You are on page 1of 11

People vs Tamani GR L-22160-61 any citizen, association, or corporation, which are not

government entities or owned or controlled by the


FACTS: Tamani was convicted of murder and government, would render section 2 of Republic Act No.
attempted murder by the lower court on 897 unconstitutional for it would amount to an
February 14, 1963. Upon receipt of a copy of this order, impairment of the obligation of contracts by compelling
his counsel subsequently filed a motion for private creditors to accept a sort of promissory note
reconsideration on March 1, 1963, which was denied. payable within ten years with interest at a rate very much
The lower court sent a copy of the order of denial to the lower than the current or even the legal one. It was also
counsel by registered mail on July 13, 1963 through the found out in the Congressional Record that the
counsels wife. Counsel filed his appeal only on amendatory bill to Sec. 2 was made which permits the
September 10, 1963, forty-eight days from July 24th, use of backpay certificates as payment for obligations
which is the reglementary fifteen-day period for appeal. and indebtedness in favor of the government. Another
Appellees contend that the case should be dismissed on reason is that it is matter of general knowledge that
the ground that the appeal was forty-eight days late. many officials and employees of the Philippine
They invoked Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court Government, who had served during the Japanese
which states that an appeal must be taken within fifteen Occupation, have already received their backpay
(15) days from the promulgation or notice of the certificates and used them for the payment of the
judgment or order appealed from. obligations to the Government and its entities for debts
incurred before the approval of Republic Act No. 304.
ISSUE: Whether the fifteen-day period should
commence from the date of promulgation Florentino incurred his debt to the PNB on January 2,
of the decision. 1953. Hence, the obligation was subsisting when
the Amendatory Act No. 897 was approved.
RULING: Yes. Using the rule of reddendo singula Consequently, the present case falls squarely under the
singulis, the word promulgation should be construed provisions of section 2 of the Amendatory Act No. 897.
as referring to judgment, while notice should be ___________________________________
construed as referring to order.
Tamanis appeal is therefore 58 days late, not 47, as Republic vs Migrino GR 89483; August 30, 1990
Appellees contend; he only had a day left from the
receipt of his wife of the notice on July 13. Nonetheless, Facts:
the court decided to act upon the appeal at hand to
obviate any possible miscarriage of justice. Acting on information received by the New AFP Anti-
Graft Board, which indicated the acquisition of wealth
__________________________________ beyond his lawful income, private respondent Ret.
Florentino v. PNB Lt.Tecson was required by the Board to submit his
G.R. No. L-8782. April 28, 1956 explanation/comment together with his supporting
evidence. Private respondent was unable to produce his
FACTS: supporting evidence because they were allegedly in the
custody of his bookkeeper who had gone abroad. The
The petitioners and appellants filed a petition Board proceeded with its investigation and submitted its
for mandamus against Philippine National Bank to resolution, recommending that private respondent be
compel it to accept the backpay certificate of petitioner prosecuted and tried for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019,
Marcelino B. Florentino to pay an indebtedness in the as amended, and Rep. Act No. 1379, as amended.
sum of P6,800 secured by real estate mortgage plus
interest. The debt incurred on January 2, 1953, which is The case was set for preliminary investigation by the
due on January 2, 1954. Petitioner is a holder of PCGG. Private respondent moved to dismiss the case on
Backpay Acknowledgment No. 1721 dated October 6, the following grounds: (1) that the PCGG has no
1954, in the amount of P22,896.33 by virtue of Republic jurisdiction over his person; (2) that the action against
Act No. 897 approved on June 20, 1953. Petitioners him under Rep. Act No. 1379 has already prescribed; (3)
offered to pay their loan with the respondent bank with that E.O. No. 14, insofar as it suspended the provisions
their backpay certificate, but the respondent bank, on of Rep. Act No. 1379 on prescription of actions, was
December 29, 1953, refused to accept the latter's inapplicable to his case; and (4) that having retired from
backpay certificate. Under section 2 of Republic Act No. the AFP, he was now beyond the reach of Rep. Act No.
879, respondent-appellee contends that the qualifying 3019. The Board opposed the motion to dismiss. The
clause refers to all the antecedents, whereas the PCGG denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit.
appellant's contention is that it refers only to the last Private respondent moved for reconsideration but was
antecedent. denied by the PCGG. Private respondent was directed to
submit his counter-affidavit and other controverting
ISSUE: evidence.
