ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 117512   October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 117512 * October 2, 2001.]

    REBECCA ALA-MARTIN, Petitioner, v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 98, Quezon City; MARILINE D. ALA, SPOUSES MANUEL and SUSAN QUIMBO, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:


    Petition for certiorari 1 seeking to annul and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 98, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. Q 92-30266, "People of the Philippines v. Marilene D. Ala, Et. Al." for estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code.

    The assailed decision acquitted Marilene Ala, Manuel Quimbo and Susan Ala-Quimbo, but found them civilly liable to private complainant Rebecca Ala-Martin in the amount of $19,250.21 or its equivalent in Philippine peso.

    The antecedent facts are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Rebecca, Susan and Leticia, all surnamed Ala, are sisters. Atty. Oscar Ala is their brother.

    Sometime in December, 1994, Rebecca Ala-Martin, Petitioner, designated her brother Atty. Oscar Ala as her attorney-in-fact, authorizing him to withdraw from the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation certain amounts under her Dollar Savings Account No. 01-772300-20 for the purpose of paying the amortizations on her residential lot she purchased in 1985. Atty. Ala suggested to her to transfer her dollar deposit to the Prudential Bank in Quezon Avenue where his wife Marilene and his sister Susan Ala-Quimbo, worked. Rebecca agreed.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Sometime in February, 1987, upon inquiry with the Prudential Bank, she was informed that her money ($19,245.20 or P500,500.00 at the then current rate of exchange) was not deposited there. What actually transpired was that Atty. Ala withdrew her dollars (in bank draft) from the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, gave it to his wife Marilene, who, in turn delivered it to her sister Susan Ala-Quimbo for deposit with the Prudential Bank, Quezon Avenue Branch. Instead of complying with Oscar’s instruction, Marilene and Susan entrusted the bank draft to Josefina Rey, an employee of the China Banking Corporation, for the purpose of earning higher rate of interest. But Josefina Rey absconded with the money. Forthwith, spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo filed criminal and civil cases against her.

    Believing that spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala and Susan Ala-Quimbo connived with each other in appropriating her money for their own benefit, Rebecca, through her sister, Atty. Leticia Ala, demanded that they return the amount but to no avail. This prompted Rebecca to cause the filing with the court a quo Criminal Case No. Q-92-30266 for estafa against spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala and Susan Ala-Quimbo.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In due time, they were arraigned and trial ensued.

    Upon motion of the prosecution, the lower court reversed the order of trial, directing the defense to first present its evidence, followed by the prosecution. This order was based on the finding of the trial judge that the charge of estafa was established by the Joint Counter Affidavit of spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo and spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala. Spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo admitted in their Joint Counter Affidavit that they received from Marilene Ala Rebecca’s money for the purpose of depositing it with the China Banking Corporation in order to earn a higher rate of interest, but that Josefina Rey, an employee therein, misappropriated it. For their part, spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala alleged in their Joint Counter Affidavit that he (Oscar) withdrew Rebecca’s money in the sum of $19,245.20 from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank and gave it to his wife Marilene. In turn, she delivered it to her sister Susan Ala-Quimbo for deposit with the Prudential Bank, Quezon Avenue Branch.

    Subsequently, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence but was denied by the trial court.

    During the hearing on March 3, 1993, instead of presenting its evidence in accordance with the reverse order of trial, the defense, through counsel, manifested that the accused are waiving their right to present their evidence. Thereupon, the private prosecutor manifested that he will present evidence to prove the accused’s civil liability impliedly instituted with the criminal action, The defense objected vigorously. On April 12, 1993, the trial court issued an order allowing the prosecution to prove the civil liability of the accused.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On June 2, 1993, Rebecca testified mainly on the civil aspect of the case. She identified Exhibit "A" which is a Certification dated February 9, 1987 of Manuel A. Quimbo wherein he undertook to pay Rebecca $19,245.20; Exhibit "B," the Joint Counter Affidavit of spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala; and Exhibit "C," the Joint Counter Affidavit of spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo. On June 10, 1993, the prosecution rested its case and formally offered the foregoing documentary evidence which were admitted by the trial court.

    The defense did not present any testimonial evidence but merely offered in evidence the prosecution’s Exhibit "A" as its Exhibit" 1," stressing that the accused’s undertaking to pay Rebecca is conditioned upon their ability to collect the amounts involved in the criminal and civil cases they filed against Josefina Rey.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On September 27, 1994, the trial court rendered the assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, the court hereby declares the three accused namely Susan Quimbo, Marilene D. Ala and Atty. Manuel S. Quimbo, acquitted on reasonable doubt. They are not however absolved of their civil liability to Mrs. Rebecca Ala-Martin with respect to the sum of $19,250.21 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the floating rate of exchange reckoned from the filing of the instant case, with interest at 12% per annum.

