Finally, for the crime of robbery with rape, the law does not distinguish whether the rape was committed before, during, or after the robbery, but only that it punishes robbery that was accompanied by rape. The facts do not bear out that the robbery was a mere afterthought, considering that AAA testified that accused-appellant "took time to disable her and then got away with her personal belongings."47

In sum, the prosecution established accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He was correctly convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

X x x." 

Evident premeditation not present

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GREG ANTONIO Y PABLEO @ TOKMOL, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 229349, January 29, 2020.

"x x x. 

Meanwhile, to substantiate the claim of evident premeditation, this Court instructed in People v. Borbon70 that it is indispensable that the facts on "how and when the plan to kill was hatched"71 are presented into evidence. In People v. Ordona,72 we added that "[t]he requirement of deliberate planning should not be based merely on inferences and presumptions but on clear evidence."73

Here, the prosecution failed to establish in its version of the events that accused-appellant and his family members had schemed to kill Villalobos. Fresado's testimony merely showed that Villalobos followed Lorna to Delpan Bridge, and that he was later attacked by accused-appellant, Lorna, and Lorna's husband. The Regional Trial Court merely inferred that there was a plan in place because accused-appellant's act of stabbing Villalobos five (5) times implied that "[s]ufficient time elapsed from the time [accused-appellant] determined to kill the victim up to the time he actually committed the act[.]"74 In fact, no evidence was presented to show the how and when of the plan to kill Villalobos.

Thus, the Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the Regional Trial Court's finding of evident premeditation:

The prosecution failed to establish by clear and positive evidence the time when the accused-appellant resolved to kill the accused (sic) with respect to the time when it was actually accomplished; mere presumptions and inferences of evident premeditation, no matter how logical and probable, are insufficient. Also, mere determination to commit the crime does not of itself establish evident premeditation for it must appear, not only that the accused made a decision to commit the crime prior to the moment of execution, but also that his decision was the result of meditation, calculation or reflection or persistent attempt. Apropos, there is much to be desired from David 's testimony on this respect.75 (Citations omitted)

Nonetheless, because treachery is present in the killing, accused­ appellant's conviction for murder is affirmed. Moreover, this Court modifies the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each, in accordance with People v. Jugueta.76

WHEREFORE, the February 18, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06744 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Greg Antonio y Pableo @ Tokmol is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Arthuro B. Villalobos, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages worth P100,000.00 each. All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.77

X x x. "

Murder and treachery - "Treachery is defined as "the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his [or her] part." To substantiate its allegation of treachery, the prosecution must prove: "(1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him."

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GREG ANTONIO Y PABLEO @ TOKMOL, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 229349, January 29, 2020.

"x x x. 

Accused-appellant was charged with murder, which is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code:

ARTICLE 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity.

With evident premeditation.

With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

The Regional Trial Court found that Villalobos' killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation, thereby qualifying it to murder.64 For its part, the Court of Appeals only appreciated treachery, ruling that there was a want of evidence for evident premeditation.65

The Court of Appeals is correct. Only treachery is present here.

Treachery is defined as "the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his [or her] part."66 To substantiate its allegation of treachery, the prosecution must prove: "(1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him."67

Here, both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found that treachery attended accused-appellant's attack on Villalobos. The Court of Appeals held:

Clearly, treachery in this case is evident from the fact that: accused-appellant grabbed the victim's arm by surprise and simultaneously stabbing him with a foot-long knife despite being unarmed. To the Court, these are methods employed which rendered Arthuro helpless as it left him with no opportunity to defend himself or even to retaliate; ultimately causing his death.68 (Citation omitted)

The lower courts' finding of treachery finds substantial basis in Fresado's testimony, which both courts found to be convincing and believable.69

X x x. "

Factual findings of lower courts.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GREG ANTONIO Y PABLEO @ TOKMOL, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 229349, January 29, 2020.

"x x x. 