Whether or not the clause who may be willing to accept
the same for settlement refers to all antecedents Private respondent filed a petition for prohibition with
mentioned in the last sentence of section 2 of Republic preliminary injunction with the RTC. Petitioner filed a
Act No. 879. motion to dismiss and opposed the application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on the
HELD: principal ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction over
No. Grammatically, the qualifying clause refers only to the Board, citing the case of PCGG v. Pena. Private
the last antecedent; that is, "any citizen of the Philippines respondent opposed the motion to dismiss. Petitioner
or any association or corporation organized under the replied to the opposition.
laws of the Philippines." It should be noted that there is a
comma before the words "or to any citizen, etc.," which The court judge denied petitioners motion to dismiss.
separates said phrase from the preceding ones. But even The respondent judge granted the application for the
disregarding the grammatical construction, to make the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining
acceptance of the backpay certificates obligatory upon petitioners from investigating or prosecuting private
respondent under Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379 upon several opportunities to present their side at the pre-trial
the filing of a bond in the amount of Twenty Thousand investigation, first at the scheduled hearing of February
Pesos. Petitioner strongly argues that the private 12, 1990, and then again after the denial of their motion
respondents case falls within the jurisdiction of the of February 21, 1990, when they were given until March
PCGG. Hence, this petition. 7, 1990, to submit their counter-affidavits. On that date,
they filed instead a verbal motion for reconsideration
Issues: which they were again asked to submit in writing. They
had been expressly warned in the subpoena that "failure
WON PCGG has jurisdiction over the case of private to submit counter-affidavits on the date specified shall
respondent be deemed a waiver of their right to submit
controverting evidence." Petitioners have a right to pre-
Ruling: emptory challenge. (Right to challenge validity of
members of G/SCM)
No. It will not do to cite the order of the PCGG
Chairman, creating the Board and authorizing it to It is argued that since the private respondents are officers
investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of the Armed Forces accused of violations of the
of AFP personnel, both retired and in active service, to Articles of War, the respondent courts have no authority
support the contention that PCGG has jurisdiction over to order their release and otherwise interfere with the
the case of private respondent court-martial proceedings. This is without merit. * The
Regional Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions
Applying the rule in statutory construction known as
for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against inferior
ejusdem generis, the term subordinate as used in E.O.
courts and other bodies and on petitions for habeas
Nos. 1 and 2 would refer to one who enjoys a close
corpus and quo warranto.
association or relation with former Pres. Marcos and/or
his wife, similar to the immediate family member,
The right to bail invoked by the private respondents has
relative, and close associate in E.O. No. 1 and the close
traditionally not been recognized and is not available in
relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or nominee
the military, as an exception to the general rule
in E.O. No. 2. Clearly, this alleged unlawful
embodied in the Bill of Rights. The right to a speedy
accumulation of wealth is not that contemplated in E.O.
trial is given more emphasis in the military where the
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
right to bail does not exist.
___________________________________ On the contention that they had not been charged after
more than one year from their arrest, there was
substantial compliance with the requirements of due
COMMENDADOR VS. DE VILLA 200 SCRA 80; process and the right to a speedy trial. The AFP Special
G.R. NO.93177 [AUG. 2, 1991] Investigating Committee was able to complete the pre-
charge investigation only after one year because
Facts: hundreds of officers and thousands of enlisted men were
The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 who are involved in the failed coup.
officers of the AFP were directed to appear in person
before the Pre-Trial Investigating Officers for the alleged Accordingly, in G.R. No. 93177, the petition is
participation the failed coup on December 1 to 9, 1989. dismissed for lack of merit. In G.R. No. 96948, the
Petitioners now claim that there was no pre-trial petition is granted, and the respondents are directed to
investigation of the charges as mandated by Article of allow the petitioners to exercise the right of peremptory
War 71. A motion for dismissal was denied. Now, their challenge under article 18 of the articles of war. In G.R.
motion for reconsideration. Alleging denial of due Nos. 95020 and 97454, the petitions are also granted,
process. and the orders of the respondent courts for the release of
the private respondents are hereby reversed and set
In G.R. No. 95020, Ltc Jacinto Ligot applied for bail on aside. No costs.
