Latest Entries »

CASE 2019-0001: JOSE T. VILLAROSA ET AL VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN ET AL (G.R. NO. 221418, 01 FEB 2019, PERALTA J.) SUBJECT/S: TECHNICAL MALVERSATION; MANIFEST PARTIALITY, GROSS NEGLIGENCE (BRIEF TITLE: VILLAROSA VS OMBUDSMAN)  

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES, Uncategorized — Leave a comment
March 2, 2019

CASE 2019-0001: JOSE T. VILLAROSA ET AL VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN ET AL (G.R. NO. 221418, 01 FEB 2019, PERALTA J.) SUBJECT/S: TECHNICAL MALVERSATION; MANIFEST PARTIALITY, GROSS NEGLIGENCE (BRIEF TITLE: VILLAROSA VS OMBUDSMAN)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court dated December 1, 2015 of petitioners Jose T. Villarosa, Carlita T. Cajayon and Pablo I. Alvaro is PARTLY GRANTED. The Joint Resolution dated March 23, 2015 and Order dated July 29, 2015 of the Office of the Ombudsman are AFFIRMED only insofar as its finding of probable cause against petitioners for the crime of Technical Malversation.

  

SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT ARE THE THREE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF TECHNICAL MARVERSATION?

 

THE 3 ELEMENTS ARE:

 

(A) THAT THE OFFENDER IS AN ACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC OFFICER;

 

(B) THAT HE APPLIES PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY UNDER HIS ADMINISTRATION TO SOME PUBLIC USE; AND

 

( C) THAT THE PUBLIC USE FOR WHICH SUCH FUNDS OR PROPERTY WERE APPLIED IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE ORIGINALLY APPROPRIATED BY LAW OR ORDINANCE.

 

ACCORDING TO THE OMBUDSMAN TECHNICAL MALVERSATION RESULTED IN THE USE OF FUNDS TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE FARMERS AND IN FAVOR OF OTHER CONCERNS OF THE PETITIONERS THUS THERE WAS MANIFEST IMPARTIALITY. IS IS CORRECT?

 

WRONG.

 

ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT:         

 

“For an act to be considered as exhibiting “manifest partiality,” there must be a showing of a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other.32 “Partiality” is synonymous with “bias” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.”

 

WHAT IS GROSS NEGLIGENCE?

 

THE SUPREME COURT DEFINES IT AS:

 

“Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. “

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

 

SCD-2019-0001-JOSE T. VILLAROSA ET AL. VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN AND ROLANDO C. BASILIO

 

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

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
February 8, 2019

Comment

CASE 2018-0026: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JAYSON TORIO Y PARAGAS (G.R. NO. 225780, 03 DEC 2018, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: THE RULE ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY; WHAT TO PROVE IN ILLEGAL DRUG POSSESSION; WHAT TO PROVE IN SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS TORIO)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
December 31, 2018

CASE 2018-0026: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JAYSON TORIO Y PARAGAS (G.R. NO. 225780, 03 DEC 2018, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: THE RULE ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY; WHAT TO PROVE IN ILLEGAL DRUG POSSESSION; WHAT TO PROVE IN SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS TORIO).

 

IN THIS CASE,  AN ACCUSED CONVICTED OF POSSESSION AND SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS WAS DECLARED NOT GUILTY BY THE SUPREME COURT. FIND OUT WHY.

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06473 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, appellant Jayson Torio y Paragas is ACQUITTED of the charges of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be immediately released from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

 

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation and who is then directed to report to this Court the action he has taken within five days from his receipt of this Decision.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHY WAS THE ACCUSED DECLARED NOT GUILTY BY THE SUPREME COURT?

 

BECAUSE THE PROCEDURE FOR PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SEIZED ITEMS WAS NOT FOLLOWED.

 

PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF RA 10640 IN 2014, THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SEIZED ITEMS MUST BE WITNESSED BY THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: (A) ANY ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL; (B) A DOJ REPRESENTATIVE; AND ( C) A MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE.

           

IN THIS CASE THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPH WERE MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE APPELLANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE, AS WELL AS REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DOJ AND MEDIA.

 

CAN THIS 3 WITNESS RULE BE EXCUSED?

 

YES PROVIDED  THE PROSECUTION PROVES THAT THE ARRESTING OFFICERS EXERTED GENUINE EFFORTS TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF SUCH WITNESSES, ALBEIT THEY EVENTUALLY FAILED TO APPEAR. ·

               

TO SECURE A CONVICTION FOR ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF RA 9165, WHAT SHOULD THE PROSECUTION PROVE?

 

THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE:

 

A) THE IDENTITIES OF THE BUYER AND THE SELLER;

 

B) THE DELIVERY OF THE DRUGS, AND

 

C) THE PAYMENT IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF.

 

HOW ABOUT IN CASES OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, WHAT MUST THE PROSECUTION PROVE UNDER SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF RA 9165?

 

THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE:

 

A) THAT THE THE ACCUSED WAS IN POSSESSION OF DANGERONS DRUGS;

 

B) THAT SUCH POSSESSION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW[;] AND

 

C) THE ACCUSED WAS FREELY ANDCONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF BEING IN POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.”

 

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

 

SCD-2018-0026-PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JAYSON TORIO Y PARAGAS 

 

 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