This Court sees no reason to reverse the factual findings of the lower courts. After all, when it comes to the credibility of witnesses, the trial court's findings and its calibration of their testimonies' probative weight are accorded high respect and even finality. The trial court's unique vantage point allows it to observe the witnesses during trial, putting it in the best position to determine whether a witness is telling the truth.60

In People v. Cirbeto,61 this Court underscored that an appellate court can only overturn the trial court's factual findings and replace it with its own factual findings if "there is a showing that the [trial court] overlooked facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case."62 This rule "finds an even more stringent application where the findings of the [trial court] are sustained by the [Court of Appeals]."63

X x x." 

Self-defense - "An admission of self-defense or defense of a relative frees the prosecution from the burden of proving that the accused committed the act charged against him or her. The burden is shifted to the accused to prove that his or her act was justified."

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GREG ANTONIO Y PABLEO @ TOKMOL, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 229349, January 29, 2020.

"x x x.

Accused-appellant's defense centers on his claim of self-defense and defense of his sister, invoking the first and second justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code:

ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:

First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

An admission of self-defense or defense of a relative frees the prosecution from the burden of proving that the accused committed the act charged against him or her. The burden is shifted to the accused to prove that his or her act was justified:

It is settled that when an accused admits [harming] the victim but invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he [harmed] the victim. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.42

For the justifying circumstance of self-defense to be appreciated in the accused's favor, the accused must prove the following: "(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense."43 The justifying circumstance of defense of a relative likewise requires the first two (2) requisites, but in lieu of the third requirement, it requires that "in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein."44

The first requisite of unlawful aggression is defined as the actual or imminent threat to the person invoking self-defense.45 This requirement is an indispensable condition of both self-defense and defense of a relative; after all, if there is no unlawful aggression, the assailant would have nothing to prevent or repel.46 In People v. Caratao,47 this Court emphasized that if unlawful aggression is not proven, "self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are present."48

As for the second requisite, "reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel such aggression" envisions a rational equivalence between the perceived danger and the means employed to repel the attack.49 This Court in People v. Encomienda50 recognized that in circumstances that lead to self-defense or defense of a relative, the instinct for self-preservation will outweigh-rational thinking.51 Thus, "when it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and hold the act irresponsible in law for the consequences."52

Finally, the third requisite of lack of sufficient provocation requires the person invoking self-defense to not have antagonized the attacker.53 This Court explained in People v. Nabora54 that a provocation is deemed sufficient if it is "adequate to excite the person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity."55

X x x."

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GREG ANTONIO Y PABLEO @ TOKMOL, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 229349, January 29, 2020.

Whether the Deed of Sale is invalid because it does not appear in a public document

 

THE ESTATE OF PEDRO C. GONZALES and HEIRS OF PEDRO C. GONZALES, Petitioners, vs. THE HEIRS OF MARCOS PEREZ, Respondents. G.R. No. 169681, November 5, 2009.

 

“On the question of whether the subject Deed of Sale is invalid on the ground that it does not appear in a public document, Article 1358 of the same Code enumerates the acts and contracts that should be embodied in a public document, to wit:

 

Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:

 

(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405;

 

(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary rights or of those of the conjugal partnership of gains;

 

(3) The power to administer property, or any other power which has for its object an act appearing or which should appear in a public document, or should prejudice a third person; and

 

(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a public document.

 

All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in writing, even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or things in action are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405.

 

On the other hand, pertinent portions of Article 1403 of the Civil Code provide as follows:

 

Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:

 

x x x x

 

(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents:

 

(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof;

 

x x x x

 

(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein; x x x27

 

Under Article 1403(2), the sale of real property should be in writing and subscribed by the party charged for it to be enforceable.28 In the case before the Court, the Deed of Sale between Pedro and Marcos is in writing and subscribed by Pedro and his wife Francisca; hence, it is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

 

However, not having been subscribed and sworn to before a notary public, the Deed of Sale is not a public document and, therefore, does not comply with Article 1358 of the Civil Code.