June 5, 1990, but the application was denied by GCM ________________________________________
No.14. He filed with the RTC a petition for certiorari
and mandamus with prayer for provisional liberty and a Chua v. CSC (Civil Service Commission)
writ of preliminary injunction. Judge of GCM then Chua v. Civil Service Commission
granted the provisional liberty. However he was not G.R. No. 88979 (February 7, 1992)
released immediately. The RTC now declared that even
military men facing court martial proceedings can avail FACTS:
the right to bail. RA 6683 provided benefits for early retirement and
The private respondents in G.R. No. 97454 filed with SC voluntary separation as well as for involuntary
a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that they were separation due to reorganization. Section 2 covers those
being detained in Camp Crame without charges. The who are qualified: Sec. 2. Coverage. This Act shall
petition was referred to RTC. Finding after hearing that cover all appointive officials and employees of the
no formal charges had been filed against the petitioners National Government. The benefits authorized under this
after more than a year after their arrest, the trial court Act shall apply to all regular, temporary, casual and
ordered their release. emergency employees, regardless of age, who have
rendered at least a total of two (2) consecutive years of
Issues: government service as of the date of separation
Petitioner Lydia Chua, believing that she is qualified to
(1) Whether or Not there was a denial of due process. avail of the benefits of the program, filed an application
on January 30, 1989 with Respondent Administration,
(2) Whether or not there was a violation of the accused which, however, denied the same. Recourse by the
right to bail. petitioner to Respondent Commission yielded the same
result.
Held: NO denial of due process. Petitioners were given
ISSUE: On 31 October 1985, Marquez sold Lot No. 7036-A-7-G
W/N Petitioners status as a co-terminus employee is to Romeo Calixto (Calixto).[23] Claiming to be null and
excluded from the benefits of RA 6683 (Early void the issuance of TCT Nos. T-149375 to T-149382;
Retirement Law). the foreclosure sale of Lot Nos. 7036-A-7-A to 7036-A-
7-D; the mortgage to RBC; and the sale to Calixto, the
Heirs now respondents herein represented by Edronel
HELD: dela Cruz, filed a case[24] for reconveyance and damages
The petition is granted. The Early Retirement Law the southern portion of Lot No. 7036-A (hereafter, the
would violate the equal protection clause of the subject property) against Marquez, Calixto, RBC and
constitution if the Supreme Court were to sustain CRB in December 1986. Marquez, as defendant, alleged
Respondents submission that the benefits of said law that apart from being the first registrant, he was a buyer
are to be denied a class of government employees who in good faith and for value. He also argued that the sale
are similarly situated as those covered by the said law. executed by Rizal Madrid to Gamiao and Dayag was not
The court applied the doctrine of necessary implication binding upon him, it being unregistered. For his part,
in deciding this case. Calixto manifested that he had no interest in the subject
property as he ceased to be the owner thereof, the same
having been reacquired by defendant Marque. CRB, as
defendant, and co-defendant RBC insisted that they were
[G.R. No. 132161. January 17, 2005] mortgagees in good faith and that they had the right to
CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK (CAGAYAN rely on the titles of Marquez which were free from any
VALLEY), INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE lien or encumbrance.
COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF TEODORO Petitioner CRB, in essence, alleges that the Court of
DELA CRUZ, respondents. Appeals committed serious error of law in upholding the
Heirs ownership claim over the subject property
Facts: considering that there was no finding that they acted in
Rizal, Anselmo, Gregorio, Filomeno and Domingo, all good faith in taking possession thereof nor was there
surnamed Madrid (hereafter the Madrid brothers), were proof that the first buyers, Gamiao and Dayag, ever took
the registered owners of Lot No. 7036-A of plan Psd- possession of the subject property. CRB also makes
10188, Cadastral Survey 211, situated in San Mateo, issue of the fact that the sale to Gamiao and Dayag was
Isabela. On 23 and 24 October 1956, Lot No. 7036-A confirmed a day ahead of the actual sale, clearly
was subdivided into several lots under subdivision plan evincing bad faith, it adds. Further, CRB asserts
Psd- 50390. One of the resulting subdivision lots was Marquezs right over the property being its registered
Lot No. 7036-A-7 with an area of Five Thousand Nine owner.
