Dela Cruz v People (GR 236807 and GR 236810; January 12, 2021)

 Conchita Dela Cruz v People of the Philippines

(GR 236807; January 12, 2021)

Maximo A. Borje, et al. v People of the Philippines

(GR 236810; January 12, 2021)

Peralta, C.J.

Facts: 

    Petitioners were found guilty of estafa through Falsification of Documents in violation of Article 315, Article 171 and Article 48 of the RPC and Section 3(e) of RA 3019 or the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act."

    There were charges of fictitious transactions in DPWH between March to December 2001 by high ranking public officials and private individuals who allegedly falsified documents to cause the payment of PHP 6.4M for fictitious repairs and purchases. Among the 19 individuals charged is the petitioner, who is a supplier and the owner of DEB Repair Shop and Parts. Dela Cruz allegedly supplied spare parts for DPWH service vehicles.

    The prosecution presented several disbursement vouchers (DV) where DEB was the supplier for emergency repairs and reimbursements. They also presented witnesses who were DPWH employees who were issued with service vehicles and were presented by DEB with a DV for payments and repairs when none were done to his service vehicle.

Issue: 

    W/N the Sandiganbayan committed error when it found petitioners guilty of the crime of estate and violation of RA 3019.

Held: The petition is denied.

    The Court is not a trier of facts, and its appellate jurisdiction is limited only to questions of law. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan's factual findings are conclusive upon the Court.

    The following elements of estafa under Par 2(1)A315 of the RPC are present in this case:

1. There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means

There were false pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means in that it was made to appear, through the use of the falsified documents, that the DPWH service vehicles in question underwent emergency repairs that required purchases of spare parts, and that reimbursements were due to accused Martinez

2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud

The false pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means, in the form of falsification of documents, were employed prior to the commission of the fraud; that is to deceive the government in paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts;

3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because ofthe false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and

The government was induced to pay the claims relying on the false pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means employed;

4. That as a result thereof, the offended pai1y suffered damage.

The government suffered damages in the total amount of P5,166,539.00, the sum total of the false claims paid.

    Contrary to petitioner Borje's argument, the prosecution was able to establish that there were fictitious emergency repairs and/or purchases of spare pai1s. The prosecution presented several witnesses that testified they were end-users ofthe subject service vehicles, and they had not authorized the emergency repairs and/or purchases ofspare parts as described in the DVs and supporting documents prepared by the accused public officers and employees.

    The absence of participation or knowledge, on the part of the end-users is apparent on the supporting documents as they are not named the payee in most, if not all, DVs and supporting documents pertaining to their respective service vehicles. Instead, the DVs and supporting documents were in the name of some of the accused public officers/employees, such as Martinez and petitioner Borje.

    The falsification by the accused of the DVs, supporting documents and Cash Invoices had a vital connection to the chain of conspiracy or were in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy. Without the DVs, supporting documents and Cash Invoices, the government would not have released public funds for the reimbursement of the ghost emergency repairs and/or purchase of spare parts. 

    The following are the elements of corrupt practices of public officers (Sec 3(e) of RA 3019):

1. the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; 

Accused Arias, Borje, Castillo, Favorito, Quarto and San Jose are undoubtedly public officers discharging administrative or official functions.

2. he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and

All the aforementioned accused, in conspiracy with one another and with accused Dela Cruz, acted with evident bad faith in falsifying official documents to deceive the DPWH into paying the claims for the fictitious emergency repairs/purchases ofspare parts in the name of deceased accused Martinez.

3. his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions

The actions of the accused caused undue injury or damage to the government in the amount of PHP 5.1M

    Petitioner is in conspiracy with the other co-accused. Without the participation of petitioner Dela Cruz in the falsification of Cash Invoices through her sole proprietorship DEB, the reimbursements amounting to PHP 5.1M would not have been facilitated. Thus, since petitioner Dela Cruz is in conspiracy with the other co-accused, it is of no moment that she is not a public officer. 

People v Masilang (GR 246466; January 26, 2021)

 

People of the Philippines v Reymar Masilang y Laciste (accused-appellant)

(G.R. No. 246466; January 26, 2021)

Peralta, C.J.