 

Nonetheless, it is a settled rule that the failure to observe the proper form prescribed by Article 1358 does not render the acts or contracts enumerated therein invalid. It has been uniformly held that the form required under the said Article is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction, but merely for convenience.29 The Court agrees with the CA in holding that a sale of real property, though not consigned in a public instrument or formal writing, is, nevertheless, valid and binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale of real estate produces legal effects between the parties.30 Stated differently, although a conveyance of land is not made in a public document, it does not affect the validity of such conveyance. Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy.31 Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA did not err in ruling that the contract of sale between Pedro and Marcos is valid and binding.”

Whether the Deed of Sale is authentic and duly executed.

 

THE ESTATE OF PEDRO C. GONZALES and HEIRS OF PEDRO C. GONZALES, Petitioners, vs. THE HEIRS OF MARCOS PEREZ, Respondents. G.R. No. 169681, November 5, 2009.

 

“In their second assignment of error, petitioners question the authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Sale executed by Pedro in favor of Marcos. Petitioners also argue that even assuming that Pedro actually executed the subject Deed of Sale, the same is not valid because it was not notarized as required under the provisions of Articles 1403 and 1358 of the Civil Code.

 

The Court is not persuaded.

 

The RTC, in its abbreviated discussion of the questions raised before it, did not touch on the issue of whether the Deed of Sale between Pedro and Marcos is authentic and duly executed. However, the CA, in its presently assailed Decision, adequately discussed this issue and ruled as follows:

 

x x x In the present case, We are convinced that plaintiffs-appellants [herein respondents] have substantially proven that Pedro, indeed, sold the subject property to Marcos for ₱9,378.75. The fact that no receipt was presented to prove actual payment of consideration, in itself, the absence of receipts, or any proof of consideration, would not be conclusive since consideration is always presumed. Likewise, the categorical statement in the trial court of Manuel P. Bernardo, one of the witnesses in the Deed of Sale, that he himself saw Pedro sign such Deed lends credence. This was corroborated by another witness, Guillermo Flores. Although the defendants-appellees [herein petitioners] are assailing the genuineness of the signatures of their parents on the said Deed, they presented no evidence of the genuine signatures of their parents as would give this Court a chance to scrutinize and compare it with the assailed signatures. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under our Rules.24

 

In the instant petition, petitioners would have us review the factual determinations of the CA. However, settled is the rule that the Court is not a trier of facts and only questions of law are the proper subject of a petition for review on certiorari in this Court.25 While there are exceptions to this rule,26 the Court finds that the instant case does not fall under any of them. Hence, the Court sees no reason to disturb the findings of the CA, which are supported by evidence on record.”

The ownership of the thing sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment it is delivered to him in any of the ways specified in Articles 1497 to 1501, or in any other manner signifying an agreement that the possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee.

 

THE ESTATE OF PEDRO C. GONZALES and HEIRS OF PEDRO C. GONZALES, Petitioners, vs. THE HEIRS OF MARCOS PEREZ, Respondents. G.R. No. 169681, November 5, 2009.

 

“Article 1496 of the Civil Code provides:

 

The ownership of the thing sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment it is delivered to him in any of the ways specified in Articles 1497 to 1501, or in any other manner signifying an agreement that the possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee.

 

In conjunction with the above-stated provision, Article 1497 of the Civil Code states that:

 

The thing sold shall be understood as delivered when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee.

 

In the present case, there is no dispute that Pedro took control and possession of the said lot immediately after his bid was accepted by the Municipal Government of Marikina. In fact, herein petitioners, in their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim admit that both Pedro and Marcos, together with their respective heirs, were already occupying the subject property even before the same was sold to Pedro and that, after buying the same, Pedro allowed Marcos and his family to stay thereon.21 This only shows that upon perfection of the contract of sale between the Municipality of Marikina and Pedro, the latter acquired ownership of the subject property by means of delivery of the same to him.