Hundred Fifty-Eight (5,958) square meters. On 15
August 1957, Rizal Madrid sold part of his share Issue: Won the Heirs of Teodoro dela Cruz have a better
identified as Lot No. 7036-A-7, to Aleja Gamiao title than CRB?
(hereafter Gamiao) and Felisa Dayag (hereafter, Dayag)
by virtue of a Deed of Sale, to which his brothers HELD:
Anselmo, Gregorio, Filomeno and Domingo offered no
objection. On 28 May 1964, Gamiao and Dayag sold the Article 1544 is not applicable in the present case. It
southern half of Lot No. 7036-A-7, denominated as Lot contemplates a case of double or multiple sales by a
No. 7036-A-7-B, to Teodoro dela Cruz,[10] and the single vendor. More specifically, it covers a situation
northern half, identified as Lot No. 7036-A-7-A,[11] to where a single vendor sold one and the same immovable
Restituto Hernandez. Later, on 28 December 1986, property to two or more buyers.
Restituto Hernandez donated the northern half to his
daughter, Evangeline Hernandez-del Rosario.[14] The In a situation where not all the requisites are present
children of Teodoro dela Cruz continued possession of which would warrant the application of Art. 1544, the
the southern half after their fathers death on 7 June principle of prior tempore, potior jure or simply he
1970. who is first in time is preferred in right,[50] should
apply.[51] The only essential requisite of this rule is
In a Deed of Sale[15] dated 15 June 1976, the Madrid priority in time; in other words, the only one who can
brothers conveyed all their rights and interests over Lot invoke this is the first vendee. Undisputedly, he is a
No. 7036-A-7 to Pacifico Marquez (hereafter, Marquez), purchaser in good faith because at the time he bought the
which the former confirmed[16] on 28 February 1983. real property, there was still no sale to a second
Subsequently, Marquez subdivided Lot No. 7036-A-7 vendee.[52] In the instant case, the sale to the Heirs by
into eight (8) lots, namely: Lot Nos. 7036-A-7-A to Gamiao and Dayag, who first bought it from Rizal
7036-A-7-H, for which TCT Nos. T-149375 to T- Madrid, was anterior to the sale by the Madrid brothers
149382 were issued to him on 29 March 1984.[19] On the to Marquez. The Heirs also had possessed the subject
same date, Marquez and his spouse, Mercedita Mariana, property first in time. Thus, applying the principle, the
mortgaged Lots Nos. 7036-A-7-A to 7036-A-7-D to the Heirs, without a scintilla of doubt, have a superior right
Consolidated Rural Bank, Inc. of Cagayan Valley to the subject property.
(hereafter, CRB) to secure a loan of One Hundred Moreover, it is an established principle that no one can
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).[20] These deeds of real give what one does not have nemo dat quod non habet.
estate mortgage were registered with the Office of the Accordingly, one can sell only what one owns or is
Register of Deeds on 2 April 1984. On 6 February 1985, authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more
Marquez mortgaged Lot No. 7036-A-7-E likewise to the than what the seller can transfer legally.[53] In this case,
Rural Bank of Cauayan (RBC) to secure a loan of Ten since the Madrid brothers were no longer the owners of
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).[21] the subject property at the time of the sale to Marquez,
the latter did not acquire any right to it.
As Marquez defaulted in the payment of his loan, CRB In any event, assuming arguendo that Article 1544
caused the foreclosure of the mortgages in its favor and applies to the present case, the claim of Marquez still
the lots were sold to it as the highest bidder on 25 April cannot prevail over the right of the Heirs since according
1986.[22]
to the evidence he was not a purchaser and registrant in Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction because the
good faith. informations do not state that the offenses were
Following Article 1544, in the double sale of an committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP
immovable, the rules of preference are: (a) the first officers and denied the Motion for the Transfer of
registrant in good faith; (b) should there be no entry, the Records to Sandiganbayan. The prosecution moved to
first in possession in good faith; and (c) in the absence reconsider but the same was denied.
thereof, the buyer who presents the oldest title in good The reception of evidence was resumed but the
faith. [54] judge later inhibited himself. The cases were then re-
raffled to Branch 49 of tne Regional Trial Court of
Bacolod. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari,
Prior registration of the subject property does not by prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary
itself confer ownership or a better right over the restraining order, challenging the refusal of the judge to
property. Article 1544 requires that before the second transfer the cases to the Sandiganbayan. The private
buyer can obtain priority over the first, he must show respondents were required to comment on the petition
that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e., in ignorance and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the
of the first sale and of the first buyers rights) from the respondent judge to desist from proceeding with the trial
time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by of the case.
