Case Digest:

Madali vs. People, GR 180380, Aug. 4, 2009

Jose vs. People, 448 SCRA 116 (2005)

Alvarez vs. People, GR 192591, Jul. 30, 2012

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 180380 August 4, 2009

RAYMUND MADALI and RODEL MADALI, Petitioners,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Useful Doctrines and Principles/Laws:

a. Republic Act No. 9344, SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility.

b. SEC. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility.

c. Two elements for an Alibi to Prosper.

Facts:

For the death of AAA, a minor, Raymund, Rodel and a certain Bernardino “Jojo” Maestro were charged
before the RTC with the crime of Murder. The three accused, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded
not guilty. On trial, the prosecution presented eight witnesses.

Jovencio, an eyewitness of the incident executed an affidavit of his testimony positively identifying the
accused as the perpetrator of the offense. He executed his first affidavit but because of the threat made
on him by a certain Wilson, an uncle of Raymund and Rodel, Jovencio executed a second affidavit,
repudiating his first affidavit. And finally, Jovencio made his third sworn statement substantially
reverting to his first affidavit.

He was presented in the court and stated his version of the incident. The accused interposed the
defense of denial and alibi. The RTC rendered a guilty verdict against the 3 accused of the crime of
homicide with appreciation of mitigating circumstance of minority. On appeal, the CA affirm the RTC
decision with modification.

Raymund is exempted from the liability thereon being 15 years below at the commission of the offense
while Rodel’s conviction was sustained.

Issue: W/N the parties and their witnesses are credible in the case.

Ruling:
Yes. The testimony of Jovencio was substantiated by the medical findings supported Jovencio’s account.
Against the damning evidence adduced by the prosecution, petitioners Raymund and Rodel could only
muster mere denial. Unfortunately for them, their defense was much too flaccid to stay firm against the
weighty evidence for the prosecution. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a
negative and self-serving evidence that deserves no weight in law. It cannot be given greater evidentiary
value than the testimony of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.Furthermore, for alibi
to prosper, two elements must concur: (a) the accused was in another place at the time the crime was
committed; and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was
committed. In the case under consideration, it was not physically impossible for them to be at the crime
scene and to be participants in the gruesome crime.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. NO. 162052 : January 13, 2005

ALVIN JOSE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Useful Doctrine and Principle:

a. Conspiracy with minors vis a vis discernment

Facts:

On November 14, 1995, P/Supt Joseph Castro received an information from an unnamed informant that
a big time group of drug pushers from Greenhills will deliver 100 grams of shabu at Chowking. Acting on
such report,SPO1 Bonifacio Gueverra was assigned to act as a poseur buyer. They positioned their cars at
the parking area where they had a commanding view of people going in and out. In the afternoon a
Toyota Corolla arrived, Sonny Zarraga was the driver with Alvin Jose. The unnamed informant
approached and talked to Sonny Zarraga. Then, the informant called SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra and
informed the latter that Sonny Zarraga had with him 100 grams of shabu.

SPO1 Guevarra offered to buy the shabu. Sonny Zarragaasked SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra if he had the
money. Guevarra said yes. He showed the aforecited bundle of "money bills." Sonny Zarraga then asked
Alvin Jose to bring out the shabu and handover to Guevarra.

SPO1 Guevarra, in turn, handed the bundle of "money bills. Then the other police approached and
introduced themselves as Narcom Operatives. They arrested Sonny Zarragaand Alvin Jose. The RTC finds
both the accused Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt, for violation of R.A.
6425. On appeal to the CA, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decisionappealed from with
modification. The appellate court reduced the penalty imposed on appellant Alvin Jose, on its finding
that he was only thirteen (13) years old when he committed the crime.

Issue:

Whether or not Alvin Jose can be exempt from criminal liability underthe mitigating circumstances of
minority.

Ruling:

Yes. Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine years of age and under fifteen is
exempt from criminal liability if charged with afelony. The law applies even if such minor is charged with
a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law. In such case, it is the burden of the minor toprove
his age in order for him to be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for the exemption is that a minor
of such age is presumed lacking the mental element of a crime.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 192591 July 30, 2012

EFREN L. ALVAREZ, Petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Useful Doctrines and Principles/Laws:

a. It bears stressing that the offense defined under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed
even if bad faith is not attendant.

b. RA 7718 - Section 3

Facts:

This resolves the motion for reconsideration of the decision which affirmed the conviction of petitioner
for violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019.

Petitioner stresses there was no bad faith. He stresses that there was substantial compliance with the
requirements of RA 7718 and while it is true that petitioner may have deviated from some of the
procedure outline in the law, the essential purpose of the law –that a project proposal be properly
evaluated and that parties other than the opponent be given opportunity to present their proposal –
was accomplished.

SOLGEN – the findings of the SB and the SC of the Built-operate-transfer (BOT) law and its rules have not
been followed in the bidding and award of the contract to Australian professional were based on the
documents of the project which have not been questioned by petitioner. Despite the claim of substantial
compliance, it is undisputed that it did not include the required company profile of the contractor and
that the publication of the invidiation for comparative proposals were defective.

Issue: W/N the prosecution was able to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt? (Were they able to
establish the alleged gross inexcusable negligence, evident bad faith or manifest partiality of the
petitioner.)

Ruling:

Notably, petitioner’s invocation of good faith deserves scant consideration in the light of established
facts, as found by the Sandiganbayan and upheld by this Court, clearly showing that he acted with
manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence in awarding the BOT project to an unlicensed and
financially unqualified contractor. It bears stressing that the offense defined under Section 3 (e) of R.A.
No. 3019 may be committed even if bad faith is not attendant. Thus, even assuming that petitioner did
not act in bad faith, his negligence under the circumstances was not only gross but also inexcusable.
Submission of documents such as contractor’s license and company profile are minimum legal
requirements to enable the government to properly evaluate the qualifications of a BOT proponent. It
was unthinkable for a local government official, especially one with several citations and awards as
outstanding local executive, to have allowed API to submit a BOT proposal and later award it the contract
despite lack of a contractor’s license and proof of its financial and technical capabilities, relying merely
on a piece of information from a news item about said contractor’s ongoing mall construction project in
another municipality and verbal representations of its president.