1

Evangelista v. Screenex, Inc.

GR 211564 | November 20, 2017

FACTS: Sometime in 1991, petitioner Evangelista obtained a loan from respondent Screenex, Inc. which issued
two (2) checks to him. The first check was a UCPB check for ₱l,000,000 and the other one is a China Banking
Corporation check for ₱500,000. There were also vouchers of Screenex that were signed by the accused
evidencing that he received the 2 checks in acceptance of the loan granted to him.

As security for the payment of the loan, he gave two 2 open-dated checks which were both pay to the
order of Screenex, Inc. From the time the checks were issued, they were held in safe keeping together with the
other documents and papers of the company by Philip Gotuaco, Sr., father-in-law of respondent Alexander Yu,
until the former's death. Before the checks were deposited, there was a personal demand from the family for
Evangelista to settle the loan and likewise a demand letter sent by the family lawyer.

Petitioner was then charged with violation of BP Blg. 22 filed with the MeTC of Makati City. The MeTC,
ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the third element acquitted him of the criminal charges, but declared
liable for the corresponding civil obligation. The R TC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the MeTC decision in
toto. On appeal to the CA, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the RTC. The Motion for Reconsideration
was likewise denied. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in ordering the accused to pay his alleged civil obligation to complainant

HELD: The Court held in the affirmative. In BP 22 cases, the action for the corresponding civil obligation is
deemed instituted with the criminal action. The criminal action for violation of BP 22 necessarily includes the
corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized.

In addition, the cause of action based on a check is reckoned from the date indicated on the check. If the
check is undated, the cause of action is reckoned from the date of the issuance of the check. No written
extrajudicial or judicial demand was shown to have been made within 10 years which could have tolled the period.
Prescription has indeed set in. We therefore have no other recourse but to grant the instant petition on the
ground of prescription. Even if that defense was belatedly raised before the RTC for the first time on appeal from
the ruling of the MeTC, we nonetheless dismiss the complaint by applying Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of
Court.

Granting that petitioner had never encashed the check, his failure to do so for more than ten (10) years resulted
in the impairment of the check through his unreasonable delay. While it is true that the delivery of a check
produces the effect of payment only when it is cashed pursuant to Art. 1249 of the Civil Code, the rule is otherwise
if the debtor is prejudiced by the creditor's unreasonable delay in presentment. Petitioner is considered
discharged from his obligation to pay and can no longer be pronounced civilly liable for the amounts indicated
thereon.

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and DISMISSED the Complaint against the petitioner.
 2

Cruz, et al v. People of the Philippines

GR 206437 | November 22, 2017

FACTS: Petitioners Cruz, Manahan, and Jervoso were the Warehouse Supervisor, Assistant Warehouse Supervisor,
and Delivery Driver cum Warehouse Assistant, respectively of Prestige Brands Phil. Inc. They were charged with
Qualified Theft for stealing stock products held in the warehouse.

The RTC ruled that the chain of evidence led to the conclusion that petitioners committed Qualified Theft
because they had exclusive access to the warehouse. It ratiocinated that while no one witnessed the actual taking
of said items, the written admissions of Jervoso and Cruz were admissible in evidence. These admissions,
according to the RTC, were part of res gestae because they were spontaneous reactions to the confrontation and
were not mere afterthought. It added that while Manahan did not submit any written confession, it appeared
that he shared in the proceeds of the stolen items, which was indicative of conspiracy and connivance. On appeal,
the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred when the written confessions purportedly executed by petitioners were given
evidentiary weight since the same were involuntarily executed in violation of the constitutional rights of the
petitioners which were not corroborated with corpus delicti as required by the Rules of Court.

HELD: The Court held in the affirmative. The Court gives no credence to the supposed written confessions made
by Cruz, Jervoso and their co-accused Pardilla. It also observes that although the confessions were individually
executed, they were in fact similarly worded. Even the translations of these confessions into Filipino executed by
Cruz and Jervoso were also similarly worded. Notably, the confessions did not contain specific details as regards
any item unlawfully taken. Indeed, an indication of voluntariness is the disclosure of the details in the confession
which details are only known to the declarant. For lack of necessary details in their statements, we hold that the
same did not establish any unlawful taking of the personal properties of Prestige Brands.

Without the supposed confessions, there is no other evidence that would establish that petitioners
committed theft against Prestige Brands. Verily, the Court cannot simply accept the theory of the prosecution at
face value and ignore the basic rule that criminal conviction must rest upon the strength of the prosecution's
evidence, and not on the weakness of the defense.

Indeed, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Moreover, when the circumstances are capable of two or more
inferences, as in this case, such that one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other
is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the Court must acquit.

