Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

ATIENZA AND CASTRO vs.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014

Facts:

Atienza and Castro (petitioners) are employees of the CA, particularly assigned to its Budget
Division and holding the positions of Budget Officer I and Utility Worker I, respectively, at the time
material to this case.

On March 20, 1995, at about past noon, Juanito Atibula (Atibula), Records Officer I and Custodian of the
CA Original Decisions in the CA Reporter’s Division, was invited by Castro to attend Atienza’s birthday
party somewhere along Bocobo Street, Ermita, Manila. At the party, Atienza introduced Atibula to a
certain Dario and asked him to assist the latter in searching for the CA decision in the case entitled
"Mateo Fernando v. Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc." (Fernando). Thereafter, Atibula returned to the office –
followed a few minutes later by Dario – and searched for the aforementioned decision which was found
compiled in Volume 260 of the CA Original Decisions. As Dario was scanning through the said volume,
Atibula observed that he was comparing its pages to the discolored papers he was holding. Dario likewise
scanned Volumes 265 and 267, and placed check marks on the papers he was holding.

On March 24, 1995, after office hours, Atibula saw Dario outside the CA compound along Maria Orosa
Street. As they walked side by side towards the jeepney stop, Dario requested Atibula to insert a Decision
dated September 26, 1968 in one of the volumes of the CA Original Decisions. However, Atibula refused
and immediately left.

On April 21, 1995, Atienza offered Atibula the amount of P50,000.00 in exchange for Volume 260,
which the latter turned down. Atienza then ridiculed him saying, "duwag ka, pera na nga ito ayaw mo pa,"
to which Atibula retorted, "ikaw ang duwag dahil nagpapakita ka ng kabuktutan."

Disturbed by the situation, Atibula reported the incident to Atty. Arnel Macapagal (Atty. Macapagal), the
Assistant Chief of the CA Reporter’s Division, who then instructed him (Atibula) to hide Volumes 260,
265 and 267 in a safe place.

On May 9, 1995, Atibula discovered that Volume 266 covering the period from January 28 to February
12, 1969 was missing and, hence, immediately reported the same to Atty. Macapagal. Two days after the
discovery of the loss, Atibula encountered Atienza near the canteen, shouting "[p]utang ina mo, Juaning,
pinahirapan mo kami!"

On May 18, 1995, a certain Nelson de Castro, Clerk IV detailed at the CA Reporter’s Division, handed to
Atibula a bag containing a gift-wrapped package which turned out to be the missing Volume 266. He
claimed that it was Castro who asked him to deliver the said package to Atibula. Having been notified of
Volume 266’s return, Atty. Macapagal then directed Atibula to ascertain who borrowed the volume.
Records, however, disclosed no one. Separately, Atibula compared the contents of Volume 266 with the
index of the decisions and noticed that there were two new documents inserted therein.

Meanwhile, sometime in the second week of July 1995, an inspection of the air-conditioning units at the
office of the CA Reporter’s Division was conducted, whereby it was discovered that the improvised angle
bar supporting the air conditioning unit at the right most end from the main door was corroded with rust
and the portion of the wall holding the same was broken ("may bak-bak na"). NBI Agents, Atty. Daniel
D. Daganzo (Atty. Daganzo) and Norman R. Decampong then conducted an ocular inspection of the
premises, and, in the course thereof, interviewed several personnel of the CA Maintenance Division. Said
investigation yielded the following findings: there was conspiracy to commit the crime of Falsification of
Public Document between Atienza and Dario in view of their "concerted efforts through previous or
simultaneous acts and deeds, among others.

In his defense, Atienza denied having anything to do with the questioned incidents as he was not even
summoned by the CA Clerk of Court or the Chief of the Reporter’s Division, and became aware of the
incident only when he and Castro were subpoenaed by the NBI Special Investigators. Further, he gave the
alibi that he was out of the office 4 days a week during the months of April to June 1995, reporting only
on Fridays, since he had to perform his duties as Budget Officer I of the CA Budget Division and Liaison
Officer to the Department of Budget and Management, the Committee on Appropriation of the Congress,
Committee on Appropriation of the lower house, and the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the
GSIS.

