Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    Salamera Vs Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Goody
    Fidel Salamera was elected mayor of Casiguran, Aurora in 1988. He received a gun owned by Ponciano Benavidez from the barangay captain. When stopped by police in Quezon City while traveling to Manila, Salamera surrendered the gun. Ponciano later filed complaints against Salamera for theft of the gun. The Sandiganbayan convicted Salamera of malversation for the gun, valued at P5,000 based on judicial notice. However, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan could not take judicial notice of the gun's value, which must be proved by evidence, as this was a disputed fact. The conviction was overturned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Salamera Vs Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Goody
    107 views2 pages
    Fidel Salamera was elected mayor of Casiguran, Aurora in 1988. He received a gun owned by Ponciano Benavidez from the barangay captain. When stopped by police in Quezon City while traveling to Manila, Salamera surrendered the gun. Ponciano later filed complaints against Salamera for theft of the gun. The Sandiganbayan convicted Salamera of malversation for the gun, valued at P5,000 based on judicial notice. However, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan could not take judicial notice of the gun's value, which must be proved by evidence, as this was a disputed fact. The conviction was overturned.

    Original Title

    Salamera vs Sandiganbayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Fidel Salamera was elected mayor of Casiguran, Aurora in 1988. He received a gun owned by Ponciano Benavidez from the barangay captain. When stopped by police in Quezon City while traveling to Manila, Salamera surrendered the gun. Ponciano later filed complaints against Salamera for theft of the gun. The Sandiganbayan convicted Salamera of malversation for the gun, valued at P5,000 based on judicial notice. However, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan could not take judicial notice of the gun's value, which must be proved by evidence, as this was a disputed fact. The conviction was overturned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    107 views2 pages

    Salamera Vs Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Goody
    Fidel Salamera was elected mayor of Casiguran, Aurora in 1988. He received a gun owned by Ponciano Benavidez from the barangay captain. When stopped by police in Quezon City while traveling to Manila, Salamera surrendered the gun. Ponciano later filed complaints against Salamera for theft of the gun. The Sandiganbayan convicted Salamera of malversation for the gun, valued at P5,000 based on judicial notice. However, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan could not take judicial notice of the gun's value, which must be proved by evidence, as this was a disputed fact. The conviction was overturned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FIDEL T.

    SALAMERA, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, respondent.

    Nature:

    The case is an appeal via certiorari taken by petitioner from a decision of the


    Sandiganbayan and its resolution convicting him of malversation of public property
    defined and penalized in Article 217 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal
    Code, and appreciating the mitigating circumstance of full restitution

    Facts:

    On February 2, 1988, Salamera was elected to and assumed the position of Mayor of
    the Casiguran, Aurora. Later that month, he received from Casiguran Barangay Captain
    Antonio Benavidez one .38 Caliber Smith & Wesson Revolver, with Serial No. 879886.
    The gun was owned by and licensed to Ponciano Benavidez, an uncle of Antonio, who
    mortgaged it to him. The gun was placed in an attache case.

    After about a week, Salamera, together with his security men, went to Manila, and
    brought with them the attache case with the gun in it. On their return to the province,
    their car was stopped at a spot checkpoint in Quezon City, where Pat. Alfredo B.
    Villanueva of the Quezon City Police saw the revolver. Salamera instructed his security
    men to surrender the gun to police officer Villanueva.

    Ponciano, the licensed owner of the gun claimed it from Salamera who informed him
    that the gun was confiscated by the Quezon City Police. On September 30, 1988,
    Ponciano filed with Aurora Provincial Prosecutor a complaint for theft against Salamera
    and Antonio, which was dismissed. On December 13, 1988, Ponciano Benavidez filed
    with DILG an administrative complaint against Salamera for abuse of authority,
    ignorance of the law and conduct unbecoming of a public servant. On April 6, 1989,
    complainant Ponciano filed at the Ombudsman a complaint for theft against Salamera.

    Ponciano executed an affidavit of desistance acknowledging that Salamera had paid the
    value of the gun, and withdrawing the administrative case and the criminal case he filed
    at the Ombudsman, which approved the the filing by Special Prosecution Officer
    Prospero G. Pelayo of an information against petitioner for malversation of public funds
    with the Sandiganbayan, Manila. The latter issued a warrant of arrest. Salamera posted
    P20,000.00 cash bail and plead not guilty.

    Villanueva told Salamera that he returned the gun to one his security men named
    Patrolman Orgas on the next day after he had confiscated it. Orgas did not inform
    Salamera about the recovery of the gun, and he was already dead at the time of
    information reached Salamera.

    The Sandiganbayan finds Salamera guilty of malversation.


    The motion for reconsideration was denied.
    It shall be noted that the Sandiganbayan did not base the penalty on the minimum value
    of the gun in the absence of evidence of its true worth. It took judicial notice of its
    market value and estimated its "reasonable value" at P5,000.00.

    Issue:

    Whether or not such judicial notice is a sufficient evidence to assume the value of the
    gun which is the subject of the malversation accusation

    Held:

    The Sandiganbayan could not take judicial notice of the value of the gun. It must be duly
    proved in evidence as a fact. The court can not take judicial notice of a disputed fact.
    The court may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or which are capable
    of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their
    judicial functions.7 Otherwise, the court must receive evidence of disputed facts with
    notice to the parties.8 This is an innovation introduced in the Revised Rules of Evidence
    the Supreme Court adopted on July 1, 1989, which should not be unknown to the lower
    courts.9 The new rule of evidence governs this case, since it was decided in 1995, six
    years after its effectivity.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy