Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE:
WON the civil case should await the result of the
criminal case on appeal. The resolution of the above
Buenaseda v. Secretary Flavier issue hinges on the interpretation of the term physical
Case No. 40 injuries as used in Article 33: won the term means
G.R. No. 106719 (September 21, 1993) physical injuries in the RPC only, or any physical injury
Chapter III, Page 104, Footnote No.141 or bodily injury, whether inflicted with intent to kill
or not.
FACTS:
The Private Respondents filed an administrative HELD:
complaint with the Ombudsman against the Petitioner No
for the violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Article 33 uses the words defamation, fraud and
Act. In response, the Ombudsman filed an order physical injuries. Defamation and fraud are used in
directing the preventive suspension of the Petitioners, their ordinary sense because there are no specific
who were employees of the national center for mental provisions in the RPC using these terms as means of
health. The Respondent argue that the preventive offenses defined therein, so that these two terms must
suspension laid by the Ombudsman under Sec. 24 of RA have used not tom impart any technical meaning, but in
6770 is contemplated in by Sec. 13(8) of Art. 9 of the their generic sense.
1987 Constitution, while the Petitioner contends that the
Ombudsman can only recommend to the Heads of Hence, it is evident then that the term physical
Departments and other agencies the preventive injuries could not have been used in its specific sense as
suspension of officials and employees facing a crime defined in the RPC.
administrative investigation conducted by his office. In other words, the term physical injuries should be
understood to mean any bodily injury, not the crime of
ISSUE: physical injuries, because the terms used with the latter
W/N the Ombudsman has the power to preventively are general terms.
suspend government officials working in other offices
other than that of the Ombudsman pending the In any case, it was the intent of the Code Commission
investigation of administrative complaints. to establish a civil action for the bodily harm received by
the complainant similar to the civil action for assault and
HELD: battery, as they are understood under American Law.
Hence, the civil action should lie whether the offense
committed is that of physical injuries, or frustrated Law, the Anti-Dummy Law would punish acts intended
homicide, or attempted homicide, or even death. to circumvent the provisions of the former law which
Writ granted. nationalize the retail business.
Itchong Case
_________________________________________
ISSUE:
People of the Philippines v. Ferrer Is the employment of aliens in non-control position in a
Case No. 208 retail establishment or trade prohibited by the Anti-
G.R. No. L-32613-14 (December 27, 1972) Dummy Law?
FACTS: RULING:
Private Respondents were respectively charged with a
violation of Republic Act No. 1700, otherwise known as Yes, it is prohibited.
the Anti-Subversion Act. RA 1700 outlaws the Against retail trade law and Anti-dummy law
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and other (X) unconsti-right of employer to choose
subversive associations and punishes any person who The nationalization of an economic measure when
knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliates himself founded on grounds of public policy cannot be branded
with, becomes or remains a member of the CPP or any as unjust, arbitrary or oppressive or contrary to the
other organization subversive in nature. Tayag filed a Constitution because its aim is merely to further the
motion challenging the validity of the statute due to its material progress and welfare of the citizens of a
constitutional violations. The lower court declared the country.
statute void on the grounds that it was a bill of attainder Indeed, in nationalizing employment in retail trade the
and that it is vague and overbroad. The cases were right of choice of an employer is not impaired but its
dismissed, to which the Government appealed. sphere is merely limited to the citizens to the exclusion
of those of other nationalities.
ISSUE: Falls within the scope of police power, thru which and
W/N the title of the act satisfies the constitutional by which the State insures its existence and security and
provision on bill titles. the supreme welfare of its citizens
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed.
HELD: This preliminary injunction issued by the trial court on
Yes. The title of the bill need not be a catalogue or an December 6, 1958 is hereby lifted. The petition for
index of its contents, and need not recite the details of mandamus is dismissed, with costs against appellees
the Act. It is a valid title if it indicates in clear terms
the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed law __________________________________________
and its operation. A narrow and technical construction is CATALINA DE LOS SANTOS, in her capacity as
to be avoided, and the statute will be read fairly and administratrix of the intestate estate of the decased
reasonably in order not to thwart the legislative intent. Julio Sarabillo, plaintiff-appellee,
The Anti-Subversion act vs.
fully satisfies these requirements. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF MIDSAYAP,
Most Rev. LUIS DEL ROSARIO and Rev. GERARD
__________________________________________ MONGEAU,defendants-appellants.
In their answer defendants claim that the sale is legal and The claim that the sale can be validated because it was
valid it having been executed for educational and made with the avowed aim that the property would be
charitable purposes and approved by the Secretary of dedicated solely to educational and charitable purposes
Agriculture and Natural Resources. They further claim is likewise unmeritorious even considering the law
that, even if it be declared null and void, its immediate invoked by counsel for appellants in favor of its validity.