 

Hence, the issuance of TCT No. 223361, as well as the execution of the Deed of Absolute Transfer of Real Property on February 7, 1992 by the Municipal Mayor of Marikina, could not be considered as the operative acts which transferred ownership of Lot C to Pedro. Pedro already acquired ownership of the subject property as early as 1966 when the same was delivered to him by the Municipality of Marikina, and the execution of the Deed of Absolute Transfer of Real Property as well as the consequent issuance of TCT No. 223316 are simply a confirmation of such ownership.1avvphi1

 

It may not be amiss to point out at this juncture that the Deed of Absolute Transfer of Real Property executed by the Mayor of Marikina was no longer subject to approval by the Provincial Governor of Rizal because Marikina already became part of Metro Manila on November 7, 1975.22 On December 8, 1996, Marikina became a chartered city.23”

When the government of a municipality is a party to a deed or an instrument which conveys real property or any interest therein or which creates a lien upon the same, such deed or instrument shall be executed on behalf of the municipal government by the mayor, upon resolution of the council, with the approval of the governor.

 

THE ESTATE OF PEDRO C. GONZALES and HEIRS OF PEDRO C. GONZALES, Petitioners, vs. THE HEIRS OF MARCOS PEREZ, Respondents. G.R. No. 169681, November 5, 2009.

 

“In their first and last assigned errors, petitioners contend that Marcos, who is respondents' predecessor-in-interest, could not have legally bought the disputed parcel of land from petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Pedro, in September 1966 because, during that time, Pedro had not yet acquired ownership of the subject lot. Petitioners' assertion is based on the premise that as of February 29, 1968, the Deed of Sale between Pedro and the Municipality of Marikina was still subject to approval by the Provincial Governor of Rizal, as required under Section 2196 of the Revised Administrative Code. Considering that on the supposed date of sale in favor of Marcos, the requisite approval of the Provincial Governor was not yet secured, petitioners conclude that Pedro could not be considered as the owner of the subject property and, as such, he did not yet possess the right to transfer ownership thereof and, thus, could not have lawfully sold the same to Marcos.

 

The Court does not agree.

 

Section 2196 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

 

SECTION 2196. Execution of deeds. – When the government of a municipality is a party to a deed or an instrument which conveys real property or any interest therein or which creates a lien upon the same, such deed or instrument shall be executed on behalf of the municipal government by the mayor, upon resolution of the council, with the approval of the governor.

 

In Municipality of Camiling v. Lopez,16 the Court found occasion to expound on the nature and effect of the provincial governor's power to approve contracts entered into by a municipal government as provided for under Section 2196 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court held, thus:

 

x x x The approval by the provincial governor of contracts entered into and executed by a municipal council, as required in [S]ection 2196 of the Revised Administrative Code, is part of the system of supervision that the provincial government exercises over the municipal governments. It is not a prohibition against municipal councils entering into contracts regarding municipal properties subject of municipal administration or control. It does not deny the power, right or capacity of municipal councils to enter into such contracts; such power or capacity is recognized. Only the exercise thereof is subject to supervision by approval or disapproval, i.e., contracts entered in pursuance of the power would ordinarily be approved if entered into in good faith and for the best interests of the municipality; they would be denied approval if found illegal or unfavorable to public or municipal interest. The absence of the approval, therefore, does not per se make the contracts null and void.17

 

This pronouncement was later reiterated in Pechueco Sons Company v. Provincial Board of Antique,18 where the Court ruled more emphatically that:

 

In other words, as regards the municipal transactions specified in Section 2196 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Provincial Governor has two courses of action to take – either to approve or disapprove the same. And since absence of such approval does not necessarily render the contract entered into by the municipality null and void, the transaction remains voidable until such time when by subsequent unfavorable action of the governor, for reasons of public interest, the contract is thereby invalidated.19

 

It is clear from the above-quoted pronouncements of the Court that, pending approval or disapproval by the Provincial Governor of a contract entered into by a municipality which falls under the provisions of Section 2196 of the Revised Administrative Code, such contract is considered voidable. In the instant case, there is no showing that the contract of sale entered into between Pedro and the Municipality of Marikina was ever acted upon by the Provincial Governor. Hence, consistent with the rulings enunciated above, the subject contract should be considered voidable. Voidable or annullable contracts, before they are set aside, are existent, valid, and binding, and are effective and obligatory between the parties.20

 

In the present case, since the contract was never annulled or set aside, it had the effect of transferring ownership of the subject property to Pedro. Having lawfully acquired ownership of Lots A and C, Pedro, in turn, had the full capacity to transfer ownership of these parcels of land or parts thereof, including the subject property which comprises a portion of Lot C.”

Forum shopping not present

 

THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL, petitioner, vs. THE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, HON. JOSE ATIENZA, JR., and THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA, respondents. G.R. No. 154599, January 21, 2004.

 

” We hesitate to rule that the petitioner and the intervenor are guilty of forum-shopping. Forum-shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. For litis pendentia to exist, the following requisites must be present: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as are representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.20

 

In the instant petition, and as admitted by the respondents, the parties in this case and in the alleged other pending cases are different individuals or entities; thus, forum-shopping cannot be said to exist. Moreover, even assuming that those five petitions are indeed pending before the RTC of Manila and the Court of Appeals, we can only guess the causes of action and issues raised before those courts, considering that the respondents failed to furnish this Court with copies of the said petitions.”

Doctrine of hierarchy of courts applied

 

THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL, petitioner, vs. THE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, HON. JOSE ATIENZA, JR., and THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA, respondents. G.R. No. 154599, January 21, 2004.

 

“Third, even granting arguendo that the present petition is ripe for the extraordinary writ of certiorari, there is here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts. No special and important reason or exceptional and compelling circumstance has been adduced by the petitioner or the intervenor why direct recourse to this Court should be allowed.

 

We have held that this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari (as well as of prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive, but is concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals in certain cases. As aptly stated in People v. Cuaresma:16

 

This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor0 will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard of that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court’s docket.

 

As we have said in Santiago v. Vasquez,17 the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by seeking relief directly from this Court must be put to a halt for two reasons: (1) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (2) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because this Court is not a trier of facts.

 

Thus, we shall reaffirm the judicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.18

 

Petitioner’s reliance on Pimentel v. Aguirre19 is misplaced because the non-observance of the hierarchy-of-courts rule was not an issue therein. Besides, what was sought to be nullified in the petition for certiorari and prohibition therein was an act of the President of the Philippines, which would have greatly affected all local government units. We reiterated therein that when an act of the legislative department is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, settling the controversy becomes the duty of this Court. The same is true when what is seriously alleged to be unconstitutional is an act of the President, who in our constitutional scheme is coequal with Congress.”

Petition for declaratory relief; Supreme Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction.

 THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL, petitioner, vs. THE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, HON. JOSE ATIENZA, JR., and THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA, respondents. G.R. No. 154599, January 21, 2004.

 

” Second, although the instant petition is styled as a petition for certiorari, in essence, it seeks the declaration by this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the questioned ordinance and executive order. It, thus, partakes of the nature of a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction.14 Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution provides:

 

Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

 

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

 

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

 

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Italics supplied).

 

As such, this petition must necessary fail, as this Court does not have original jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved.15”

Certiorari must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions

 

THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL, petitioner, vs. THE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, HON. JOSE ATIENZA, JR., and THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA, respondents. G.R. No. 154599, January 21, 2004.

 

“First, the respondents neither acted in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor arrogated unto themselves any judicial or quasi-judicial prerogatives. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is a special civil action that may be invoked only against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

 

Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

 

SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

 

Elsewise stated, for a writ of certiorari to issue, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

 

A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function where he has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.11

 

Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, is "a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies … required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature."12

 

Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties.13

 

The respondents do not fall within the ambit of tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. As correctly pointed out by the respondents, the enactment by the City Council of Manila of the assailed ordinance and the issuance by respondent Mayor of the questioned executive order were done in the exercise of legislative and executive functions, respectively, and not of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. On this score alone, certiorari will not lie.”