J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2017-0018 – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, VS. JOCELYN I. BOLANTE, OWEN VINCENT D. BOLANTE, MA. CAROL D. BOLANTE, ALEJO LAMERA, CARMEN LAMERA, EDNA CONSTANTINO, ARIEL C. PANGANIBAN, KATHERINE G. BOMBEO, SAMUEL S. BOMBEO, MOLUGAN FOUNDATION, SAMUEL G. BOMBEO, JR., AND NATIONAL LIVELIHOODDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FORMERLY LIVELIHOOD CORPORATION), (G.R. NO. 186717 17 APRIL 2017., SERENO, CJ.:) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, VS. HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAY AS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 59,REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN MAKATI CITY, JOCELYN I. BOLANTE, ARIEL C. PANGANIBAN, DONNIE RAY G. PANGANIBAN, EAR WALTER G. PANGANIBAN, DARRYL G. PANGANIBAN, GAVINA G. PANGANIBAN, JAYPEE G. PANGANIBAN, SAMUEL S. BOMBEO, KA THERINE G. BOMBEO, SAMUEL G. BOMBEO, JR., NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FORMERLY LIVELIHOOD CORPORATION), MOLUGAN FOUNDATION, ASSEMBLY OF GRACIOUS SAMARITANS FOUNDATION, INC., ONE ACCORD CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY ENDEAVOR FOR SALVATION & SUCCESS THROUGH POVERTY ALLEVIATION, INC., SOCIETY’S MULTI-PURPOSE FOUNDATION, INC., ALLIANCE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT OF PANGASINAN, INC., AND STA. LUCIA EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BU LA CAN, INC. ), (G.R. NO. 190357 17 APRIL 2017., SERENO, CJ.:) (SUBJECT/S: HOW DO COURTS TREAT SENATE REPORTS) (BRIEF TITLE: REPUBLIC VS. BOLANTE ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 186717 is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Resolution dated 27 February 2009 in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 is AFFIRMED.

The petition in G.R. No. 190357 is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated 3 July 2009 and Order dated 13 November 2009 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 59, in AMLC Case No. 07-001 are AFFIRMED. The Status Quo Ante Order issued by this Court on 25 March 2009 is hereby LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BANK INQUIRY ORDER?

TWO PIECES OF EVIDENCE: SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 54 AND THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESS THELMA ESPINA.

“We find no reason to conclude that the R TC determined the existence of probable cause, or lack thereof, in an arbitrary and whimsical manner.

To repeat, the application for the issuance of a bank inquiry order was supported by only two pieces of evidence: Senate Committee Report No. 54 and the testimony of witness Thelma Espina.

HOW DO THE COURT TREAT REPORTS OF THE SENATE?

REPORTS OF THE SENATE STAND ON THE SAME LEVEL AS OTHER PIECES OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES.

“We have had occasion to rule that reports of the Senate stand on the same level as other pieces of evidence submitted by the parties, and that the facts and arguments presented therein should undergo the same level of judicial scrutiny and analysis.101 As courts have the discretion to accept or reject them, 102 no grave error can be ascribed to the RTC for rejecting and refusing to give probative value to Senate Committee Report No. 54.

At any rate, Senate Committee Report No. 54 only provided the AMLC with a description of the alleged unlawful activity, which is the fertilizer fund scam. It also named the alleged mastermind of the scam, who was respondent Bolante. The entire case of the AMLC, however, hinged on the following excerpt of Senate Committee Report No. 54:

But Undersecretary Bolante’s power over the agriculture department was widely known. And it encompasses more than what the Administrative Code provided.

In fact, at the time that he was Undersecretary, Jocelyn Bolante was concurrently appointed by the President in other powerful positions: as Acting Chairman of the National Irrigation Administration, as Acting Chairman of the Livelihood Corporation xx x.103 (Emphasis supplied)

It was this excerpt that led the AMLC to connect the fertilizer fund scam to the suspicious transaction reports earlier submitted to it by PNB.”

WHAT DID THE RTC FOUND?

BOLANTE HAD CEASED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LIVECOR FOR 14 MONTHS BEFORE THE LATTER EVEN MADE THE INITIAL TRANSACTION, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION REPORTS.

ALSO, BASED ON THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, NO PART OF THE P728 MILLION FERTILIZER FUND WAS EVER RELEASED TO LIVECOR.

“However, the R TC found during trial that respondent Bolante had ceased to be a member of the board of trustees of LIVECOR for 14 months before the latter even made the initial transaction, which was the subject of the suspicious transaction reports. Furthermore, the RTC took note that according to the Audit Report submitted by the Commission on Audit, no part of the P728 million fertilizer fund was ever released to LIVECOR.

