Saluday v People (GR No 215305, April 3, 2018)

                                        Marcelo Saluday v People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 215305, April 3, 2018

Facts:

    On May 5, 2009, the Task Force Davao of the Army conducted an inspection of a bus at a military checkpoint, where Buco (a member of the Task Force), found a suspiciously heavy small, gray-black pack bag on the rear end of the bus. The bus conductor said that the bag was owned by Saluday, and so Buco asked Saluday to open the bag and once Saluday opened it, the bag revealed to have a .30 caliber firearm with ammunition and explosive device. Saluday also failed to present proof of his authority to carry such.

    Saluday claims that he did not own the bag and that his brother (who died in 2009) owns the bag. 

Issue: W/N search conducted by the Task Force was illegal and that the evidence is inadmissible in court.

Held: The search conducted by the Task Force at a military checkpoint constitutes a reasonable search.

        The search of persons in a public place is valid because the safety of others may be put at risk.

    The bus was a vehicle of public transportation where passengers have a reduced expectation of privacy. Further, SCAA Buco merely lifted petitioner's bag. This visual and minimally intrusive inspection was even less than the standard x-ray and physical inspections done at the airport and seaport terminals where passengers may further be required to open their bags and luggages. Lastly, Saluday also consented to the baggage inspection when he responded "yes, just open it" when asked if Buco can open the bag. Considering the reasonableness of the bus search, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution finds no application, thereby precluding the necessity for a warrant.

Doctrines:

- Reasonable Search v Warrantless Search

    - both valid State intrusions, even without warrant

    - reasonable search arises from reduced expectation of privacy (in public places, ports,        etc.)

    - warrantless search is an "unreasonable search", but for reasons of practicality, a search warrant can be dispensed with (search incidental to lawful arrest, evidence in plain view, consented search, and extensive search of a private moving vehicle)

- Two-part test that would trigger the application of the Fourth Amendment. First, a person exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy. Second, the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).

- Where a person does not have an expectation of privacy or one's expectation of privacy is not reasonable to society, the alleged State intrusion is not a "search" within the protection of the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures.

- Airport searches are outside the protection of the search and seizure clause due to the lack of an expectation of privacy that society will regard as reasonable. There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. (People v Johnson)

- seaport searches are reasonable searches on the ground that the safety of the traveling public overrides a person's right to privacy (Dela Cruz v People)

People v Choi (GR No. 152950, August 3, 2006)

 People of the Philippines et al. v. Christopher Choi

GR No. 152950, August 3, 2006

 

Corona, J.:

 

Facts:

            In April 1999, Nieto of DOF applied for a search warrant against Choi for violation of Intellectual Property Code for allegedly possessing fake Marlboro Red cigarettes. Nieto also presented Cavalera and Sealey as witnesses. The warrant was granted by J. Gatbalite, and search was conducted on the same day.

            

Issue: W/N J. Gatbalite gravely abused her discretion by issuing the search warrant based on the testimonies of the witnesses, without requiring the presentation of the fake and genuine items (based on 20^th Century Fox Film Corp. v CA)

 

 

Held: No, J. Gatbalite did not abuse her discretion as she asked questions which were probing. 

            

Since probable cause is dependent largely on the opinion and findings of the judge who conducted the examination and who had the opportunity to question the applicant and his witnesses, the findings of the judge deserve great weight.

 

            The 20^th Century Fox Film Corp case has been superseded by Columbia Pictures, Inc. v CA. 

 

Important:

 

Probable cause means such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

 

Requisites of probable cause

(1) the judge must examine the complainant and his witnesses personally;

(2) the examination must be under oath and

(3) the examination must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions

 

The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro-forma. 

Lindongan v People (UDK-16615, February 15, 2021)

 Amroding Lindongan y Ampatua v People of the Philippines

UDK-16615, February 15, 2021

Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts:

        Lindongan was charged with illegal sale of drugs (in violation of Sec 5, Art II, RA 9165) in December 21, 2009. 

        Prosecution: The drug enforcement unit of Urdaneta City arranged a buy bust operation at 2AM of that day after receiving a tip from a confidential informant. After the exchange of the suspected drugs and marked money, the police arrested Lindongan, apprised him of his rights, brought him to the police station, completed the inventory, and the crime laboratory confirmed that the package contained 0.054g of Shabu. They also asked the Barangay Captain to sign the Confiscation Receipt but the latter rejected this.