registration or failing registration, by delivery of
possession.[55] ISSUE: Whether the offenses were committed in
In the instant case, the actions of Marquez have not relation to the office of the accused PNP officers
satisfied the requirement of good faith from the time of
the purchase of the subject property to the time of HELD: The jurisdiction of a court may be determined
registration. Found by the Court of Appeals, Marquez by the law in force at the time of the commencement of
knew at the time of the sale that the subject property was the action. When the informations in the cases were
being claimed or taken by the Heirs. This was a detail filed, the law governing the jurisdiction of the
which could indicate a defect in the vendors title which Sandiganbayan was P.D. 1861 , which provides that the
he failed to inquire into. Marquez also admitted that he Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
did not take possession of the property and at the time he over cases involving: 1) violations of the Anti-Graft and
testified he did not even know who was in possession. Corrupt Practices Act; 2) offenses committed by public
officers in relation to their office, where the penalty
One who purchases real property which is in actual prescribed is higher than prision correccional or
possession of others should, at least, make some inquiry imprisonment of six (6) years, or a fine of P 6,000.00.
concerning the rights of those in possession. The actual If the penalty for the offense charged does not
possession by people other than the vendor should, at exceed imprisonment of six (6) years or a fine of
least, put the purchaser upon inquiry. He can scarcely, P6,000.00, it shall be tried by the Regional Trial Court,
in the absence of such inquiry, be regarded as a bona Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court or the
fide purchaser as against such possessions.[58] The rule Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be aware of Jurisdiction is also determined by the allegations
the supposed title of the vendor and one who buys in the complaint or information and not by the result of
without checking the vendors title takes all the risks and the evidence after the trial. In the present case, the
losses consequent to such failure.[59] Sandiganbayan has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the
cases. The allegations in the complaint or information of
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. taking advantage of his position is not sufficient to
bring the offenses within the definition of offenses
People vs. Magallanes committed in relation to public office. It is considered
G.R. Nos. 118013-14 October 11, 1995 merely as an aggravating circumstance.
Moreover, the Sandiganbayan has partly lost its
FACTS: In the evening of August 7, 1992, the Spouses jurisdiction over cases involving violations of R.A.
Dumancas, under the direction and cooperation of P/Col. 3019, as amended in R.A. 1379 because it only retains
Nicolas Torres who took advantage of his position as jurisdiction on cases enumerated in subsection (a) when
station commander of the PNP, with Police Inspector the public officers rank is classified as Grade 27 or
Abetos cooperation, induced other police officers, higher. In the case at bar, none of the PNP officers
namely: Canuday, Pahayupan, Lamis, civilian agents: involved occupy a position classified as Grade 27 or
Fernandez, Divinagracia, Delgado and Gargallano, to higher. Accused Torres, who is highest in rank among
abduct kidnap and detain, Rufino Gargar and Danilo the accused, only has a rank classified as Grade 18.
Lumangyao, with the use of a motor vehicle and then Lastly, the courts cannot be divested of
shot and killed the victims with evident premeditation, jurisdiction which was already acquired before the
treachery and nocturnity. The other accused secretly subsequent enactment of R.A. 7975 which limited the
buried the victims in a makeshift shallow grave to Sandiganbayans jurisdiction to officers whose rank is
conceal the crime of murder for a fee of P500.00 each. Grade 27 or higher, be4cause the courts retain its
The cases were consolidated and the accused jurisdiction until the end of litigation. Hence, cases
pleaded not guilty and filed motions for bail. The already under the jurisdiction of the courts at the time of
prosecution presented Moises Grandeza, the alleged lone the enactment of R.A. 7975 are only referred to the
eyewitness and co-conspirator in the offense. After the proper courts if trial has not yet begun at that time.
prosecution rested its case, the trial court received Petition is DENIED and the challenged orders are
evidence for the accused, but the reception of evidence AFFIRMED.
