2012

People v Atienza

Facts:
Mayor Atienza and Engr. Manongsong were charged of violation of Section 3 (e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019), or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because of taking
advantage of their official positions, acting with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, by
willfully, unlawfully and criminally destroying, demolishing, and dismantling the riprap/fence of
the new Hondura Beach Resort in Oriental Mindoro.
They both admitted to have destroyed the fence but posing the defense that said fence
wasnt good for Puerto Galera as it was tourist destination and that the land was intended for the
fishermen association. Petitioner there was evident bad faith on the part of the respondents.
Petitioner insists that the act itself of demolishing a fence erected upon private property without
giving notice of the intended demolition, and without giving the owner of the same the
opportunity to be heard or to rectify matters, is evident bad faith.
Petitioner also contends that the element of manifest partiality was sufficiently
established when the fence was destroyed on the rationale that they do not have a permit to erect
the fence.
Sandiganbayan acquitted both Mayor Atienza and Engr. Manongsong
Held:
Acquittal is not proper.
Atienza and Manongsong are charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, where
corrupt practices of public officers are enumerated.
Essential elements:
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence; and
3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.

Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted
with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross
inexcusable negligence. There is manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious, or plain
inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. Evident bad faith
connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose
to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. Evident bad
faith contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some
motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. Gross inexcusable negligence refers to
negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with
conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected
People v Beriber

Facts:
Raul Beriber was accused of robbery with homicide. It was alleged that he stole money
amounting to P2,000 belonging to Spouses Vergara, his employers, and attacked and stabbed to
death Lourdes Vergara with a bladed weapon. When the witnesses saw Beriber leaving the house,
Beriber said he was leaving for Batangas to have a medical check up. Mr. Vergara later on found
his wifes dead body, lying in a bamboo bed where Beriber usually keeps his belongings
Beribers clothes were gone, the money in the cabinets were missing, and Beriber was nowhere to
be found.

Beriber contends that for him to be convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide, it is
necessary that robbery otself must be proved as conclusively as any other essential element of the
crime which was not established in this case. He claims that it is natural for him to be at the
victim's house as he resides therein and the finding that he fled the crime scene is a conclusion
without sufficient basis; and that assuming he indeed escaped and flight be an indication of guilt,
such circumstance is not enough to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:
Beriber is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime against property, with the following
elements:
(a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person;
(b) the property belongs to another;
(c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi or with intent to gain; and
(d) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, which is used in the
generic sense, was committed.
There is no direct evidence to establish Beribers commission of the crime charged.
Therefore, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative, where:
(1) there must be more than one circumstance;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(3) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
The flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a
circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established, for a truly innocent person
would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and assert his innocence.
The fact that an accused never testified in his defense even in the face of accusations
against him goes against the principle that the first impulse of an innocent man when accused of
wrongdoing is to express his innocence at the first opportune time.
People v Dulay
Facts:
AAA was a 12 year old girl who was introduced by her sister to Dina Pascual. Pascual
allegedly convinced AAA to accompany her to look for her boyfriend. They reached a certain
place called Kubuhan where Dina Pascual suddenly pulled AAA into a room and gave her to a
certain Speed who raped her. Dina allegedly received money from Speed.
The lower courts found Dina Pascual guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principal by
indispensable cooperation.
Held:
Dina Pascual did not commit the crime as principal by indispensable cooperation, but she
is still guilty of violation of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation, and Discrimination Act).
To cooperate means to desire or wish in common a thing. But that common will or
purpose does not necessarily mean previous understanding, for it can be explained or inferred
from the circumstances of each case. The cooperation must be indispensable, that is, without
which the commission of the crime would not have been accomplished.
Under the Revised Penal Code,

an accused may be considered a principal by direct
participation, by inducement, or by indispensable cooperation. To be a principal by indispensable
cooperation, one must participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal
purpose and cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without
which it would not have been accomplished.
The events narrated by the CA, from the time appellant convinced AAA to go with her
until appellant received money from the man who allegedly raped AAA, are not indispensable in
the crime of rape. Anyone could have accompanied AAA and offered the latter's services in
exchange for money and AAA could still have been raped. Even AAA could have offered her
own services in exchange for monetary consideration and still end up being raped. Thus, this
disproves the indispensable aspect of the appellant in the crime of rape.
Dina is guilty of violation of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation, and Discrimination Act), where:
1. the accused engages in, promotes, facilitates or induces child prostitution;
2. the act is done through, but not limited to, the following means:
a. acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
b. inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
c. taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure achild as a prostitute;
d. threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
e. giving monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent
to engage such child in prostitution;
3. the child is exploited or intended to be exploited in prostitution and
4. the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.