effect would be not the return of the land to appellee but It is true that under section 121, Commonwealth Act No.
the reversion of the property to the State as ordained by 141, a corporation, association, or partnership may
law. Defendants also set up as a defense the doctrine acquire any land granted as homestead if the sale is done
of pari delicto. with the consent of the grantee and the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and is
As a preliminary step, the court, upon petition of counsel solely for commercial, industrial, educational, religious,
for defendants, directed the clerk of court, assisted by a or charitable purposes, or for a right of way, and
representative of both parties, to appraise the value of apparently there is no limitation therein as to the time
the improvements existing on the controverted land and within which such acquisition may be made. But this
to submit to the court a report of his findings. This was provision should be interpreted as a mere authority
done, the clerk of court reporting that the value of the granted to a corporation, association or partnership to
improvements was done, the clerk of court reporting that acquire a portion of the public land and not as an
the value of the improvements was P601. unbridled license to acquire without restriction for such
would be giving an advantage to an entity over an
After the parties had submitted the case on the pleadings, individual which finds no legal justification. It is our
in addition to the report of the clerk of court as to the opinion that the authority granted by section 121 should
value of the improvements existing on the land, the court be interpreted as subject to the condition prescribed in
rendered decision declaring the sale null and void and section 118, namely, that the acquisition should be after
ordering the plaintiff to reimburse to the defendants the the period of five years from the date of the issuance of
sum of P800 which was paid as purchase price, plus the patent.
the additional sum of P601 as value of the
improvements, both sums to bear interest at 6 per cent But appellants now contend that even if it be declared
per annum from the date of the complaint, and ordering that the sale made to them by the homesteader is null
defendants to vacate the land in question. Dissatisfied and void yet its immediate effect would be not the return
with this decision, the case was taken to the Court of of the land to appellee but rather its reversion to the
Appeals but it was later certified to this Court on the State wherein the Government is the interested party.
ground that the appeal merely involves questions of law. (Section 124 of the Public Land Act). Appellants further
claim that the present action cannot be maintained by the
It appears that the patent covering the tract of land which appellee under the principle of pari delicto.
includes the portion now disputed in this appeal was
issued to the late Julio Sarabillo on December 9, 1938, The principles thus invoked by appellants are correct and
and the sale of the portion of two hectares to the Roman cannot be disputed. They are recognized not only be our
Catholic Church took place on December 31, 1940. This law but by our jurisprudence. Section 124 of the Public
shows that the sale was made before the expiration of the Land Act indeed provides that any acquisition,
period of five years from the date of the issuance of the conveyance or transfer executed in violation of any of its
patent and as such is null and void it being in provisions shall be null and void and shall produce the
contravention of section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. effect of annulling and cancelling the grant or patent and
141. The fact that it was expressly stipulated in the deed cause the reversion of the property to the State, and the
of sale that it was subject to the approval of the Secretary principle of pari delicto has been applied by this Court
of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the approval in a number of cases wherein the parties to a transaction
was sought and obtained on March 26, 1949, or more have proven to be guilty of having effected the
than ten years after the date of the issuance of the patent, transaction with knowledge of the cause of its invalidity.
or the fact that the deed of sale was registered in the (Bough & Bough vs. Cantiveros & Hanopol, 40 Phil.,
Office of the Register of Deeds only on March 29, 1950, 210, 216; Rellosa vs. Gaw Chee Hun,3 G.R. No. L-1411;
and was annotated on the back of the title on that date, Trinidad Gonzaga de Cabauatan vs. Uy Hoo, et al.,4 G.R.
cannot have the effect of validating the sale for the No. L-2207; Caoile vs. Yu Chiao Peng,5 G.R. No. L-
reason that the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture 4068; Talento, et al. vs. Makiki, et al.,6 G.R. No. L-
and Natural Resources does not have any valid curative 3529.) But we doubt if these principles can now be
effect. That approval is merely a formality which the law invoked considering the philosophy and the policy
requires if the sale is effected after the term of five years behind the approval of the Public Land Act. The
but before the expiration of a period of 25 years for the principle underlyingpari delicto as known here and in
purpose of testing the validity of the sale on the United States is not absolute in its application. It
constitutional grounds. But, as was ruled by this Court, recognizes certain exceptions one of them being when its
the absence of such formality will not render the enforcement or application runs counter to an avowed
transaction null and void fundamental policy or to public interest. As stated by us
1
(Evangelista vs. Montao, G.R. No. L-5567). What is in the Rellosa case, "This doctrine is subject to one
important is the period within which the sale is executed. important limitation, namely, "whenever public policy is
The provision of the law which prohibits the sale or considered advanced by allowing either party to sue for
encumbrance of the homestead within five years after
relief against the transaction." (Rellosa vs. Gaw Chee The factual background is as follows:
Hu, supra.)
