Experiencia con los DET’s en el Norte y Sur Del Golfo de México

50. ENRIQUE ALMERO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 188191 March 12, 2014

FACTS: Petitioner is accused in a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and multiple physical injuries. On 8 January 2007 the MTC found him petitioner guilty and sentenced him to suffer prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Petitioner filed an Application for Probation on 7 September 2007, reasoning that he was informed of his conviction only upon being served the warrant for his arrest.

The prosecutor opposed his application on the ground that he was known to be uncooperative, habitually absent, and had even neglected to inform the court of his change of address. The MTC denied his application, thus petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari assailing the denial of his application for probation. Upon appeal the RTC reversed and set aside the ruling of MTC and remanded the case to the latter. CA however reversed the RTC ruling and upheld the MTC’s decision in denying the application for probation.

ISSUE: Is petitioner entitled to probation?

RULING: No, petitioner is not entitled to probation. Probation is not a right but a mere privilege, an act of grace and clemency conferred by the State, and may be granted by the court to a deserving defendant. Accordingly, the grant of probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court. It is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society, and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused. Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified offender.

51. ATTY. SEGUNDO BONSUBRE vs. ERWIN, ERICO, AND RITCHIE, ALL SURNAMED YERRO

GR NO. 205952. FEBRUARY 11, 2015

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision and resolution of CA, affirming the order of RTC Cebu which denied due course to the notice of appeal of Atty. Bonsubre for the criminal aspect of estafa. FACTS: Atty. Bonsubre filed a case of estafa against the Yerros before RTC. Private prosecutor manifested that there was an on-going settlement between parties and that they would file the necessary motion relative thereto. The prosecution failed to furnish the RTC a copy of the compromise agreement as well as the necessary motion as manifested. In its order, RTC dismissed the case for failure of prosecution to comply with the court’s directive and the accused’s right to speedy trial. More than 2 years from the issuance of the dismissal, Atty. Bonsubre’s new collaborating counsel filed an MR, claiming a belated learning of the order and believing in good faith that the case merely

48 | P a g e

achieved in accordance with the terms of the compromise agreement. After several hearings and motions, including an amended MR and second amended MR, the RTC denied the motions and held that the dismissal, grounded on failure to prosecute had long become final and executory. However, RTC held that an independent civil action may be instituted tom collect the amount stipulated in the previous agreement. Atty. Bonsubre filed a notice of appeal, which was denied due course relative to the criminal aspect on the ground of the Yerros’ right to speedy trial, but gave due course to the civil aspect. Atty. Bonsubre thus filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, saying that the Yerros are estopped from invoking the aforementioned right after they have reached a compromise agreement to provisionally dismiss the case until its full settlement. CA dismissed the certiorari petition for failure to prosecute for almost 3 years from the time it was dismissed by the RTC, the remedy of appeal was lost through the Atty. Bonsubre’s own fault. MR was also denied through a resolution. Hence, the appeal to SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the RTC ruling which denied the notice of appeal on the criminal aspect of the case?

RULING: No. A dismissal grounded on the denial of the right of the accused to speedy trial has the effect of acquittal that would bar the further prosecution of the accused for the same offence. In this case, the RTC dismissal order is a final order that is not appealable and is immediately executory. While certiorari may lie to challenge such order, petitioner must prove that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Here, no such grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the RTC. Aside from the considerable lapse of time from the dismissal to the reconsideration, it was Atty. Bonsubre who caused the delay. Such unjustified delay on his part clearly prejudiced the respondents. Hence, their right to speedy trial had been violated. As to the provisional dismissal and compromise agreement, the requisites in Sec. 8, Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure have not been met, as prosecution neither presented the compromise agreement nor filed the required motion to that effect such that no order was in fact issued granting the provisional dismissal of the case. Hence, the respondents are not estopped from invoking their right to speedy trial.

RESOLUTION: The petition is denied, and the decision and resolution of the CA were affirmed.