was suspended because of the motions for inhibition of _____________________________________________
judge Garvilles filed by several accused. Garvilles
voluntarily inhibited himself and the case was re-raffled. Ebarle vs. Sucaldito
However, the prosecution moved for the transmittal of Date: December 29, 1987
the recors to the Sandiganbayan because the offenses
charged were committed in relation to the office of the Facts:
accused PNP officers. The trial court ruled that the
petitioner Bienvenido Ebarle was then provincial administrative, and not criminal
Governor of Zamboanga and a candidate for re- complaints
election in the 1971 local elections o Title: Commission of Irregularities
Anti-Graft League of the Phils. filed different no mention, not even by
complainst with the City Fiscal against the implication, of criminal
petitioner for violations of provisions of the offenses, or crimes
Anti-Graft Law (RA 3019) as well as Arts. 171, while crimes amount to
182, 183, 213 & 318 of the Revised Penal Code irregularities, the EO could
o on the bidding for the supply of gravel have very well referred to the
and sand for the province of Zamboanga more specific term had It
del Sur in favour of Tabiliran Trucking intended to make itself
Company applicable thereto
o on the collection of advances under the o procedure provided by law and
trucking contract of Tabiliran Trucking regulations
Company, making it appear that it was pertains to existing procedural
collected by Teoson Trucking Company, rules with respect to the
who held the subsisting contract presentation of administrative
o on the bidding for the construction of charges against erring
the right wing portion of the Capitol government officials
Building of the Province of Zamboanga o the aforequoted paragraphs are but
del Sur, in favour of supposed winning restatements of existing rules
bidder who is the brother-in-law of Paragraph 3 = Sec. 33 of RA
Ebarle 2260, Civil Service Act of 1959
o on petitioners testifying falsely under Paragraph 4 = Decentralization
oath that he acquired a certain lot by Act of 1967
purchase but the lot was in fact owned Paragraph 5 = Police Act of
by the provincial government of 1966
Zamboanga del Sur (where the o specific reference to erring officials or
provincial jail is located) employeesremoved or otherwise
o on the simulated bidding in favour of vindicated
Tabiliran Trucking Company if it were to apply to criminal
o on appointments of people related to prosecutions, it would have
Ebarle to different positions in the employed such technical terms
government as accused, convicted, or
petitioner filed for prohibition and certiorari in acquitted
the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del is here material in construing
Sur but the case was dismissed the intent of the measure
in the petition filed before the SC, petitioner o more compelling is the Constitutional
claims that the respondents City Fiscal and the implications if the petitioners
Anti-Graft League failed to comply with the arguments were accepted
provisions of EO 264 preliminary to their EO 264 was promulgated under
criminal recourses the 1935 Constitution in which
o OUTLINING THE PROCEDURE BY the legislative power was vested
WHICH COMPLAINANTS exclusively in Congress
CHARGING THE GOVT OFFICIALS if the EO was to be considered
AND EPLOYEES WITH THE law, SC would be forced to say
COMMISSION OF IRREGULARITIES that it is an amendment to RA
SHOULD BE GUIDED 5180 which would give rise to a
petitioner assails the standing of respondent Constitutional anomaly
Anti-Graft League to commence the series of Challenge against the personality of Anti-Graft
prosecutions League has no merit
petitioner contends that the respondent Fiscal (in o a complaint filed with the fiscal prior to
G.R. No. 34162) in giving due course to the a judicial action may be filed by any
complaints notwithstanding the order the SC person
had issued (in G. R. 33628) which he claims the TRO issued in G.R. No. 33628 does not
applies as well thereto, committed a grave abuse embrace the complaint subject of G.R. No.
of discretion 34162 because the charges are not identical to
petitioner claims that the prosecutions were one another
politically motivated, initiated by his rivals the proper venue for determining whether the
cases were filed to harass petitioner is the
Issues: preliminary wishes he wishes to block
WoN respondents had to comply with the
provisions of EO 264 Petitions dismissed, TROs lifted and set aside.
WoN Anti-Graft League had standing to
commence the series of prosecutions -LZC-
WoN the complaints are politically __________________________________
motivated and thus should be dismissed
San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC
Case No. 272
Ruling: Petitions Dismissed.