On the other hand, Castro did not endeavor to refute the allegations in the Informations filed against him
and the other accused.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists conspiracy on the part of Castro and the two other accused

HELD:

Notwithstanding Castro’s failure to refute the charges against him, the Court finds no evidence to
link him to the commission of the crimes of Robbery and Falsification of Public Document, contrary to
the conclusions reached by the RTC and concurred in by the CA. To begin with, it is essential to note that
Castro’s purported possession and eventual return of Volume 266 was only premised upon the statement
of one Nelson de Castro (Nelson), i.e., the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated August 9, 1995, who averred that
on May 18, 1995, at around 11:50 in the morning, Castro told him to pass by his office and there handed
him a bag which, as it turned out, contained the missing Volume 266, viz.:

Noong Mayo 18, 1995 bandang 11:50 ng tanghali ay tumawag sa telepono si ALFREDO CASTRO, ng
Budget Division, at sinabihan ako na dumaan sa kanyang opisina dahil mayroon daw siyang ibibigay para
sa opisina namin. Pumunta po naman ako kaagad kay ALFREDO CASTRO sa opisina at iniabot sa akin
ang isang bag na malaki kulay parang pink at may laman at sinabihan pa niya ako na buksan ko na lang
daw ang bag pagdating sa opisina. Pagdating ko sa opisina ay tinawag ko si Mr. ATIBULA at doon ay
binuksan naming dalawa ang bag. Nakita ko sa loob ang isang bagay na nakabalot sa isang gift wrap at ng
buksan namin o alisin ang gift wrap ay ang Original Decisions, Volume 266 na nawawala mga ilang
linggo na ang nakakaraan.
Nelson was not, however, presented before the RTC during trial, hence, was not subjected to any in-court
examination. It is settled that while affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are
acknowledged before a notary public (here, a public officer authorized to administer oaths), they are still
classified as hearsay evidence unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify
thereon and the adverse party is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine them. With the prosecution’s
failure to present Nelson to affirm his statement that Castro caused the return of Volume 266, the
prosecution’s evidence on the matter should be treated as hearsay and, thus, inadmissible to establish the
truth or falsity of the relevant claims. Consequently, there exists no sufficient circumstantial evidence to
prove Castro’s guilt.

PEOPLE VS. RICOHERMOSO


G.R. Nos. L-30527-28, March 29, 1974

Facts:

At about nine o'clock in the morning of January 30, 1965 Geminiano de Leon, together with his
thirty-three-year old common-law wife Fabiana Rosales, his twenty-four-year old son Marianito de Leon
and one Rizal Rosales, encountered Pio Ricohermoso in Barrio Tagbacan Silangan, Catanauan, Quezon.

Geminiano owned a parcel of land in that barrio which Ricohermoso cultivated as kaingin. Geminiano
asked Ricohermoso about his share of the palay harvest. He added that he should at least be allowed to
taste the palay harvested from his land. Ricohermoso answered that Geminiano could go to his house
anytime and he would give the latter palay. Geminiano rejoined that he could not get the palay that
morning because he was on his way to Barrio Bagobasin but, on his return, he would stop at
Ricohermoso's house and get the palay.

When Geminiano returned to Barrio Tagbacan Silangan, he stopped at Ricohermoso's place. It was about
two o'clock in the afternoon. Geminiano sat on a sack beside Fabiana Rosales in front of the house while
Marianito stood about three meters behind his father. A .22 caliber rifle was slung on Marianito's right
shoulder. Ricohermoso stood near the door of his house while Severo Padernal was stationed near the
eaves of the house.

Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about the palay. The latter, no longer conciliatory and evidently hostile,
answered in a defiant tone: "Whatever happens, I will not give you palay." Geminiano remonstrated:
"Why did you tell us to pass by your house, if you were not willing to give the palay?"

At that juncture, as if by pre-arrangement, Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and approached Geminiano
from the left, while Severo Padernal (Ricohermoso's father-in-law) got an axe and approached Geminiano
from the right. The latter looked up to the sexagenarian Severo Padernal, with both hands raised and
pleaded: "Mamay (Grandpa), why will you do this to us. We will not fight you." While Geminiano was
still looking up to Severo Padernal on his right, Ricohermoso walked to Geminiano's left, and, when
about one meter from him, stabbed him on the neck with his bolo. Geminiano fell face downward on the
ground. While in that helpless position, he was hacked on the back with an axe by Severo Padernal.

At that same place and time, while Severo Padernal and Ricohermoso were assaulting Geminiano de
Leon, another episode was taking place. Juan Padernal (Ricohermoso's brother-in-law and the son of
Severo) suddenly embraced Marianito de Leon from behind, with his right arm locked around Marianito's
neck and his left hand pressing Marianito's left forearm. They grappled and rolled downhill towards a
camote patch. Marianito passed out. When he regained consciousness, his rifle was gone. He walked
uphill, saw his mortally wounded father Geminiano in his death throes, and embraced him. He carried
Geminiano for a short distance. The fifty-one year old Geminiano died at two o'clock on that same day.

Appellants' version is that in the afternoon of January 30, 1965, when Ricohermoso refused to give any
palay to Geminiano de Leon, because the land tilled by the former was allegedly a public land,
Geminiano approached Ricohermoso. When Geminiano unsheathed his bolo, Ricohermoso met him, drew
his bolo and struck Geminiano on the left side of the neck. The latter tried to parry the blow. He was
wounded in the wrist. As Geminiano turned right to flee, Ricohermoso struck him again on the left side of
his body, causing him to fall on the ground. Geminiano died on the spot due to the bleeding from the
wound on his neck.

While Geminiano was being assaulted, his son Marianito tried to shoot with his rifle but Juan Padernal
disabled him and wrested the gun. Marianito suffered abrasions on the neck and other parts of the body
(Pages 1 to 3, appellants' brief).

It is manifest that the defendants fashioned their version in such a way as to shift the responsibility for the
killing to Ricohermoso, a fugitive from justice who has not been tried. They also tried to exculpate Severo
Padernal and to prove that Ricohermoso acted in self-defense.

The appellants filed their brief on February 6, 1970. Later, Severo Padernal withdrew his appeal. The
withdrawal was granted in the resolution dated November 3, 1970. That withdrawal strengthened the case
for the prosecution or the appellee and rendered inoperative appellants' version of the case. Severo
Padernal in effect accepted as correct the prosecution's version of the tragic incident and the trial court's
finding that he conspired with Ricohermoso and his son, Juan, to kill Geminiano de Leon.

Appellant Juan Padernal invokes the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury (par.
4, Art. 11, Revised Penal Code) in explaining his act of preventing Marianito de Leon from shooting
Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury in
this case

HELD:

Appellant Juan Padernal invokes the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or
injury (par. 4, Art. 11, Revised Penal Code) in explaining his act of preventing Marianito de Leon from
shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal. His reliance on that justifying circumstance is erroneous.
The act of Juan Padernal in preventing Marianito de Leon from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo
Padernal, who were the aggressors, was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon without any
risk to his assailants.

Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable Marianito. Padernal's malicious
intention was to forestall any interference in the felonious assault made by his father and brother-in-law
on Geminiano. That situation is unarguably not the case envisaged in paragraph 4 of article 11.
PEOPLE vs. BERONILLA
G.R. No. L-4445, February 28, 1955

Facts:

Arsenio Borjal was the elected mayor of La Paz, Abra, at the outbreak of war, and continued to
serve as Mayor during the Japanese occupation, until March 10, 1943, when he moved to Bangued
because of an attempt upon his life by unknown persons. On December 18, 1944, appellant Manuel
Beronilla was appointed Military Mayor of La Paz by Lt. Col. R. H. Arnold, regimental commander of
the 15th Infantry, Philippine Army, operating as a guerrilla unit in the province of Abra. Simultaneously
with his appointment as Military Mayor, Beronilla received copy of a memorandum issued by Lt. Col.
Arnold to all Military Mayors in Northern Luzon, authorizing them "to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to
try persons accused of treason, espionage, or the aiding and abetting (of ) the enemy". He also received
from the Headquarters of the 15th Infantry a list of all puppet government officials of the province of
Abra (which included Arsenio Borjal, puppet mayor of La Paz), with a memorandum instructing all
Military Mayors to investigate said persons and gather against them complaints from people of the
municipality for collaboration with the enemy.

Sometime in March, 1945, while the operations for the liberation of the province of Abra were in
progress, Arsenio Borjal returned to La Paz with his family in order to escape the bombing of Bangued.
Beronilla, pursuant to his instructions, placed Borjal under custody and asked the residents of La Paz to
file complaints against him. In no time, charges of espionage, aiding the enemy, and abuse of authority
were filed against Borjal; a 12-man jury was appointed by Beronilla, composed of Jesus Labuguen as
chairman, and Benjamin Adriatico, Andres Afos, Juanito Casal, Santiago Casal, Benjamin Abella,
Servillano Afos, Mariano Ajel, Felimon Labuguen, Felix Murphy, Pedro Turqueza, and Delfin Labuguen
as members; while Felix Alverne and Juan Balmaceda were named prosecutors, Policarpio Paculdo as
clerk of the jury, and Lino Inovermo as counsel for the accused. Later, Atty. Jovito Barreras voluntarily
appeared and served as counsel for Borjal. Sgt. Esteban Cabanos observed the proceedings for several
days upon instructions of Headquarters, 15th Infantry. The trial lasted 19 days up to April 10, 1945; the
jury found Borjal guilty on all accounts and imposed upon him instruction from his superiors. Mayor
Beronilla forwarded the records of the case to the Headquarters of the 15th Infantry for review.

and on the night of the same day, April 18, 1945, Beronilla ordered the execution of Borjal. Jacinto
Adriatico acted as executioner and Antonio Palope as grave digger. Father Luding of the Roman Catholic
Church was asked to administer the last confession to the prisoner, while Father Filipino Velasco of the
Aglipayan Church performed the last rites over Borjal's remains. Immediately after the execution,
Beronilla reported the matter to Col. Arnold.

Two years thereafter, Manuel Beronilla as military mayor, Policarpio Paculdo as Clerk of the jury, Felix
Alverne and Juan Balmaceda as prosecutors, Jesus Labuguen, Delfin Labuguen, Filemon Labuguen,
Servillano Afos, Andres Afos, Benjamin Adriatico, Juanito Casel, Santiago Casel, Mariano Ajel, Felix
Murphy, Benjamin Abella, and Pedro Turqueza as members of the jury, Jacinto Adriatico as executioner,
Severo Afos as grave digger, and Father Filipino Velasco as an alleged conspirator, were indicted in the
Court of First Instance of Abra for murder, for allegedly conspiring and confederating in the execution of
Arsenio Borjal. Soon thereafter, the late President Manuel A. Roxas issued Executive Proclamation No. 8,
granting amnesty to all persons who committed acts penalized under the Revised Penal Code in
furtherance of the resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy.
Defendant Jesus Labuguen, then a master sergeant in the Philippine Army, applied for and was granted
amnesty by the Amnesty Commission, Armed Forces of the Philippines. The rest of the defendant filed
their application for amnesty with the Second Guerrilla Amnesty Commission, who denied their
application on the ground that the crime had been inspired by purely personal motives, and remanded the
case to the Court of First Instance of Abra for trial on the merits.

The records are ample to sustain the claim of the defense that the arrest, prosecution and trial of the late
Arsenio Borjal were done pursuant to express orders of the 15th Infantry Headquarters, instructing all
military mayors under its jurisdiction to gather evidence against puppet officials and to appoint juries of at
least 12 bolomen to try the accused and find them guilty by two thirds vote. It is to be noted that Arsenio
Borjal was specifically named in the list of civilian officials to be prosecuted.

In truth, the prosecution does not seriously dispute that the trial and sentencing of Borjal was done in
accordance with instructions of superior military authorities, although it point to irregularities that were
due more to ignorance of legal processes than personal animosity against Borjal. The state, however,
predicates its case principally on the existence of the radiogram Exhibit H from Col. Volckmann, overall
area commander, to Lt. Col. Arnold, specifically calling attention to the illegality of Borjal's conviction
and sentence, and which the prosecution claims was known to the accused Beronilla. Said message is as
follows:

"Message:

VOLCKMANN TO ARNOLD CLN UNDERSTAND THAT MUNICIPALITIES OF ABRA HAVE


ORGANIZED JURY SYSTEM PD BELIEVE THAT THIS BODY IS ILLEGAL AND CANNOT TRY
PUNISHMENTS THEREOF PD SPECIFIC INSTANCE IS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION FRO
PROPER AND IMMEDIATE ACTION ON ONE ARSENIO BORJAL OF LA PAZ WHO HAS BEEN
TRIED CMA CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO BE HANGED PD REPORT ACTION TAKEN BY
YOU ON THIS MATTER PD MSG BEGINS CLN"

ISSUE:

Whether or not this message, originally sent to Arnold's quarters in San Esteban, Ilocos Sur, was
relayed by the latter to appellant Beronilla in La Paz, Abra, on the morning of April 18, 1945, together
with the package of records of Borjal's trial that was admittedly returned to and received by Beronilla on
that date, after review thereof by Arnold. Obviously, if the Volckmann message was known to Beronilla,
his ordering the execution of Borjal on the night of April 18, 1945 can not be justified.

HELD:

The Court carefully examined the evidence on this important issue, and find no satisfactory proof
that Beronilla did actually receive the radiogram Exhibit H or any copy thereof. The accused roundly
denied it. The messenger, or "runner", Pedro Molina could not state what papers were enclosed in the
package he delivered to Beronilla on that morning in question, nor could Francisco Bayquen (or Bayken),
who claimed to have been present at the delivery of the message, state the contents thereof.

The plain import of the affidavit is that the witness Rafael Balmaceda was not with Beronilla
when the message arrived, otherwise Beronilla would have given him his orders direct, as he (Balmaceda)
testified later at the trial. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that having learned of the contents of the
Volckmann message, Balmaceda should not have relayed it to Borjal , or to some member of the latter's
family, considering that they were relatives. In addition to Balmaceda was contradicted by Bayken,
another prosecution witness, as to the hatching of the alleged conspiracy to kill Borjal. Balmaceda
claimed that the accused-appellants decided to kill Borjal in the early evening of April 18, while Bayken
testified that the agreement was made about ten o'clock in the morning, shortly after the accused had
denied Borjal's petition to be allowed to hear mass.
The Court concluded that Lt. Col. Arnold, for some reason that cannot now be ascertained, failed to
transmit the Volckmann message to Beronilla. And this being so, the charge of criminal conspiracy to do
away with Borjal must be rejected, because the accused had no need to conspire against a man who was,
to their knowledge, duly sentenced to death.

Вам также может понравиться