We note that in the RTC Order dated 17 November 2006 in AMLC SP Case No. 06-003, the AMLC was already allowed ex parte to inquire into and examine the six bank deposits or investments and the related web of accounts of LIVECOR, Molugan, AGS, Samuel S. Bombeo and Ariel Panganiban. With the resources available to the AMLC, coupled with a bank inquiry order granted 15 months before Eugenio was even pro mu I gated, the AMLC should have been able to obtain more evidence establishing a more substantive link tying Bolante and the fertilizer fund scam to LIVECOR. It did not help that the AMLC failed to include in its application for a bank inquiry order in AMLC SP Case No. 06-003 LIVECOR’s PNB account as indicated in the suspicious transaction reports. This PNB account was included only in the application for a bank inquiry order in AMLC Case No. 07-001.

As it stands, the evidence relied upon by the AMLC in 2006 was still the same evidence it used to apply for a bank inquiry order in 2008. Regrettably, this evidence proved to be insufficient when weighed against that presented by the respondents, who were given notice and the opportunity to contest the issuance of the bank inquiry order pursuant to Eugenio. In fine, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the application.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2017-0018-REPUBLIC VS JOCELYN I. BOLANTE ET AL, G.R. NO. 186421, 17 APRIL 2017

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2017-0017: ASIA BREWERY, INC. AND CHARLIE S. GO VS. EQUITABLE PCI BANK (NOW BANCO DE ORO-EPCI, INC.)  (G.R. NO. 190432 25 APRIL 2017, SERENO, CJ:)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated 30 January 2008 issued by Judge Benjamin T. Pozon and the Order dated 23 November 2009 issued by Judge Winlove Dumayas in Civil Case No. 04-336 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint is REINSTATED, and the case is ordered REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for further proceedings. Let the records of the case be likewise remanded to the court a quo.

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

” The test to determine whether a complaint states a cause of action against the defendants is this: admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, may a judge validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint?40
We believe that petitioner met this test.

A cause of action has three elements: 1) the legal right of the plaintiff; 2) the correlative obligation of the defendant not to violate the right; and 3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of that legal right.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2017-0017-Asia Brewery Inc and Charlie S. Go Vs Equitable PCI Bank

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2017-0021: GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, (First Division), (G.R. NO. 220598 18 APRIL 2017 BERSAMIN, J.); BENIGNO B. AGUAS, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), (G.R. NO. 220953) (SUBJECT/S: IN PLUNDER CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY THE MAIN PLUNDERER AND THAT THE ACCUSED BENEFITED PERSONALLY FROM THE CRIME; CERTIORARI CAN BE A REMEDY EVEN IF DENIAL OF DEMURRER IS JUST INTERLOCUTORY)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

 SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

THE STATE ARGUES THAT CERTIORARI IS NOT THE REMEDY BECAUSE THE RULES OF COURT PROHIBITS THE REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF DEMURRER PRIOR TO THE JUDGMENT. SUCH DENIAL IS ONLY AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. IS THE STATE CORREC?

THE STATE IS WRONG.

THE SC CAN TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE SANDIGAN GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION.

IT IS NOT AN INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE TO THIS ACTION.

IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERINTENDING CONTROL  OVER OTHER COURTS, SC IS  TO BE GUIDED BY ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH PARTICULAR CASE ‘AS THE ENDS OF JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE.’ SO IT IS THAT THE WRIT WILL BE GRANTED WHERE NECESSARY TO PREVENT A SUBSTANTIAL WRONG OR TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

THE STATE ARGUES THAT THE DECISION IMPOSED ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS FOR PLUNDER: THAT THE MAIN PLUNDERER BE IDENTIFIED AND THAT THE ACCUSED BENEFITED FROM THE CRIME. IS THE STATE CORRECT?

THE STATE IS WRONG.

“The submissions of the State are unfounded.

The requirements for the identification of the main plunderer and for personal benefit in the predicate act of raids on the public treasury have been written in R.A. No. 7080 itself as well as embedded in pertinent jurisprudence.”

“As a result, not only did the Prosecution fail to show where the money went but, more importantly, that GMA and Aguas had personally benefited from the same. Hence, the Prosecution did not prove the predicate act of raids on the public treasury beyond reasonable doubt.”

THE STATE ARGUES THAT IT HAS ESTABLISHED AT LEAST A CASE FOR MALVERSATION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. IS THE STATE CORRECT?

NO.

THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF MALVERSATION ARE NOT STATED IN THE INFORMATION.

“In thereby averring the predicate act of malversation, the State did not sufficiently allege the aforementioned essential elements of malversation in the information. The omission from the information of factual details descriptive of the aforementioned elements of malversation highlighted the insufficiency of the allegations. Consequently, the State’s position is entirely unfounded.”

CAN THE GRANTING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE STATE AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

YES BECAUSE  THE DECISION WAS A PRIOR JEOPARDY.

BUT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION: WHEN THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

“The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions. In People v. Laguio, Jr., this Court stated that the only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion, thus:

… The only instance when double ,jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham. However, while certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. GO TO YOUR DOWNLOADED FILES AND OPEN THE THE CASE FILE.

 SCD-2017-0021-GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYANBENIGNO B. AGUAS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.