CASE DIGEST # 5

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OJEDA

G.R. Nos. 104238-58       June 3, 2004

Corona J:

FACTS:

 Appellant Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics (telas) from complainant
Ruby Chua. For the three years approximately she transacted business
with Chua, appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she
bought. On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased from Chua various
fabrics and textile materials worth ₱228,306 for which she issued 22
postdated checks bearing different dates and amounts.

 Chua later presented to the bank for payment check no. 033550 dated
November 5, 1983 in the amount of ₱17,1003 but it was dishonored due
to "Account Closed."4 On April 10, 1984, Chua deposited the rest of the
checks but all were dishonored for the same reason. 5 Demands were
allegedly made on the appellant to make good the dishonored checks, to
no avail.

 Estafa and BP 22 charges were thereafter filed against appellant. The

criminal cases were consolidated and appellant, on arraignment, pleaded
not guilty to each of the charges.

 With the exception of six checks 6 which did not bear her signature,
appellant admitted that she issued the postdated checks which were the
subject of the criminal cases against her. She, however, alleged that she
told Chua not to deposit the postdated checks on maturity as they were
not yet sufficiently funded. Appellant also claimed that she made partial
payments to Chua in the form of finished garments worth ₱50,000. This
was not rebutted by the prosecution.

ISSUE:

 WON the appellant is guilty of the crime estafa and violation of BP 22.
HELD:

 The trial court convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as defined and
penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The trial court also
convicted appellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncing checks.
However, the court a quo held her guilty of only 14 counts out of the 22
bouncing checks issued. The court reasoned:

This is due to the fact that of the 22 checks, two of them are not
covered by the indictment. This refers to Check No. 042935 dated
November 6, 1983 in the amount of ₱1,840.19 (Exhibit D) and
Check No. 042942 dated November 10, 1983 in the amount of
₱1,941.59 (Exhibit F). And of the total number of checks, six of
them were not signed by the accused but by the latter’s husband
(Exhibits C,H,J,M,R and O). The accused should not be liable for
 the issuance of the 6 checks in the absence of any showing of
conspiracy.

CASE DIGEST # 6
PADILLA V. DIZON
Adm. Case No. 3086 February 23, 1988
PER CURIAM:

FACTS:

 An administrative complaint, dated August 6, 1987, filed by the then

Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, against respondent
Baltazar R. Dizon, RTC Judge, Branch 115, Pasay City, for rendering a
manifestly erroneous decision due, at the very least, to gross
incompetence and gross ignorance of the law, in Criminal Case No. 86-
10126-P, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Lo Chi Fai", acquitting said
accused of the offense charged, i.e., smuggling of foreign currency out of
the country. Acquitting said accused for violation of Central Bank
circular no. 960 sec6. The acquittal according to him is based on:

(1) No deliberate intent , there must be a clear intention to violate

the law inorder for the accused to be prosecuted.

(2) Money brought by the accused is for the purpose of investing in

some undefinedbusiness ventures and that the reason why the
accused ought to export the moneyis because of the fear that the
“Attempted Revolution” might spread.Furthermore, respondent
Judge Alleged that he rendered his decision in “goodfaith”."

 Lo Chi Fai, who was caught by a Customs guard at the Manila

International Airport while attempting to smuggle foreign currency and
foreign exchange instruments out of the country. Lo Chi Fai, was
apprehended by a customs guard and two PAFSECOM officers on July 9,
1986, while on board Flight PR 300 of the Philippine Air Lines bound for
Hongkong. At the time of his apprehension, he was found carrying with
him foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments (380 pieces)
amounting to US$ 355,349.57, in various currency denominations where
he failed to declare in the form prescribed by Central bank uponhis
arrival in the Philippines.

 Information was filed against the accused Lo Chi Fai with the RTC of
Pasay city for violation of Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular no. 960 where
Respondent judge presided.

“No person shall take out or transmit or attempt to take out or

transmit foreign exchange in any form, out of the Philippines
directly....... tourist and non-resident temporary visitors bringing
with them more than US$ 3,000.00 shall declare their foreign
 exchange in the form prescribed by the Central Bank at points of
entries upon arrival in the Philippines”  (CB Circular no. 960 sec. 6)  

ISSUE:

 WON the respondent judge is guilty of gross incompetence or gross

ignorance of the law in rendering the decision in question. 

HELD:

 The respondent-judge has shown gross incompetence or gross ignorance

of the law in holding that to convict the accused for violation of Central
Bank Circular No. 960, the prosecution must establish that the accused
had the criminal intent to violate the law. The respondent ought to know
that proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not essential in
offenses punished by special laws, which are mala prohibita. In requiring
proof of malice, the respondent has by his gross ignorance allowed the
accused to go scot free. The accused at the time of his apprehension at
the Manila International Airport had in his possession the amount of
US$355,349.57 in assorted foreign currencies and foreign exchange
instruments (380 pieces), without any specific authority from the Central
Bank as required by law. At the time of his apprehension, he was able to
exhibit only two foreign currency declarations in his possession. These
were old declarations made by him on the occasion of his previous trips
to the Philippines.

