Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner who was not the drawer or issuer of
the three checks that bounced but her co-accused husband under the
latter’s account could be held liable for violations of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 as conspirator.
ROMUALDEZ v. MARCELO that new informations may be filed by the Ombudsman should it
find probable cause in the conduct of its preliminary
BENJAMIN ("KOKOY") T. ROMUALDEZ, petitioner, investigation;
vs.
HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO, in his official capacity as the that the filing of the complaint with the Presidential Commission
Ombudsman, and PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
on Good Government (PCGG) in 1987 and the filing of the
GOVERNMENT, respondents
G.R. Nos. 165510-33 information with the Sandiganbayan in 1989 interrupted the
July 28, 2006 prescriptive period;
FACTS: that the absence of the petitioner from the Philippines from 1986
until 2000 also interrupted the aforesaid period based on Article
91 of the Revised Penal Code.
Romualdez is being charged with violations of Section 7 of RA No. 3019
for failure to file his Statements of Assets and Liabilities for the period The PCGG avers that the Omdudsman need not wait for a new complaint
1967-1985 during his tenure as Ambassador Extraordinary and with a new docket number for it to conduct a preliminary investigation on
Plenipotentiary and for the period 1963-1966 during his tenure as the alleged offenses of the petitioner;
Technical Assistant in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
And since both RA No. 3019 and Act No. 3326 (the Act To Establish
Romualdez claims that the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its Periods of Prescription For Violations Penalized By Special Acts and
discretion in recommending the filing of 24 informations against him for Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin To
violation of Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft Run) are silent as to whether prescription should begin to run when the
and Corrupt Practices Act; offender is absent from the Philippines, the RPC should be applied.
Romualdez asserts that the Ombudsman (Marcello) cannot revive the (RPC provides that prescription is interrupted when accused is outside of
aforementioned cases which were previously dismissed by the the Philippines)
Sandiganbayan in its Resolution of February 10, 2004.
Also, the court said that the petitioner’s right to be informed of the Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of
charges against him was not violated when the preliminary investigation the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time,
conducted used the same docket number, which was already previously from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
dismissed by the Sandiganbayan. proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
The assignment of a docket number is an internal matter designed for The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
efficient record keeping. It is usually written in the Docket Record in instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if
sequential order corresponding to the date and time of filing a case. the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting
jeopardy.
The use of the docket numbers of the dismissed cases was merely for
reference. In fact, after the new informations were filed, new docket
numbers were assigned, i.e., Criminal Cases Nos. 28031-28049. The court ruled that the prescriptive period began to run from the
FOR THE SECOND ISSUE discovery thereof on May 8, 1987, which is the date of the complaint filed
by the former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez against the petitioner
The court held that the offenses charged have already prescribed. with the PCGG.
In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following The court however disagrees to the respondents’ contention that the
should be considered: prescriptive period was interrupted when petitioner was outside the
Philippines because Article 91 of the RPC should be applied suppletorily.
(1) the period of prescription for the offense charged;
(Art 91 – prescription is interrupted when accused in outside the
Philippines)
The court’s answer is that suppletory application of the Revised Penal
Section 2 of Act. No. 3326 is conspicuously silent as to whether the Code to special laws, by virtue of Article 10 thereof, finds relevance only
absence of the offender from the Philippines bars the running of the when the provisions of the special law are silent on a particular matter.
prescriptive period. The silence of the law can only be interpreted to mean
that Section 2 of Act No. 3326 did not intend such an interruption of the The court said that RA 3019 is a special law and its prescription is
prescription unlike the explicit mandate of Article 91. governed by Act 3326.
Hence, petitioner’s absence from the Philippines did not interrupt the The Revised Penal Code explicitly states that the absence of the accused
prescriptive period. from the Philippines shall be a ground for the tolling of the prescriptive
period while Act No. 3326 does not. In such a situation, Act No. 3326
must prevail over Article 91 because it specifically and directly applies to
special laws while the Revised Penal Code shall apply to special laws
The only matter left is whether the filing of the complaint with the PCGG only suppletorily and only when the latter do not provide the contrary.
in 1987 as well as the filing of the informations with the Sandiganbayan Indeed, elementary rules of statutory construction dictate that special legal
to initiate Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429 in 1989 interrupted the provisions must prevail over general ones.
running of the prescriptive period.
Subject: 1. Generally, mala in se felonies are defined and penalized in the Revised
Penal Code. When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are
Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita; Acts prohibited under Sec. 27 (b) of deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly,
R.A. 6646 are crimes mala in se; Extraordinary diligence required in criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the
canvassing election results crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the other hand, in crimes that
are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral but become
Facts:
punishable only because the law says they are forbidden. With these crimes,
Arsenia B. Garcia, a chairman of the board of canvassers in the sole issue is whether the law has been violated. Criminal intent is not
Alaminos, Pangasinan, was charged before the RTC for allegedly decreasing necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy. Garcia’s
the number of votes cast in favor of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. during the acts showed that there was intent on her part to decrease the number of votes.
1995 senatorial elections, a violation of Sec. 27 (b) of R.A. 6646 or the
Acts prohibited under Sec. 27 (b) of R.A. 6646 are crimes mala in se
Electoral Reforms Law. It was alleged that the grand total of Sen. Pimentel
Jr.’s votes were reduced to 1,921 instead of 6,921 or 5,000 votes less than the 2. Acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se. For otherwise, even errors
actual number of votes received. and mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable.
Given the volume of votes to be counted and canvassed within a limited
Garcia appealed the same to the CA which affirmed the lower
amount of time, errors and miscalculations are bound to happen. And it could
court’s decision. It likewise denied his motion for reconsideration, thus an
not be the intent of the law to punish unintentional election canvass errors.
appeal to the Supreme Court.
However, intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received
Garcia contends that the CA’s judgment is erroneous and is based on by a candidate is inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and intent
mere surmises instead of substantial evidence. During the trial, she admitted to injure another.
that she was the one who announced the figure of 1,921, which was
Extraordinary diligence required in canvassing election results
subsequently entered by the secretary of the board of canvassers. She also
admitted that she was the one who prepared the Certificate of Canvass 3. Public policy dictates that extraordinary diligence should be exercised by
(COC), though it was not her duty. Despite this, she claims that there was no the members of the board of canvassers in canvassing the results of the
motive on her part to reduce the votes of Senator Pimentel, Jr. elections. Any error on their part would result in the disenfranchisement of
the voters. The Certificate of Canvass for senatorial candidates and its
The court on the other hand contends that acts prohibited under Sec.
supporting statements of votes prepared by the municipal board of canvassers
27(b) of R.A. 6646 are crimes mala in se, thus intent is taken into
are sensitive election documents whose entries must be thoroughly
consideration. Given this, the act of preparing the COC even if it was not her
scrutinized.
task manifests an intention to perpetuate the erroneous COC entry. It was
further contended that it was his concern as the chairman of the board of
canvassers to ensure the authentic entry of votes.
Held:
SECOND DIVISION Under Presidential Decree 1612, “fencing is the act of any person who,
with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess,
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other
[G.R. No. 111343. August 22, 1996]
manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows,
or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
ERNESTINO P. DUNLAO, SR., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE
crime of robbery or theft.”
COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, represented by the Office of the Solicitor Contrary to petitioner’s contention, intent to gain need not be proved in
General, and LOURDES DU, respondents. crimes punishable by a special law such as P.D. 1612.
FACTS: The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called
Petitioner is a duly licensed retailer and wholesaler of scrap iron in “acts mala in se,” and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that
Davao City using the business name “Dunlao Enterprise.” positive law forbids them, called “acts malaprohibita.”[6] This distinction is
important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful act is done. The
On October 25, 1986 at about 2:30 p.m. Fortunato Mariquit and Carlito rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs, but in
Catog, both employees of Lourdes Farms, were instructed by its proprietor, to acts malaprohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? [7] When an
go to petitioner’s premises together with some police officers to verify act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial.[8]
information received that some farrowing crates and G.I. pipes stolen from
Lourdes Farms were to be found thereat. In the case of Lim v. Court of Appeals[9] involving violation of the Anti-
Fencing Law, we said:
Upon arrival at petitioner’s compound, the group saw the farrowing
crates and pipes inside the compound. They also found assorted lengths of “On the aspect of animus furandi, petitioner is of the belief that this
G.I. pipes inside a cabinet in petitioner’s shop and another pile outside the element was not clearly established by the People’s evidence and he,
shop but within the compound. therefore, draws the conclusion that respondent court seriously erred in
presuming the existence of intent to gain. Again, this supposition ignores the
After he was informed by the police operatives that said pipes were
fact that intent to gain is a mental state, the existence of which is
owned by Lourdes Farms and had been stolen from it, petitioner voluntarily
demonstrated by the overt acts of a person (Soriano vs. People, 88 Phil. 368
surrendered the items. These were then taken to the police station.
[1951]; 1 Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Eleventh Rev. Ed., 1977, p. 45; 1
Subsequently a case was filed accusing petitioner of violation of the Aquino, Revised Penal Code, 1988 Ed., p. 197). And what was the external
Anti-Fencing Law. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded NOT demeanor which petitioner showed from which the trial court and respondent
GUILTY. Trial ensued and the trial court rendered judgment finding the court inferred animus furandi? These circumstances were vividly spelled in
accused guilty of the said crime which was then affirmed by the CA. Hence, the body of the judgment which petitioner chose to blandly impugn and over
this petition. which he remains indifferent even at this crucial stage. Withal, the sinister
mental state is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act in bringing
out the tires from his bodega which were loaded on his pick-up
ISSUE: (People vs. Sia Teb Ban, 54 Phil. 52 [1929]; 1 Reyes, supra at P. 46; Section
3(b), Rule 131, Revised Rules on Evidence). At any rate, dolo is not required
Whether or not intent to gain is necessary in order for the accused to in crimes punished by a special stature like the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979
be found guilty of violation of Republic Act 1612? (U.S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128 [1909]; 1 Reyes, supra at p. 58) because it is
the act alone, irrespective of the motives which constitutes the offense
(U.S. vs. Siy Cong Bieng, et al., 30 Phil. 577 [1915]; 1 Reyes, supra, at p. 59;
HELD: 1 Aquino, supra, at p. 52).”