G.R. No. 80774 (May 31, 1988)
Held: the petitioners reliance upon the
Chapter V, Page 211, Footnote No. 138
provisions of EO 264 has no merit
o it is plain from the very wording of the
FACTS:
Order that it has exclusive application to
Petitioner Corporation sponsored an Innovation Program Yes. The Ombudsman has the power to suspend the
which rewarded cash to SMC employees who will employees of the said institution may it be in punitive or
submit ideas and suggestions beneficial to the preventive suspension. Sec. 13(3) of the Constitution
corporation. Rustico Vega submitted his proposal refers to suspension in its punitive sense, as the same
entitled Modified Grande Pasteurization Process and speaks of penalties in administrative cases, while Sec. 24
claimed entitlement to the cash award. SMC denied of RA 6770 grants the Ombudsman the power to
utilizing such proposal but Vega alleged otherwise and preventively suspend public officials and employees
filed a complaint with the NLRC which arbitrated facing administrative charges.
against the Petitioner. This statute is procedural and may arise in order to
facilitate a speedy and efficient
ISSUE: investigation on cases filed against the officers. A
W/N the money claim of Vega falls within the preventive measure is not in itself a
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter punishment but a preliminary step in an administrative
and the NLRC. investigation.
_____________________________________________
HELD: _
No, said money claim falls outside the jurisdiction of
said agencies. The jurisdiction of the NLRC is outlined CARANDANG vs SANTIAGO AND VALENTON
in Art. 217 of the Labor Code which includes in par. 3 May 29, 1955
all money claims of workers, including those based on
nonpayment or underpayment of wages, overtime FACTS:
compensation, separation pay and other benefits
provided by law or appropriate agreement While par. On September 1, 1953, CFI of Batangas found
3 refers to all money claims of workers, it is not Tomas Valenton Jr. guilty of the crime of
necessary to suppose that the entire universe of money frustrated homicide committed against the person of
claims has been absorbed into the jurisdiction of the Cesar Carandang. Carandang appealed the decision to
NLRC. Par. 3 should not be read in isolation with the the Court of Appeals.
context formed by par. 1 (unfair labor practices), par. 2
(terms and conditions of employment), par. 4 (household Pending said appeal, Carandang instituted with the CFI
services), par. 5 (prohibited activities). The unifying of Manila a complaint to recover from Valenton and his
element of pars. 1-5 is that they refer to cases or disputes parents damages for the bodily injuries received on
arising out of or in connection with an employer- occasion of the commission of the crime of frustrated
employee relationship. The scope of par. 3 is clarified by homicide.
its associated paragraphs wherein money claims falling
within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Valentons filed a motion to suspend the trial of
NLRC are those which have some reasonable causal the civil case, pending the termination of the
connection with the employer-employee relationship. criminal case in the CA. Judge ruled that the trial of the
civil case must await the result of the criminal case on
appeal. As motion for recon was denied, this petition
was filed.

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.

KING vs HERNAEZ Manglapus and Gopengco for appellants.


MACARIO KING, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. Clemente M. Alio for appellee.
PEDRO S. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents-
appellants. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
FACTS:
On December 9, 1938, a homestead patent covering a
tract of land situated in the municipality of Midsayap,
Macario King, a naturalized Filipino citizen
Province of Cotabato, was granted to Julio Sarabillo and
Import Meat and Produce"
on March 17, 1939, Original Certificate of Title No. RP-
Philippine Cold Stores, Inc
269 (1674) was issued in his favor.
permission from the President of the
Philippines(Secretary of Commerce and Industry)
DENIED On December 31, 1940, Julio Sarabillo sold two hectares
petition for declaratory relief, injunction and of said land to the Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap
mandamus(Court of First Instance of Manila) writ of for the sum of P800 to be dedicated to educational and
preliminary charitable purposes. It was expressly agreed upon that
appeal the sale was subject to the approval of the Secretar of
__ Agriculture and Natural Resources.
(RETAIL TRADE LAW)Section 1, Republic Act No.