Facts:

    Masilang was charged with the murder of Rosa Yuzon (17 y.o.), respondent's girlfriend, on July 26, 2015. Accordingly, Masilang and Yuzon were at a cemetery in Nueva Ecija and Yuzon was blindfolded and did not have any idea about the attack. Yuzon was was not able to defend herself and was hacked with a bolo for several times and the accused allegedly banged Yuzon's head on a steel gate, which led to her death. This narration corroborates with the testimony of the witness Edgardo Gamboa, who was allegedly at the cemetery to watch (mamboso) at couples, but ended up witnessing the crime.

    Accused claims that he left Yuzon at a tent in the cemetery to look for his grandfather's tomb, and that once he heard a cry for help, he looked for people to ask for help and then when he approached the tent, he was instructed not to leave. 

    Yuzon's parents did not appear during trial, and the trial court did not award civil damages on the ground that the parents of the victim submitted two separate affidavits of desistance wherein they waived their criminal and civil claims against the accused-appellant. The parents have agreed to settle the case with Masilang for the amount of P100,000.

Issue: 

1. W/N Masilang was convicted with murder despite his doubtful identification

2. W/N the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery

3. W/N the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Held:

1. Masilang asserts that his identification as the culprit is doubtful as it was established only through the lone testimony of prosecution witness Edgardo Gamboa, with no other corroborating evidence. In addition, the name and identity of appellant as culprit was not reflected in Gamboa's affidavit and Gamboa testified that he did not remember the faces of the people he "watched" in the cemetery.

The assertion is untenable. An accused is convicted, not on the basis of the number of witnesses against him, but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of a doubt; in other words, not quantitatively but qualitatively. Gamboa was able to identify the accused-appellant because of the length of time he watched the accused-appellant and the victim in broad daylight and his proximity to them.

Similarly, Gamboa's failure to state Masilang's name does not diminish his credibility as a witness. It only shows that at the time of the execution of the sworn statement, Masilang's name was not yet known to Gamboa. Furing Gamboa's direct testimony, he positively and categorically identified Masilang as the person who killed Yuzon. 

2.  The prosecution was able to prove treachery. Masilang lured Yuzon into a secluded place in the cemetery with a promise of giving her a surprise gift while the victim is blindfolded. As such, the victim did not have any means to defend herself nor to escape. 

It is well-settled that an unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself/herself, as in the case of herein victim Yuzon, constitutes treachery.

3. The prosecution proved Masilang's guilt beyond reasonable doubt as they established the essential elements of murder: 

(a) that a person was killed (by presenting her death certificate and witness Gamboa); 

(b) that the accused killed him (by testimony of Gamboa); 

(c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC (by testimony of Gamboa); and 

(d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide (through the stipulation that the victim were sweethearts, which was also admitted by appellant during his testimony; hence, their relationship would show that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 

For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time the crime was committed. In this case, Masilang was also in the cemetery Hence, it was not physically impossible for him to have been present at the crime scene and prosecution eyewitness Edgardo Gamboa testified that he saw appellant hacking Rose Yuzon and banging her head against the front portion of a tomb. Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.

Moreover, the non-flight of accused-appellant is not proof of his innocence. The Court has repeatedly held that there is no law or principle which guarantees that non-flight is a conclusive proof of the innocence of the accused and, as in the case of alibi, such a defense is unavailing when there is positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.

Justice Leonen quotable quotes

 Patriarchy

Patriarchy becomes encoded in our culture when it is normalized. The more it pervades our culture, the more its chances to infect this and future.

The trial court's reasoning further encoded patriarchy into our system. If a surname is significant for identifying a person's ancestry, interpreting the laws to mean that a marital child's surname must identify only the paternal line renders the mother and her family invisible. This, in tum, entrenches the patriarchy and with it, antiquated gender roles: the father, as dominant, in public; and the mother, as a supporter, in private. (Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III v CA and Hon. Gregorio Y. Dela Peña III, GR 216425, November 11, 2020)

Corona re retirement (A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC. January 12, 2021)

Corona re retirement 

(A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC. January 12, 2021)

Facts: 

Before the court is the supplication for the grant of post-employment and survivorship benefits of Ma. Cristina Roco Corona, as the spouse of former CJ Renato Corona.