    Inasmuch as the real properties of Josephine Rey and family have already been adjudged in Civil Case No. Q-49886 in favor of the defendants Atty. Manuel S. Quimbo and Susan Quimbo, the latter are hereby directed to pay the aforesaid amount to Mrs. Rebecca Ala-Martin out of whatever proceed the former may derive therefrom.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Hence, this petition.

    The main issue before us is whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting the accused.

    Petitioner contends that respondent judge gravely abused his discretion when he disregarded and did not give weight to the Joint Counter Affidavit of spouses Manuel and Susan Ala-Quimbo and Joint Counter Affidavit of spouses Oscar and Marilene Ala, marked as Exhibits "B" and "C," respectively. According to petitioner, these documentary evidence, being judicial admissions, have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

    For his part, the Solicitor General argues that respondent judge’s refusal to consider Exhibits "B" and "C" in determining the guilt of the accused violates the fundamental right of the State to due process. These documents are "judicial admissions" and were formally offered by the prosecution during the hearing of the civil aspect of the instant case.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We are not persuaded.

    In an action for certiorari, the inquiry should be limited only to question of jurisdiction. 2 As a rule, certiorari may be issued only where it is clearly shown that there is patent and gross abuse of discretion as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. 3 By grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and mere abuse of discretion is not enough — it must be grave. 4 Where the court has jurisdiction over the case, even if its findings are not correct, its questioned acts would at most constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. 5

    We hold that respondent judge did not gravely abuse his discretion. The reason why he disregarded Exhibits "B" and "C" was because they were not formally offered in evidence by the prosecution.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Respondent judge held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "To repeat, the court has found nothing from the records to show that before and after the defense had waived the presentation of evidence, the prosecution made an offer in any form sufficient to show that it is ready and willing to submit its evidence to the court, specifically to prove the culpability of the accused herein. In the absence of such showing, this court has to rely mainly upon such fact, as his judgment must rest only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In Ong v. Court of Appeals, 6 this Court, through Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Evidence not formally offered during the trial can not be used for or against a party litigant. Neither may it be taken into account on appeal."cralaw virtua1aw library

    x       x       x


    "Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered." A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and their judgment solely and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. To allow parties to attach any document to their pleadings and then expect the court to consider it as evidence, even without formal offer and admission, may draw unwarranted consequences. Opposing parties will be deprived of their chance to examine the document and to object to its admissibility. On the other hand, the appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court below."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This the prosecution failed to do. It did not formally offer its documentary evidence. It merely offered the same during that part of the hearing on the civil liability of the accused.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    There is another reason why the trial court acquitted the accused. After they were arraigned on June 24, 1992, the prosecution moved that Atty. Oscar Ala be ordered to testify to prove the transaction between his wife Marilene and Rebecca. The trial court granted the motion. On October 1, 1992, Marilene moved to expunge from the records the testimony of her husband and to discharge him as witness pursuant to Section 22, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court. She claimed that his testimony given was without her consent and violates "her marital privilege." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    According to respondent judge, his order to expunge the testimony of Atty. Ala from the records carries with it the exclusion of the Joint Counter Affidavit (Exhibit "B") signed by him and his wife Marilene. Such exclusion lost much of the prosecution’s "needed support such that the crucial link of the Quimbo spouses to the crime charged became obscure. Thus, the need for a clear and convincing proof against them, but which the prosecution failed to fill the gap."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It bears stressing that the challenged judgment acquitting the accused is a final verdict which cannot be reopened, assuming it is erroneous, because of the doctrine of double jeopardy. 7

    Indeed, we fail to discern grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Melo, Vitug and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    * Per A.M. No. 00-9-03-SC dated February 27, 2001, this case which could have been acted upon earlier, was raffled to the undersigned ponente.

    1. Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, now 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

    2. Azores v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 252 SCRA 387 (1996).

    3. Lalican v. Vergara, 276 SCRA 518 (1997).

    4. Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997).

    5. Lalican v. Vergara, supra.

    6. 301 SCRA 391 (1999), citing Candido v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 78, 82-83, February 1, 1996; Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438, 456, March 29, 1996; Vda. De Alvarez v. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 309, 317-318, March 16, 1994; Veran v. Court Appeals, 157 SCRA 438; People v. Cariño, et al, 165 SCRA 664, 671, September 26, 1988; People v. Peralta, 237 SCRA 218, 226, September 28, 1994; Also see De los Reyes v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 176 SCRA 394, 401402, August 11, 1989 and People v. Matte, 103 SCRA 484, 493, March 27, 1981.

    7. Tupaz v. Ulep, 316 SCRA 118 (1999).

    G.R. No. 117512   October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED