Latest Entries »

CASE 2019-0011: JIMMY LIM PALACIOS, PETITIONER, V. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 24676, 18 MARCH 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: RIGHT TO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT) (BRIEF TITLE: PALACIOS VS PEOPLE)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
May 15, 2019

CASE 2019-0011: JIMMY LIM PALACIOS, PETITIONER, V. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 24676, 18 MARCH 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: RIGHT TO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT) (BRIEF TITLE: PALACIOS VS PEOPLE)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 18, 2018 and the Resolution dated July 11, 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 150260 upholding the Orders dated October 5, 2016 and January 25, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 86 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City is hereby ORDERED to conduct forthwith a preliminary investigation on the charge of violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262 against petitioner Jimmy Lim Palacios. The trial on the merits of Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-04286 shall be SUSPENDED until the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. No pronouncement as to costs.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

WIFE FILED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AT THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE  AGAINST HER HUSBAND FOR ECONOMIC ABUSE PUNISHABLE UNDER R.A. 9262. SHE GAVE WRONG ADDRESS OF HUSBAND. NATURALLY, HUSBAND DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE ON THE CASE. INFORMATION WAS FILED AND WARRANT OF ARREST WAS ISSUED. HUSBAND FILED MOTION FOR RE-INVESTIGATION. RTC DENIED SAID MOTION AND CA AFFIRMED RTC DECISION. SC REVERSED CA DECISION AND GRANTED RE-INVESTIGATION ON THE GROUND THAT RIGHT TO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT NOT MERELY FORMAL OR TECHNICAL. SAID THE COURT:

 

It bears to stress that the right to preliminary investigation is substantive, not merely formal or technical.[43] As such, to deny petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation on the basis of the provisions of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC would be to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process[44] on purely procedural grounds. Thus, the courts a quo should allow petitioner to be accorded the right to submit counter-affidavits and evidence in a preliminary investigation for, after all, “the fiscal is not called by the Rules of Court to wait in ambush; the role of a fiscal is not mainly to prosecute but essentially to do justice to every man and to assist the court in dispensing that justice.”[45]

 

BUT THE INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR HAS CERTIFIED IN THE INFORMATION THAT HE HAD CONDUCTED THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND HAS EXAMINED THE EVIDENCES OF THE COMPLAINANT. IS THIS CERTIFICATION NOT SUFFICIENT?

 

NO. SAID CERTIFICATION IN THE INFORMATION IS MERELY PRO FORMA, AND HENCE, DOES NOT ENJOY THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN ITS ISSUANCE. SAID THE SUPREME COURT:

 

Contrary to the CA’s conclusion, the fact that ACP Tresvalles certified in the Information that: (a) he had conducted the preliminary investigation in accordance with law and examined Ramirez’s statements and pieces of evidence; and (b) the accused was informed of the complaint and evidence against him, and thus, given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence, should not suffice in light of the absence of notice to petitioner regarding the conduct of the preliminary investigation. Given petitioner’s insistence that Ramirez provided the wrong address in her complaint, it behooved the respondent to show that petitioner was duly notified at the said address, especially in light of the fact that the warrant for his arrest was returned unserved[46] at the said address. Such failure, to the Court’s mind, compounded the violation of petitioner’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to due process. Besides, the said certification in the Information is merely pro forma, and hence, does not enjoy the presumption of regularity in its issuance.[47] Consequently, Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-04286 pending before the RTC must be suspended until the completion of a preliminary investigation in order to afford petitioner a chance to present his counter-affidavit and any countervailing evidence.

 

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

 

SC-2019-0011-SC CASE G.R. NO G.R. NO. 240676-18 MARCH 2019- JIMMY LIM PALACIOS VS THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 

 

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”.

Comment

CASE 2019-0010: RAQUIL-ALI M. LUCMAN, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN 2ND DIVISION, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 238815, 18 MARCH 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (C) OF RA 3019.) (BRIEF TITLE: LUCMAN VS PEOPLE)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
April 29, 2019

CASE 2019-0010: RAQUIL-ALI M. LUCMAN, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN 2ND DIVISION, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 238815, 18 MARCH 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (C) OF RA 3019.) (BRIEF TITLE: LUCMAN VS PEOPLE)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 9, 2018 and the Resolution dated April 23, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case No. SB-13-CRM-0595 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Raquil-Ali M. Lucman is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office.

SO ORDERED.”

 

 

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“After a judicious review of the case, the Court is convinced that the SB correctly convicted Lucman for violating Section 3 (c) of RA 3019. It is undisputed that Lucman was a public officer at the time the offense was committed, then being the OIC-RED of the DENR, Region XII. As the OIC-RED, he had the authority to grant applications for Free Patents, such as the ones filed by private complainants.[21] It was likewise established through the testimony of Bualan and the evidence on record that Lucman demanded Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) and actually received One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00)[22] from private complainants, and that these amounts were for and in consideration of the grant of their applications.[23]

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to overturn the SB’s findings, as there is no showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of this case, and considering further the fact that it was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the parties’ witnesses.[24] As such, Lucman’s conviction for violation of Section 3 (c) of RA 3019 must stand.

As regards the proper penalty to be imposed on Lucman, Section 9 (a)[25] of RA 3019, as amended,[26] states that the prescribed penalties for a violation of the said crime includes, inter alia, imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and one (1) month to fifteen (15) years and perpetual disqualification from public office. Taking into consideration the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[27] which states that “in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by acts of the Philippine Legislature, otherwise than by the Revised Penal Code, the court shall order the accused to be imprisoned for a minimum term, which shall not be less than the minimum term of imprisonment provided by law for the offense, and for a maximum term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed law,”[28] the Court deems it proper to modify Lucman’s sentence to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification to hold public office.”

  

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

 

SC-2019-0010-SC CASE G.R. NO G.R. NO. 238815, 18 MARCH 2019- RAQUIL-ALI M. LUCMAN VS PEOPLE ET AL..

 

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”.

Comment

CASE 2019-0009: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. VICENTE VAÑAS Y BALDERAMA (G.R. NO. 225511, 20 MARCH 2018, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: RAPE) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS VAÑAS)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment

CASE 2019-0009: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. VICENTE VAÑAS Y BALDERAMA (G.R. NO. 225511, 20 MARCH 2018, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: RAPE) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS VAÑAS)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Appellant Vicente Vafias y Balderama is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of  qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 6072 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and to pay “AAA” the amounts of Pl00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages and Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. Appellant is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No 6073.

 

SO ORDERED.”

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“An examination of the Information shows the insufficiency of the legations therein as to constitute the offense of violation of Section 5 of RA 7610 as it does not contain all the elements that constitute the same. To be more precise, there was a complete and utter failure to allege in the Information that the sexual intercourse was “performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse”. “A child is deemed exploited or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration, or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group.” 17

 

  

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

 

SCD-2019-0009-PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. VICENTE VAÑAS Y BALDERAMA

 

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”.

Comment