 

CJ Corona put into office on May 12, 2010. A year later, Articles of Impeachment were filed against him. CJ Corona was indicted by the House of Representatives under Section 2 Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution, on the alleged grounds of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and graft and corruption.

 

Among those charged against him were partiality in cases involving the Arroyo administration, being a midnight appointment as chief justice, failure to disclose his SALN (as required by Section 17 Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution), and failure to account for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ).

 

CJ Corona was impeached on May 29, 2012. While the criminal and civil charges were still being tried, CJ Corona died on April 29, 2016. Thus, the criminal charges for graft and corruption were dismissed. 

 

Following this, Mrs. Corona sent the letter to the Supreme Court on July 13, 2020, asking to void the Senate judgment for insufficiency of evidence and violation of Section 14 Article 8 of the Constitution.

 

Issue:

W/N Mrs. Corona should be accorded retirement benefits, other gratuities and survivorship pension as the spouse of the late CJ Corona despite the latter’s ouster by impeachment

 

Held: Petition is granted

 

The sole effect of impeachment is the removal from office and disqualification from holding any public office. Citing cases from the American Jurisprudence (where the law on impeachment in the country is heavily based on) there is mutual exclusivity of impeachment proceedings and court trial.

 

Impeachment is not crafted to mete out punishment. It is made to secure the state against gross political misdemeanors. As such, it does not touch the person or property, but only divests him of his political capacity.

 

No legally actionable liability attaches to the public officer by a mere judgment of impeachment against him or her, and thus lies the necessity for a separate conviction for charges that must be properly filed with courts of law.

Alanis v CA - (GR 216-425; November 11, 2020)

 Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III v CA and Hon. Gregorio Y. Dela Peña III

(GR 216425, November 11, 2020)

Leonen, J.

Facts:

Petitioner alleged that he was born to Mario Alanis y Cimafranca and Jarmila Imelda Ballaho y Al-Raschid, and that the name on his birth certificate was "Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III."

Petitioner wished to remove his father's surname "Alanis III," and instead use his mother's maiden name "Ballaho," and change his first name from "Anacleto" to "Abdulhamid"as this was what he has been using since childhood and indicated in his school records.

Petitioner's parents have separated when he was 5 years old, and have been living separately, and the petitioner's mother has single-handedly raised him and his siblings.

Petitioner has presented pieces of evidence, such as photographs of his yearbooks, school diploma and school paper editorial staff.

Issue:

1. W/N the petitioner failed to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA;

2. W/N legitimate children have the right to use their mothers' surnames as their surnames;

3. W/N petitioner has established a recognized ground for changing his (first) name.

Held: Petition is granted.

1. The Petition was filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but petitioner did not even attempt to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. On this ground alone, the Petition may be dismissed.

Nonetheless, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, this Court may choose to apply procedural rules more liberally to promote substantial justice. 

2. Contrary to the State policy, the trial court treated the surnames of petitioner's mother and father unequally.

The Regional Trial Court's application of Article 364 of the Civil Code is incorrect.

"ARTICLE 364. Legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the father."

 Indeed, the provision states that legitimate children shall "principally" use the surname of the father, but "principally" does not mean "exclusively." This gives ample room to incorporate into Article 364 the State policy of ensuring the fundamental equality of women and men before the law, and no discernible reason to ignore it. 

Reading Article 364 of the Civil Code together with the State's declared policy to ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before the law, a legitimate child is entitled to use the surname of either parent as a last name.

3. That confusion could arise is evident.

The petition to change name was filed to avoid confusion, as petitioner has been using the name Abdulhamid Ballaho in all his records and transactions. 

The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the court; it need not be the best evidence available.

Regardless of which name petitioner uses, his father's identity still appears in his birth certificate, where it will always be written, and which can be referred to in cases where paternity is relevant.