Scribd
Upload
80 views

Update On RA 3019

The document discusses the abandonment of the Sistoza principle by the Supreme Court in two recent cases. In Sistoza v. Desierto, the court had held that an information could allege one modality of committing an offense under RA 3019 but be deemed to include other modalities to allow for proof. However, in Villarosa vs. People, the Supreme Court En Banc abandoned this Sistoza principle, holding that an information accusing a defendant of one modality (evident bad faith) could not be considered to include other modalities (gross inexcusable negligence). This Villarosa principle was then affirmed in Buencamino vs. People.

Uploaded by

crazzy foryou
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views

Update On RA 3019

The document discusses the abandonment of the Sistoza principle by the Supreme Court in two recent cases. In Sistoza v. Desierto, the court had held that an information could allege one modality of committing an offense under RA 3019 but be deemed to include other modalities to allow for proof. However, in Villarosa vs. People, the Supreme Court En Banc abandoned this Sistoza principle, holding that an information accusing a defendant of one modality (evident bad faith) could not be considered to include other modalities (gross inexcusable negligence). This Villarosa principle was then affirmed in Buencamino vs. People.

Uploaded by

crazzy foryou
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ABANDONMENT OF THE SISTOZA PRINCIPLE

By Judge Marlo Campanilla

In Sistoza v. Desierto, G.R. No. 144784, September 3, 2002, the Information against the
petitioner, while specifying manifest partiality and evident bad faith, did not allege gross
inexcusable negligence as a modality in the commission of the offense charged. It was
held that Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 is committed either by dolo or culpa. Although the
Information may have alleged only one of the modalities of committing the offense, the
other mode is deemed included in the accusation to allow proof thereof.

However, in Villarosa vs. People, G.R. Nos. 233155-63, June 23, 2020, the Supreme
Court En Banc abandoned the Sistoza principle. It was held that the Informations filed
against petitioner all accuse the latter of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 through
evident bad faith only. Not one Information accused petitioner of violating the same
provision through gross inexcusable negligence. Evident bad faith and gross
inexcusable negligence are two of the three modalities of committing violations of
Section 3(e). Hence, while all three modalities may be alleged simultaneously in a
single information for violation of Section 3(e), an allegation of only one modality without
mention of the others necessarily means the exclusion of those not mentioned. Verily,
an accusation for a violation of Section 3(e) committed through evident bad faith only,
cannot be considered as synonymous to, or includes an accusation of violation of
Section 3(e) committed through gross inexcusable negligence.

In Buencamino vs. People, G.R. No. 216745-46, November 10, 2020, the Supreme
Court through Justice Caquioa affirmed the Villarosa principle.

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