52. MARGIE BALERTA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 205144 November 26, 2014

FACTS: Margie Balerta, being then an employee/cashier of Balasan Associated Barangays Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BABMPC)[,] was in[- ]charge of collecting and keeping the collections turned over to her by the collectors of the cooperative [and of] account[ing] for and deposit[ing] the collected amount to the depository bank which is the Balasan Rural Bank, but said accused, far from complying with her obligation, with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence, did then and there wilfully, unlawfull yand feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert toher personal use and benefit the total collection of One Hundred Eighty[-]Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty[-]Four Pesos and 06/100 (₱185,584.06) Philippine Currency and despite repeated demands, the said accused failed and still fails, to liquidate or render formal accounting of her collections or return the aforesaid amount to the Balasan Associated Barangays Multi-Purpose Cooperative, to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of ₱185,584.06.

During the pre-trial, the prosecution presented BABMPC’s Manager, Napoleon Timonera (Timonera), to testify. He alleged that petitioner neither resigned nor was terminated from employment, but she stopped reporting for work from June 19, 1999 onwards after BABMPC discovered discrepancies and fraud in her records.

Upon audit, BABMPC found that "there was a discrepancy of some ₱185,000.00," ₱90,000.00 of which in the passbook, while the rest of the amount related to the records of the cooperative kept by the petitioner. When asked by the petitioner’s counsel about where exactly was the discrepancy shown in the copy of the bank’s ledger and pages of a passbook, which were part of BABMPC’s records, Timonera answered that he is not an accountant and Ambros knew more about the matter.

49 | P a g e

Timonera also testified that without the petitioner’s presence and permission, the latter’s table and drawers were opened through the use of duplicate keys kept by De Asis. The use of the duplicate keys to open each other’s office drawers was however a common practice between the petitioner and De Asis. On the other hand, the petitioner testified that the lastday she reported for work as a cashier in BABMPC was on June 17, 1999. Timonera got angry that day when the petitioner reminded him of his cash advances, which were already equivalent to his salaries for five months. The petitioner emphasized that Timonera had exceeded the allowable cash advance amount of one month salary. She was not however furnished a copy of the audit report. She protested that the audit was conducted in her absence. The petitioner likewise stated that she can no longer find the receipts, vouchers and books in her drawers showing the cash advances of Timonera.

The petitioner proceeded to the Balasan Police Station to report about the forced opening of her table and drawers which occurred on June 25, 1999. She also informed the police that the amount of ₱5,000.00 kept in the drawers was missing. She confronted BABMPC about the missing cash. The petitioner alleged that Timonera was ill motivated when he initiated the filing of the criminal complaint against her and to evade his financial liabilities from BABMPC relative to his cash advances and the money which he had diverted to other projects in violation of the rules of the cooperative. She was aware of the shortage of ₱1,896.00, which was reflected in a past monthly audit. To date, the amount remains unsettled.

RTC finds the [petitioner] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa by misappropriation and hereby sentences [the petitioner to] five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum, together with the accessory penalty provided by law, to pay [BABMPC] ₱185,584.06 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. CA affirms the decision of the RTC. The evidence of the prosecution was able to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that [the petitioner] committed estafa by misappropriation under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code.)

ISSUE:

I. Whether or not Balerta is entitled to an acquittal considering that a cashier possesses no juridical possession over the funds he or she holds;

II. Her guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.41 RULING:

Yes. Balerta held the funds in behalf of BABMPC. Over the funds, she had mere physical or material possession, but she held no independent right or title, which she can set up against BABMPC. The petitioner was nothing more than a mere cash custodian. Hence, the Court finds that juridical possession of the funds as an element of the crime of estafa by misappropriation is absent in the instant case.

"Fundamental is the precept in all criminal prosecutions, that the constitutive acts of the offense must be established with unwavering exactitude and moral certainty because this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt."52 At the outset, it is significant to point out that neither the prosecution nor the defense had made any formal offer of documentary evidence. Considering the absence of formal offers of documentary evidence, the judgments rendered by the RTC and the CA solely hinged on who was more credible between the two witnesses.

The court does not find Timonera’s testimony as incredible, by itself alone, it is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof required for conviction in criminal cases. The witness failed to state with certainty where in the records held by the petitioner were the discrepancies shown. It was thus fatal for the prosecution’s cause that Ambros, De Asis, Mombay and the bank personnel did not take the witness stand especially since documentary evidence were never formally offered as well.

The RTC and the CA faulted the petitioner for not offering countervailing evidence, including an audit conducted in her own behalf. Still, it does not justify a conviction to be handed on that ground because the "[c]ourts cannot magnify the weakness of the defense and overlook the prosecution’s failure to discharge the onus probandi."

50 | P a g e

"Concededly, the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated. This, however, cannot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Moreover, when the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, such that one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit."57

"In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind."58

In the case at bar, however, the paltry evidence for the prosecution, consisting merely of Timonera’s testimony, casts doubts anent the guilt of the petitioner, and does not amply rebut her right to be presumed innocent of the crime charged.

The acquittal of the accused from the crime charged does not necessarily negate the existence of civil liability. However, in the instant case, the prosecution had failed as well to present preponderant evidence from which the Court can determinately conclude that the petitioner should pay BABMPC the amount of ₱185,584.06.

In the case now under consideration, the Court acquits the petitioner not because she is found absolutely innocent of the crime charged. The Court acquits merely because reasonable doubt exists anent her guilt. Hence, the petitioner can still be held civilly liable to BABMPC if preponderant evidence exist to prove the same.

Rule 133, Section 1 of the Rules of Court indicates how preponderance of evidence shall be determined, viz:

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance

of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. (Underscoring ours)

The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR No. 00693 is REVERSED. The petitioner, MARGIE BALERTA, is ACQUITTED of the crime of Estafa.

53. PEOPLE vs. DAHIL

FACTS: On 1 Oct. 2002, Dahil and Castro were charged in three separate Information before the RTC for the violation of Sec.5, Art. II of RA 9165 for the sale of marijuana.

The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the case of selling and possession of illegal drugs against the accused. All the elements of the crimes were established. The marked money was lost in the custody of the police officers, but the RTC ruled that the same was not fatal considering that a photocopy of the marked money was presented and identified by the arresting officers. It did not give credence to the defense of frame-up by Dahil and Castro explaining that it could easily be concocted with no supporting proof.

The accused appealed to the CA and argued that there were irregularities on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal items seized from them. The prosecution witnesses exhibited gross disregard of the procedural safeguards which generated clouds of doubts as to the identity of the seized items presented in evidence. The CA denied; hence this appeal.

51 | P a g e

ISSUE: Whether the law enforcement officers substantially complied with the chain of custody procedure required by RA 9165.

HELD: NO. Although the prosecution offered in evidence the Inventory of the Property seized signed by the arresting officers and Kagawad Pamintuan, the procedures provided in Sec. 21 of RA 9165 were not observed. The said provision requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately (1) conduct a physically inventory and (2) 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 DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

First, the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted after seizure and confiscation as it was only done at the police station. PO2 Cruz gave a the flimsy excuse that they failed to immediately conduct an inventory because they did not bring with them the material or equipment for the preparation of the documents. Such explanation is unacceptable considering that they conducted a surveillance on the target for a couple of weeks. Second, there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of Property Seized. According to the CA decision, it was Sergeant Dela Cruz who prepared the said document. PO2 Cruz on the other hand, testified that it was their investigator who prepared the document while SPO1 Licu’s testimony was that a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin was their investigator. Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were photographed in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official.

The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

The appeal is GRANTED.

54. DUNGO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Calamba, Laguna, filed the Information4 _{against the petitioners for taking the life of one Marlon Villanueca} during an initiation rite and being then members of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity and present thereat, in conspiracy with more or less twenty other members and officers, whose identity is not yet known.

The prosecution presented twenty (20) witnesses to prove the crime charged. Their testimonies are summarized as follows:

The victim was brought to the emergency room of JP Rizal Hospital. The attending physician observed that Villanueva was motionless, not breathing and had no heartbeat. The victim did not respond to the resuscitation and was pronounced dead. The attending physician in his medico-legal report stated that Villanueva was a victim of hazing. Allegedly, the victim, after having taken copious amounts of alchohol suddenly dropped to the floor after receiving a hit from one of the master initiaters. He was thereafter brought to the hospital where the attending physician was unable to rescucitate him.

The defense presented seven (7) witnesses to prove the innocence of the petitioners. Their testimonies are summarized as follow:

Petitioner Dungo alleges that he and his friend was only on their to Pansol when they chanced upon the victim, and that out of the goodness of their hearts, attempted to bring the latter to a hospital.

The RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law. On appeal, CA ruled that the dismissed the petition of Dungo and Sibal for being bereft of merit.

ISSUE: WON Pet constitutional righrts were violated

RULING: No. Aside from inducing Villanueva to attend the initiation rites and their presence during the hazing, the petitioners guilt were proven beyond