 The Court finds the respondent Regional Trial Court Judge, Baltazar R.
Dizon, guilty of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and grave
and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and efficiency, and
consistent with the responsibility of this Court for the just and proper
administration of justice and for the attainment of the objective of
maintaining the people's faith in the judiciary (People vs. Valenzuela, 135
SCRA 712), it is hereby ordered that the Respondent Judge be
DISMISSED from the service. All leave and retirement benefits and
privileges to which he may be entitled are hereby forfeited with prejudice
to his being reinstated in any branch of government service, including
government-owned and/or controlled agencies or corporations.
CASE DIGEST # 7
GARCIA V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 157171             March 14, 2006

QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS:
 Based on the complaint-affidavit of Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., who ran in
the 1995 senatorial elections:
 On May 11, 1995, which was within the canvassing period during the
May 8, 1995 elections, in the Municipality of Alaminos, Province of
Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the accused, Election Officer Arsenia B. Garcia, Municipal
Treasurer Herminio R. Romero, Public School District Supervisor Renato
R. Viray, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Member-Secretary, respectively,
of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos, Pangasinan,
tabulators Rachel Palisoc and Francisca de Vera, conspiring with,
confederating together and mutually helping each other, did, then and
there, willfully, and unlawfully decrease[d] the votes received by
senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. from six thousand nine
hundred ninety-eight (6,998) votes, as clearly disclosed in the total
number of votes in the one hundred fifty-nine (159) precincts of the
Statement of Votes by Precincts of said municipality, with Serial Nos.
008417, 008418, 008419, 008420, 008421, 008422 and 008423 to one
thousand nine hundred twenty-one (1,921) votes as reflected in the
Statement of Votes by Precincts with Serial No. 008423 and Certificate of
Canvass with Serial No. 436156 with a difference of five thousand
seventy-seven (5,077) votes.
 The RTC acquitted all the accused in a decision dated September 11,
2000 for insufficiency of evidence, except Arsenia B. Garcia
 Arsenia B. Garcia pronounced GUILTY of the crime defined under RA
6646, Section 27(b) and violation of Election Offense.

Section 27(b) of RA No. 6646 provides:

SEC. 27. Election Offenses.- In addition to the prohibited

acts and election offenses enumerated in Sections 261 and
262 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended, the following
shall be guilty of an election offense:

(b) Any member of the board of election inspectors or board

of canvassers who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes
received by a candidate in any election or any member of the
board who refuses, after proper verification and hearing, to
credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes.
  The instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals sustaining petitioner’s conviction but increasing the minimum
penalty in her sentence to 1 year instead of 6 months is AFFIRMED.

ISSUES:

 WON violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646, classified under
mala in se or mala prohibita.
 WON good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses.
HELD:

 Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se. For

otherwise, even errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and
fatigue would be punishable. Given the volume of votes to be counted
and canvassed within a limited amount of time, errors and
miscalculations are bound to happen. And it could not be the intent
of the law to punish unintentional election canvass errors. However,
intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by
a candidate is inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and
intent to injure another.
 Criminal intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who
executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall
appear.Thus, whoever invokes good faith as a defense has the burden
of proving its existence.
 The instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals sustaining petitioner’s conviction but increasing the
minimum penalty in her sentence to one year instead of six months
is AFFIRMED.
CASE DIGEST # 8

YSIDORO V PEOPLE
G.R. No. 192339, November 14, 2012

ABAD, J.:

FACTS
 Arnold James M. Ysidoro, a municipal mayor and the complainant in
this case, was accused by the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas
of violation of illegal diversion of food intended for those suffering from
malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconsideration projects affecting the
homes of victims of calamities.

 Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office (MSWDO) of Leyte

operated a Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP) that provided
construction materials to indigent calamity victims with which to rebuild
their homes. The beneficiaries provided the labor needed for
construction. When construction was 70% done, the beneficiaries
stopped reporting to work for the reason that they had to find food for
their families. Lolita Garcia, the CSAP Officer-In-Charge sought the help
of Cristina Polinio, and officer of the MSWDO in charge of the
municipality’s Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP) that rationed food to
malnourished children. Garcia and Polinio seek the approval of the
petitioner Ysidoro to give the remaining sacks of rice and boxes of
sardines to the CSAP beneficiaries.

 In defense, Ysidoro claims good faith, believing that the municipality’s

poor CSAP beneficiaries were also in urgent need of food.
  The Sandiganbayan found Ysidoro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
technical maversation, hence this appeal.

ISSUE:
 WON good faith is a valid defense for technical maversation.

HELD:
 No. Dura lex sed lex. Ysidoro’s act, no matter how noble or miniscule the
amount diverted, constitutes the crime of technical malversation.

 Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith since, first, the idea of using
the SPF goods for the CSAP beneficiaries came, not from him, but from
Garcia and Polinio; and, second, he consulted the accounting
department if the goods could be distributed to those beneficiaries.
Having no criminal intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted of the
crime.

 The court stated that it is the commission of an act as defined by the

law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or
not the provision has been violated. The offense is mala prohibita,
meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a
criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on
considerations of public policy, order, and convenience.

 The law and the Court, however, recognize that the offense committed by
Ysidoro is not grave, warranting a mere fine.