1180 In December, 1947, a request for said approval was
No person who is not a citizen of the Philippines, and no submitted in behalf of the Roman Catholic Church by
association, partnership, or corporation the capital of Rev. Fr. Gerard Mongeau stating therein that the land
which is not wholly owned by citizens of the would be used solely for educational and charitable
Philippines, shall engage directly or indirectly in the purposes. The sale was approved on March 26, 1949,
retail business: . ." emphasis supplied) and on March 29, 1950, the deed of sale was registered
(x) Merely to ban them from its ownership and not from in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the Province of
its management control or operation. Cotabato. No new title was issued in favor of the Roman
(Anti-Dummy Law )Commonwealth Act No. 108, as Catholic Church although the deed was annotated on the
amended by Republic Act No. 134) back of the title issued to the homesteader.
which seeks "to punish acts of evasion of the laws of
nationalization of certain rights, franchises or In the meantime, Julio Sarabillo died and intestate
privileges." Read in connection with the Retail Trade proceedings were instituted for the settlement of his
estate and Catalina de los Santos was appointed the grant of the patent is mandatory. This cannot be
administratrix of the estate. And having found in the obviated even if official approval is granted beyond the
course of her administration that the sale of the land to expiration of that period, because the purpose of the law
the Roman Catholic Church was made in violation of is to promote a definite public policy, which is "to
section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the preserve and keep in the family of the homesteader that
administratrix instituted the present action in the Court portion of public land which the State has gratuitously
of First Instance of Cotabato praying that the sale be given to him." [Pascua vs.Talens,2 45 Off. Gaz., No. 9,
declared null and void and of no legal effect. (Supplement) 413.]

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.)

The petitioner has raised several legal questions plus one


factual question. The latter is to the effect that the
Sandiganbayan convicted him on the weakness of his
defense and not on the strength of the prosecution's
evidence. This claim is not meritorious not only because Upon the other hand, the respondents claim:
it is not for Us to review the factual findings of the
court a quo but also because a reading of its decision A reading of the above-quoted provision
shows that it explicitly stated the facts establishing the would show that the term 'transaction' as
guilt of the petitioner and the competence of the used thereof is not limited in its scope or
witnesses who testified against him. meaning to a commercial or business
transaction but includes all kinds of
As stated above, the principal issue is whether or not the transaction, whether commercial, civil
investigation conducted by the petitioner can be regarded or administrative in nature, pending with
as a "contract or transaction" within the purview of Sec. the government. This must be so,
3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019. On this issue the petition is otherwise, the Act would have so stated
highly impressed with merit. in the "Definition of Terms", Section 2
thereof. But it did not, perforce leaving
The afore-mentioned provision reads as follows: no other interpretation than that the
expressed purpose and object is to
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public embrace all kinds of transaction between
officers. In addition to acts or the government and other party wherein
omissions of public officers already the public officer would intervene under
penalized by existing law, the following the law. (Comment, p. 8.)
shall constitute corrupt practices of any
public officer and are hereby declared to It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the
be unlawful: petitioner was not a contract. Neither was it
a transactionbecause this term must be construed as
(a) ... analogous to the term which precedes it. A transaction,
like a contract, is one which involves some consideration
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or as in credit transactions and this element (consideration)
receiving any gift, present, share, is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner.
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for
any other person, in connection with any In the light of the foregoing, We agree with the
contract or transaction between the petitioner that it was error for the Sandiganbayan to have
Government and any other party, convicted him of violating Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019.
wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law. The petitioner also claims that he cannot be convicted of
bribery under the Revised Penal Code because to do so
The petitioner states: would be violative of as constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
Assuming in gratia argumenti, against him. Wrong. A reading of the information which
petitioner's guilt, the facts make out a has been reproduced herein clearly makes out a case of
case of Direct Bribery defined and bribery so that the petitioner cannot claim deprivation of
penalized under the provision of Article the right to be informed.
210 of the Revised Penal Code and not a
violation of Section 3, subparagraph (b) IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment
of Rep. Act 3019, as amended. of the Sandiganbayan is modified in that the petitioner is
deemed guilty of bribery as defined and penalized by
The evidence for the prosecution clearly Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby
and undoubtedly support, if at all the sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6)
offense of Direct Bribery, which is not months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years
the offense charged and is not likewise ofprision correccional as maximum, and to pay a fine of
included in or is necessarily included in Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos. The rest of the
the offense charged, which is for judgment is hereby affirmed. Costs against the
violation of Section 3, subparagraph (b) petitioner.
of Rep. Act 3019, as amended. The
prosecution showed that: the accused is SO ORDERED.
a public officer; in consideration of
P4,000.00 which was allegedly solicited,
P2,000.00 of which was allegedly
received, the petitioner undertook or
promised to dismiss a criminal
complaint pending preliminary
investigation before him, which may or
may not constitute a crime; that the act
of dismissing the criminal complaint

You might also like