        Defense: At 6PM of December 20, a black car arrived at their village and police officers stepped out of the car and frisked Lindongan in front of his house without informing him the reason for the frisk and brought him to the police station.

Issue:

Held: Petition is granted. Lindongan is acquitted.

There were lapses in the chain of custody and witness requirement in drugs-related cases (RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640).

Lapses:

1.  The inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted only in Lindongan's presence 

2. There were no representatives from the media, DOJ and elected public official.

Important: The law requires the proper chain of custody and witness requirement for drug-related cases.

1. Chain of Custody

General Rule: the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same.

Exemption: prove that:

a. there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance

 b. the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved  

2. Witness requirement

 General Rule: inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, as well as: 

a. prior to RA 10640 (July 22, 2014) - media and DOJ and elected public official.

b.  after RA 10640 (July 22, 2014) - elected public official and National Prosecution Service or media

Exemption: arresting officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear.

PAFC v NGCP (GR 224936; September 4, 2019)

 PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation v. National Grid Corporation of the Philipines

G.R. No. 224936, September 4, 2019

Caguioa, J.

Facts:

    NGCP needed to expropriate a parcel of land in Bataan and Batangas to construct Mariveles-Limay 230 kV Transmission Line Project. 

    The lot is part of the Petrochemical Industrial Park. This Park was originally part of the public domain reserved by the government for the Lamao Horticultural Experiment Station in 1919. The area's administration was finally transferred to PNOC (PD 949). 

  In 2011, NGCP filed a complaint against PAFC to expropriate the land, exercising its right of eminent domain (Section 4, RA 9511). PAFC argued that the land is already used for a public purpose. 

Issue:

(1) W/N PAFC was correct in filing its Rule 45 Petition directly before the Court

(2) W/N NGCP is empowered to expropriate the subject property under R.A. No. 9511.

Held: Petition is denied and NGCP is allowed to expropriate the subject property.

(1) PAFC did not commit a procedural error in filing the instant appeal via a Rule 45 petition directly before the Court. PAFC raises the argument that the expropriation of the subject property by respondent NGCP is invalid because such exercise of eminent domain was neither done directly by Congress nor pursuant to a specific grant of authority. It is readily apparent that this primary argument is legal in nature. The instant Petition may be decided by dealing purely with questions of law.

(2) The Congress may delegate the exercise of the power to government agencies, public officials and quasi-public entities. Section 4 of R.A. No. 9511 is clear, plain, and free from any ambiguity. Respondent NGCP is allowed to exercise the right of eminent domain only with respect to private property. 

Is the subject lot private property? The Civil Code (A419) provides that there are two types of property either public domain (dominio publico) or private ownership (propiedad privado).

Public domain has the following characteristics: 

- outside the commerce of man and, thus, cannot be leased, donated, sold, or be the object of any contract.

- inalienable (cannot be appropriated or alienated)

 Properties of the State which do not have these characteristics are patrimonial properties of the State, that is, owned by the State in its private capacity. It is property held by the State in its private and proprietary capacity, and not in its public capacity, in order to attain economic ends.

The Civil Code also provides three classifications of private property:

1. patrimonial property of the State (Articles 421 and 422)

2.  patrimonial property of Local Government Units (Article 424)

3.  property belonging to private individuals (Article 425)

If land owned by the State is considered patrimonial property, then such land assumes the nature of private property. The Petrochemical Industrial Park is intended and accordingly devoted by law as a commercial and business venture. Under P.D. No. 949, the Petrochemical Industrial Park was explicitly made alienable and disposable for lease, sale, and conveyance to private entities or persons for the conduct of related industrial activities. As such, it is a patrimonial property with the nature of private property and may be expropriated.

Important:

- NGCP's franchise and powers and functions are contained in RA 9511

- Land of the public domain is outside the commerce of man and, thus, cannot be leased, donated, sold, or be the object of any contract, except insofar as they may be the object of repairs or improvements and other incidental things of similar character. Hence, they cannot be appropriated or alienated. Inalienability is an inherent characteristic of property of the public dominion. They cannot be acquired through prescription and cannot be registered under the Land Registration Law and be the subject of a Torrens Title.

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)