Rolito Rabanal v. People of the Philippines and Hon.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 160858, February 28, 2006

Facts: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Rolito Rabanal (petitioner) impugning the (1) Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated 31 March 2003 affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 97 convicting petitioner
of homicide and (2) its Resolution dated 11 November 2003 denying his motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner, along with Salvador Impistan alias "Ador" and Eloy Labatique (Eloy) were charged with homicide in an Information which reads:

That on or about the 16th day of November, [sic] 1986, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused conspiring together, confederating with [and] mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation
and treachery, and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal
violence upon the person of FELIPE SALES Y NACHOR by then and there stab[b]ing him with a bladed weapon hitting the victim on different
parts of his body thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage
and prejudice of the [heirs] of the said FELIPE SALES Y NACHOR in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code.

Issue: Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of homicide.

Ruling: Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth and rates highly in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. It enjoys a far
more superior probative weight than corroborative testimonies. In the instant case, the autopsy report negates the lone witness’s account of the
participation of petitioner in the stabbing of the victim.

The inconsistency between the positive testimony of Javier and the physical evidence, particularly the autopsy report, further diminishes the
credibility of the lone eyewitness.

A conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which means a moral certainty that petitioner is guilty. The
prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we cannot sustain petitioner’s conviction.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABELARDO SALONGA, accused-appellant. G.R. No. 131131. June 21, 2001

Facts: This case was certified to this Court pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court from a decision rendered by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR NO. 18551 which modified the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 142 in Criminal Case No.
33127, by increasing the penalty imposed on the accused to reclusion perpetua. Abelardo Salonga, Flaviano Pangilinan, Amiel Garcia and
Ricardo Licup were charged with the crime of Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document in an information alleging that on
or before 23 October 1986, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one
another and mutually helping and aiding one another, and as such had access to the preparation of checks in the said Metrobank and Trust
Company (Metrobank), with grave abuse of confidence, intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the total amount of P36,480.30 by forging the signature of officers
authorized to sign the said check and have the said check deposited in the account of Firebrake Sales and Services, the supposed payee when in
truth and in fact there is no such transaction between Firebrake and Metrobank, thereby causing the preparation and use of a simulated check
described as Check No. 013702 in the amount of P36,480.30 making it appear genuine and authorized, through which they succeeded in its
encashment, enabling them to gain for themselves the total sum of P36,480.30, to the damage and prejudice of Metrobank and Trust Company
in the total amount of P36,480.30. On July 19, 1993, the RTC rendered its decision finding Salonga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified
Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document.

Issues: Whether or not the accused is guilty of qualified theft? Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper?

Decsion: The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the participation of accused-appellant in the crime charged. It was established
that accused-appellant was the custodian of the blank Metrobank cashiers check which was processed and encashed. Arthur Christy Mariano of
the spot audit group testified that the amount of accounts payable for October 23, 1986 as reflected in the proof sheet did not tally with the
debit tickets of the same date, showing that the check was issued without any transaction. Mariano also testified that after finding basic
differences in the signature of bank manager Antonia Manuel appearing on the subject check with other specimens he conferred with the latter
who told him that the signature appearing therein was not hers. Manager Antonia Manuel likewise testified that the signature appearing in the
cashiers check varies with the way she signs. Significantly, in a letter dated September 15, 1987 to Atty. Severino S. Tabios of Metrobank,
accused-appellant confirmed the statements in his extra-judicial confession and offered to return the amount of P8,500.00. The crime charged
is Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document. Since the value of the check is P38,480.30, the imposable penalty for the
felony of theft is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and 1 year of each additional PHP 10,000.00 in accordance with Article 309,
paragraph 1 of the RPC. However, under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of qualified theft is punished by the penalties next
higher by two degrees than that specified in Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. Two degrees higher than prision mayor in its minimum and
medium periods is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods. In addition, forging the signatures of the bank officers authorized to
sign the subject cashiers check was resorted to in order to obtain the sum of P36,480.30 for the benefit of the accused. Falsification of the
subject cashiers check was a necessary means to commit the crime of qualified theft resulting in a complex crime. Hence, we apply Article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code, which provides that, where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the more serious
crime in its maximum period shall be imposed. Considering that qualified Theft is more serious than falsification of bank notes or certificates
which is punished under Article 166 (2) of the Revised Penal Code with prision mayor in its minimum period, the correct penalty is fourteen (14)
years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

55. METRO BANK vs Spouses Miranda G.R. N0. 187917, Januray 19, 2011

Facts:

Respondents spouses Mirnda obtained a credit loan accommodation from petitioner Metro Bank. The
intial loan amounted to 4,000,000 secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land in Isabela.
Later on, upon respondent’s request the loan was increased to 5,000,000 thus, the real estate mortgage
was amended also to increase the principal amount of loan to 5,000,000. Subsequently the spouses
obtained additional loans in the amount of 1,000,000 also secured by a REM in Isabela. Respondents
encountered difficulties in paying their loans. They requested for a longer period to settle their account
and further requested for the restructuring of their loans, which requests Metrobank granted.
Respondents then signed Promissory Notes both payable on February 24, 2002. On August 25, 2000,
Metrobank sent respondents a demand letter to settle their overdue account of P8,512,380.15, inclusive
of interest and penalties; otherwise, the bank would initiate “the necessary legal proceedings x x x,
without further notice.” Respondents, however, failed to settle their account. Consequently, Metrobank
caused the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale of the mortgaged properties on November 16,
2000. The Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of Santiago City sold the mortgaged properties at public
auction for the sum of P9,284,452.00 to Metrobank, as the highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale was
issued in favor of Metrobank on November 27, 2000, which was registered with the Registry of Deeds on
November 29, 2000. Claiming that the extrajudicial foreclosure was void, respondents filed a complaint
for Nullification of the Foreclosure Proceedings and Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining
Order/Injunction with the RTC of Santiago City. They alleged non-compliance with the provisions of
Presidential Decree No. 1079 and Act No. 3135, particularly the publication requirement.

Issue: W/N the foreclosure proceedings should be annulled on the basis of the non-compliance with the
publication requirement

Held/Ratio: Apparently, Metrobank lost sight of our ruling in Spouses Pulido v. CA,[25] Sempio v. CA,[26]
and, recently, in Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Dionisio Geronimo and Caridad Geronimo,[27] viz.:
While it may be true that the party alleging non-compliance with the requisite publication has the
burden of proof, still negative allegations need not be proved even if essential to one’s cause of action
or defense if they constitute a denial of the existence of a document the custody of which belongs to the
other party. It would have been a simple matter for Metrobank to rebut the allegation of non-
compliance by producing the required proof of publication. Yet, Metrobank opted not to rebut the
allegation; it simply relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
Unfortunately, Metrobank’s reliance on the presumption of regularity must fail because it did not
present any proof of publication of the notice of sale. As held by this Court in Spouses Pulido v. Court of
Appeals:[28] ALS 2014B — REM Digests Page 201 of 256 Justice Gesmundo [P]etitioners' reliance on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties falls in the face of a serious imputation on
non-compliance. The presumption of compliance with official duty is rebutted by failure to present
proof of posting. As correctly found by the RTC and the CA, the records[30] of the foreclosure
proceedings lacked any proof of publication. This explains why Metrobank could not present any proof
of publication. We take this occasion to reiterate that the object of a notice of sale is to inform the
public of the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place, and terms of the
sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and preventing a sacrifice sale of the
property.