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Resolution of the CA and ACQUITTED Cruz, Manahan, and
Jervoso on the ground that their guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 3

Republic of the Philippines v. Cayanan

GR 181796 | November 7, 2017

FACTS: Regina Cayanan filed a petition for habeas corpus in the R TC alleging that Pablo, her husband, was
being illegally detained by the Director/Head of the CIDG. The CIDG denied having custody of Pablo or having
detained him and prayed for the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus.

Regina, albeit reiterating the allegations of the petition for habeas corpus, amended her petition to now
seek instead the issuance of a writ of amparo. The RTC issued the writ of amparo. After submitting their respective
memoranda, the RTC maintained the writ of amparo earlier issued. The CIDG forthwith moved for
reconsideration. However, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, the CIDG has directly appealed
to this Court.

ISSUE: W/N the trial court gravely erred in granting the writ of amparo, there being no sufficient evidence to
support the same

HELD: The Court held in the negative. The Court ruled that Regina fully discharged her duty to present substantial
evidence in support of her petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo. The sinumpaang salaysay of affiant
Ronaldo Perez, an eyewitness no less, detailed the events of the abduction of Pablo. Perez's statements were
consistent and credible in itself. Given that no ill-motive was imputed to Perez for firmly identifying SPO1 Rolando
Pascua as the person leading the abduction of Pablo, the credibility of the identification of Pascua was
unassailable.

Under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the return should spell out the details of the investigations
conducted by the CIDG and the NBI in a manner that would enable the RTC to judiciously determine whether or
not the efforts to ascertain Pablo's whereabouts had been sincere and adequate. As provided under Section 5,
there is no requirement for the petition to state the probable whereabouts of the victim. Furthermore, in proper
circumstances, the State or any of its relevant agencies may be impleaded, because there may be occasions when
the remedy of the writ of amparo can be made effective only through the State and its agencies.

The proceedings taken under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo are not akin or similar to those in criminal
prosecutions. In the former, the guilt or innocence of the respondents is not determined, and no penal sanctions
are meted. The proceedings only endeavor to give the aggrieved parties immediate remedies against imminent
or actual threats to life, liberty or security. The presumption of innocence is never an issue. In the latter, the
prosecution of the accused with due process of law is the object of the proceedings. The presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused is always the starting point.

With the records of the hearing, sufficiently indicating the participation of Pascua in the abduction of
Pablo, Pascua ostensibly knew more than he cared to reveal thus far about the abduction. He should be
assiduously investigated for his participation in the abduction, and, if warranted, he should be promptly but duly
held accountable with the full extent of the law.

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Resolution of the RTC subject to certain
modifications.
 4

LT. SG. Gadian v. Armed Forces of the Philippines

GR 188163 | October 3, 2017

FACTS: Lt. SG Gadian was a commissioned officer of the Philippine Navy. She served as the Officer-In-Charge of
the Civil Military Operations (CMO) for the RP-US Balikatan Exercises 2007. As such, she was responsible for the
allocation of Balikatan funds and the planning and preparation of its CMO component. However, when Lt. SG
Gadian was asked about the status of the funds during a staff conference, she was reprimanded for not following
the proper channels to distribute the funds. Lt. SG Gadian was then investigated for: (a) lavish spending; (b)
misuse of funds; and (c) willful disobedience.

Pending resolution of her case, Lt. SG Gadian filed an application for ordinary leave, and later on tendered
her resignation from the service. However, Lt. SG Gadian's resignation was not processed. As a consequence, the
AFP declared her absent without leave (AWOL), leading to her being dropped from the rolls as a deserter.
Aggrieved, Lt. SG Gadian, through her sister, filed the petition for the writ of amparo in this Court, alleging
perceived threats to her life, liberty and security from the AFP. The Court issued the writ of amparo and directed
the CA to hear and decide the petition.

The CA rendered its Decision that Lt. SG Gadian had presented substantial evidence to prove the existence
of a threat on her life, liberty and security but had not established the source of the threats; that then Secretary
of National Defense Gilbert Teodoro should be deemed the appropriate person to extend protection to her. The
parties then respectively appealed. The appeals were then consolidated.

ISSUE: W/N the issuance of the writ of amparo was warranted in this particular circumstance

HELD: A writ of amparo is an independent and summary remedy to provide immediate judicial relief for the
protection of a person's constitutional right to life and liberty. Moreover, the writ of amparo is both preventive
and curative. It is preventive when it seeks to stop the impunity in committing offenses that violates a person's
right to live and be free. It is curative when it facilitates subsequent punishment of perpetrators through an
investigation and action. Thus, the writ of amparo either prevents a threat from becoming an actual violation
against a person or cures the violation of a person's right through investigation and punishment.

The CA has correctly determined the existence of the justification to warrant the issuance of the writ
of amparo in favor of Lt. SG Gadian. In this case, she sought for a preventive writ of amparo.

The CA likewise observed that the official with the capacity to provide protection to Lt. SG Gadian was
then Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro. This is because the institution which took her for protection is not an
accredited agency, in accordance with the rule on the writ of amparo. However, the viability of institutions
extending protection should not be dismissed on the ground of lack of accreditation because the matter of
protection should be of foremost consideration.

The Court, however, held that the danger to the life and security of Lt. SG Gadian had already ceased, if
not entirely disappeared. Although summoned to appear at the AFP's investigation of her expose, she voluntarily
chose not to, despite the institutional assurances for her personal safety.

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the consolidated appeals for being now moot and academic.
 5

People of the Philippines v. Dr. David Sobrepeña, Sr.

GR 204063 | December 05, 2016

FACTS: Respondents are officers and employees of Union College of Laguna, an educational institution in Santa
Cruz, Laguna. They were charged for allegedly committing Estafa and Large Scale Illegal Recruitment before the
RTC of Laguna. Invoking the provisions of Section 13 Article III of the Constitution and Section 7 Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court and in their belief that the evidence of their guilt is not strong, respondents filed a Petition for
Bail.

The prosecution presented, among others, Adelfo Carandang, who alleged that he was lured into joining
the program after inquiring about the flyers and advertisement posted on the walls of Union College. He further
alleged that the petitioners assured him that he will be working in Canada and though he was part of the 37
persons who were alleged to have been hired 100% by "dairy cream franchisers", he was, however, not able to
go abroad.

The RTC held that the evidence of guilt for all the accused is strong. Thus, the trial court denied the
Petition for Bail. On appeal, the CA held that there is doubt as to whether there is strong evidence against
respondents. Hence, it ordered the trial court to give due course to the Petition for Bail filed by petitioners.
Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, hence the petition.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred when it nullified and set aside the Orders of the RTC which claims to have correctly
denied the Petition for Bail

HELD: The Court held in the affirmative. In cases involving non-bailable offenses, what is controlling is the
determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong. It is a matter of judicial discretion that remains with
the judge. A summary hearing is defined as such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the
evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of hearing which is merely to determine the
weight of evidence for the purposes of bail.

In the present case, the RTC held a summary hearing and based on the summary of evidence,
formulated its conclusion in denying the Petition for Bail. Respondents impugned said finding through a
Petition for Certiorari. From the perspective of the CA Decision, the issue therein resolved is not so much on
the bail application but already on the merits of the case. The matters dealt therein involved the evaluation of
evidence which is not within the jurisdiction of the CA to resolve in a Petition for Certiorari.

We would like to stress that a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.
It may only be considered to have been committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was "done
contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence.” No such circumstances exist in this case as to justify the
issuance of a writ of certiorari by the CA. On the contrary, the RTC acted in complete accord with law and
jurisprudence in denying bail in favor of respondents.

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, declared NULL and VOID the Resolution of the CA, and
REINSTATED the Orders of the RTC of Laguna.
 6

Ho Wai Pang v. People of the Philippines

GR 176229 | October 19, 2011

FACTS: On September 6, 1991, UAE Airlines Flight No. 068 from Hongkong arrived at the NAIA. Among the
passengers were 13 Hongkong nationals who came to the Philippines as tourists. At the arrival area, Customs
Examiner Gilda Cinco examined the baggages of each of the 13 passengers wherein she discovered that the
suspicious chocolate boxes did not in fact contain chocolates, but white crystalline substance. The 13 tourists
were brought to the NBI for further questioning. Accordingly, six separate Informations were filed against
petitioner and his co-accused. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation which the trial court granted. The
reinvestigation conducted gave way to a finding of conspiracy and this resulted to the filing of a single Amended
Information.

The RTC rendered a Decision finding all the accused guilty of RA 6425. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
Decision of the RTC. Undeterred, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the CA denied. Hence, the
petition.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in not considering that petitioner was deprived of his constitutional and statutory
rights under custodial investigation.

HELD: The Court held in the negative. While there is no dispute that petitioner was subjected to all the rituals of
a custodial questioning in violation of his constitutional right under Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution,
we must not, however, lose sight of the fact that what is prohibited as evidence are only confessions and
admissions of the accused as against himself. Thus, the infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation. In the case at
bench, petitioner did not make any confession or admission during his custodial investigation. The prosecution
did not present any extrajudicial confession extracted from him as evidence of his guilt.

In addition, petitioner, through counsel, was able to fully cross-examine Cinco and the other witnesses
and test their credibility. The right to confrontation is essentially a guarantee that a defendant may cross-examine
the witnesses of the prosecution.

Verily, the evidence adduced against petitioner is so overwhelming that this Court is convinced that his
guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing else can speak so eloquently of his culpability than
the unassailable fact that he was caught red-handed in the very act of transporting, along with his co-accused,
shabu into the country.

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Resolution of the CA.