Thomas N. Tan was accused of qualified theft in a
The case under consideration comes within the exception complaint lodged with the City Fiscal of Quezon City.
above adverted to. Here appellee desires to nullify a The case was docketed as I.S. No. 82-2964 and assigned
transaction which was done in violation of the law. for investigation to the petitioner who was then an
Ordinarily the principle of pari delicto would apply to Assistant City Fiscal. In the course of the investigation
her because her predecessor-in-interest has carried out the petitioner demanded P4,000.00 from Tan as the price
the sale with the presumed knowledge of its illegality (8 for dismissing the case. Tan reported the demand to the
Manresa 4th ed., pp. 717-718), but because the subject National Bureau of Investigation which set up an
of the transaction is a piece of land, public policy entrapment. Because Tan was hard put to raise the
requires that she, as heir, be not prevented from re- required amount only P2,000.00 in bills were marked by
acquiring it because it was given by law to her family for the NBI which had to supply one-half thereof. The
her home and cultivation. This is the policy on which entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with
our homestead law is predicated the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 7393 which
(Pascua vs. Talens, supra). This right cannot be waived. reads as follows:
"It is not within the competence of any citizen to barter
away what public policy by law seeks to preserve" The undersigned Tanodbayan Special
(Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. Pantaleon de las Ama, Prosecutor accuses LAURO G.
et al., 74 Phil., 3). We are, therefore, constrained to hold SORIANO, for Violation of Section 3,
that appellee can maintain the present action it being in paragraph (b) of Republic Act 3019,
furtherance of this fundamental aim of our homestead otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
law. Corrupt Practices Act, committed as
follows:
As regards the contention that because the immediate
effect of the nullification of the sale is the reversion of That on or about the 21st day of March 1983, at Quezon
the property to the State appellee is not the proper party City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
to institute it but the State itself, that is a point which we Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public
do not have, and do not propose, to decide. That is a officer, being then and still is an Assistant City Fiscal of
matter between the State and the Grantee of the the Quezon City Fiscal's Office, detailed as the
homestead, or his heirs. What is important to consider Investigating Fiscal in the case of MARIANNE Z.
now is who of the parties is the better entitled to the LACAMBRA versus THOMAS N. TAN, docketed as
possession of the land while the government does not I.S. No. 82-2964, for Qualified Theft, taking advantage
take steps to assert its title to the homestead. Upon of his official position and with grave abuse of authority,
annulment of the sale, the purchaser's claim is reduced to did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
the purchase price and its interest. As against the vendor demand and request from Thomas N. Tan the amount of
or his heirs, the purchaser is no more entitled to keep the FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P4,000.00) Philippine
land than any intruder. Such is the situation of the Currency, and actually received from said Thomas N.
appellants. Their right to remain in possession of the Tan the amount of TWO THOUSAND PESOS
land is no better than that of appellee and, therefore, they (P2,000.00) Philippine Currency, in consideration for a
should not be allowed to remain in it to the prejudice of favorable resolution by dismissing the abovementioned
appellee during and until the government takes steps case, wherein said accused has to intervene in his official
toward its reversion to the State. (See capacity as such Investigating Fiscal.
Castro vs. Orpiano, G.R. No. L-4094, November 29,
1951.) CONTRARY TO
LAW.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed,
without pronouncement as to costs. Manila, Philippines,
March 22, 1983.
__________________________________________
After trial the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision with
G.R. No. L-65952 July 31, 1984 the following dispositive portion:
LAURO G. SORIANO, JR., petitioner, WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Lauro G.
vs. Soriano, Jr., GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE Principal in the Information, for Violation of Section 3,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. paragraph (b), of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Dakila F. Castro for petitioner. Act, and hereby sentences him to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from
The Solicitor General for respondents. SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) MONTH, as minimum, to
NINE (9) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as maximum; to
ABAD SANTOS, J.: suffer perpetual disqualification from public office; to
suffer loss of all retirement or gratuity benefits under
The principal issue in this petition to review a decision any law; and, to pay costs.
of the Sandiganbayan is whether or not the preliminary
investigation of a criminal complaint conducted by a Of the sum of Two Thousand Pesos
Fiscal is a "contract or transaction" so as to bring it (P2,000.00) used in the entrapment
within the ambit of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. operations, and which was fully
3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt recovered from the accused, One
Practices Act. Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) shall be
returned to private complainant Thomas
N. Tan, and the other half, to the
National Bureau of Investigation, pending before petitioner was related to
National Capital Region. the exercise of the function of his office.
Therefore, it is with pristine clarity that
A motion to reconsider the decision was denied by the the offense proved, if at all is Direct
Sandiganbayan; hence the instant petition. Bribery. (Petition, p. 5.)