G.R. No.

177961

April 7, 2009

LOURDES A. SABLE, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. ENRIQUETA LOQUILLANOBELARMINO, Presiding Judge, Branch 57, RTC, Cebu City,
Respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner, together with Concepcion Abangan (Concepcion), Ildefonsa Anoba
(Ildefonsa) and Valentine Abellanosa (Valentine), is accused in Criminal Case
No. CBU-35455 of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172(1) in
relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner and co-accused Ildefonsa were arraigned on 20 July 1994 while coaccused Concepcion was never arrested. During the initial trial, Atty. Gines
Abellana, counsel for all the accused, manifested that co-accused Valentine
was already dead and requested that his name be dropped from the
information.
By virtue of the Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs, Lot No. 3608 was
subdivided into two lots, namely, 3608-A and 3608-B; and OCT No. RO-2740
was cancelled. Lot No. 3608-A was transferred to the name of co-accused
Concepcion and was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
113266. With respect to Lot No. 3608-B, petitioner was able to execute a
Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of one Perpetua Sombilon, and accordingly,
the title to the lot was transferred to the name of the latter under TCT No.
113267.
On 28 November 2000, the RTC convicted petitioner of the crime of
Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172(1) in relation to Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code, but acquitted Ildefonsa.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said RTC Decision
on 20 January 2001. After several postponements due to the vacancy in the
court a quo, the motion was submitted for resolution only on 29 June 2001.
The same was denied by respondent Judge Enriqueta Loquillano-Belarmino in
an Order dated 20 November 2003. On 13 December 2002, a copy of the
Order denying reconsideration of the judgment was received by petitioners
counsel.

Subsequently, in an Order dated 22 July 2003, respondent Judge denied the

Motions to Recall Warrant of Arrest and to Vacate Entry of Judgment.
Petitioners Notice of Appeal was also denied for having been filed out of
time.
On 25 August 2003, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the 22 July
2003 Order and intimated her desire to apply for probation instead of
appealing the judgment of conviction.11 In a Motion12 dated 15 October
2003, petitioner again prayed for the Recall of the Warrant of Arrest against
her, while her Motion for Reconsideration and her application for probation
were pending resolution before the RTC.
Finally, on 20 November 2003, the RTC issued the assailed Order.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of
Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 81981, raising the sole issue of
whether or not the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in
denying the application for probation.
The petitioner prays that the instant petition be granted by allowing her to
apply for probation and ordering the RTC through respondent Judge to act on
the application for probation by the petitioner, based upon the
recommendation of the probationer who may be assigned to conduct the
investigation of said application.
Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified
offender. It essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible
convict to immediately admit his liability and save the state the time, effort
and expenses to jettison an appeal.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the petition is procedurally flawed for being an improper
recourse;
2. Whether it should be denied for non-compliance with the mandatory
requirement of the law that an application for probation must be filed within
the period for perfecting an appeal.
HELD:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision dated 14 December 2006 and

Resolution dated 21 February 2007 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. No

costs.
VALEROSO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
22, 2008

GR 164815

February

FACTS:
On July 10, 1996, SPO2 Antonio Disuanco of the Criminal Investigation
Section Division, Central Police District Command received a dispatch order
which directed him and three (3) other personnel to serve a warrant of arrest
against petitioner in a case for kidnapping with ransom. After briefing, team
conducted necessary surveillance on petitioner, checking his hideouts in
Cavite, Caloocan and Bulacan. Then, the team proceeded to the Integrated
National Police Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw
petitioner as he was about to board a tricycle. SPO2 Disuanco and his team
approached petitioner. They put him under arrest, informed him of his
constitutional rights, and bodily searched him. Found tucked in his waist was
a Charter Arms, bearing Serial Number 52315 with five (5) live ammunition.
Petitioner was brought to the police station for questioning. A verification of
the subject firearm at the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame
revealed that it was not issued to the petitioner but to another person.
Petitioner was then charged with illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition under PD No. 1866 as amended.
On May 6, 1998 trial court found petitionerguilty as charged and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum plus fine.
Petitioner moved to reconsider but his motion was denied. He appealed to
the CA. On May 4, 2004, the appellate court affirmed the RTC disposition.
SC affirmed CAs decision.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not retroactive application of the law is valid taken into
account that the commission of the offense was on July 10, 1996 wherein the
governing law was PD 1866 which provides the penalty of reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
HELD:
(1) YES. RA 8294 amended PD 1866 on July 6, 1997, during the pendency of
the case with the trial court. The law looks forward, never backward

(prospectivity).Lex prospicit, non respicit. A new law has a prospective, not

retroactive, effect. However, penal laws that favor a guilty person, who is not
a habitual criminal, shall be given retroactive effect.(Exception and exception
to the exception on effectivity of laws).
People v. Jacinto G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011
FACTS:
In the evening of January 28, 2003 at about 6 oclock in the evening, FFF, the
father of the victim AAA, sent his 8 year old daughter CCC to buy cigarettes
at the store of Rudy Hatague. AAA followed CCC. When CCC returned without
AAA, FFF was not worried as he thought AAA was watching television at her
aunt Rita Lingcays house. Julito Apike went to the same store at around 6:20
PM to buy a bottle of Tanduay Rum and saw appellant place AAA on his lap.
Julio, Hermie and AAA left the store at the same time, Julito proceeded to
Ritas house while Hermieand AAA to the lower area. AAA was brought by
Hermie to the ricefield near the house of spouses Alejandro and Gloria
Perocho, there AAA was made to lie down on the ground, her panties
removed and was boxed by the accused in the chest. Half-naked, accused
mounted AAAand made a push and pull movement causing AAA to cry.
Appellant then went to the house of thePerochos while the victim went home
crying. Medico-legal exam revealed hymenal laceration at 5 and 9 oclock.
RTC finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced to
reclusion perpetua, a fine of PHP 75,000 as rape indemnity and PHP 50,000
as moral damages.CA on appeal affirmed the lower courts decision with the
following modifications: (1) accused should suffer an indeterminate penalty
from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years
and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum and fined PHP 75,000 as
civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages, and PHP 25,000 as exemplary
damages..
ISSUE:
Is the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape?
RULING:
Yes, the Court considered three well-entrenched principles: (1) accusation of
rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
accused, though innocent, to disprove,(2) testimony of the complainant must
be scrutinized with extreme caution, (3) evidence for prosecution must stand

on its own merit and not depend on the weakness of the defense. The Court
finds that the testimony of the victim was credible, natural and convincing as
proven by victims positive identification of the accused, description of what
was done to her and how the accused spread her legs, inserted his penis and
made push and pull movements. This was corroborated by medico-legal
findings of hymenal lacerations. Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently
established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but imposes a
penalty of reclusion perpetua, and affirms the damages awarded by the CA
of PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages and
increasing exemplary damages to PHP 30,000.Furthermore, in accordance
with Section 38 of RA 9344, automatic suspension of sentence is applied and
in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344, accused is confined to an
agricultural camp or other training facility established, maintained, and
controlled by BUCOR in coordination with the DSWD.
PEOPLE VS GARCIA GR 153591 FEBRUARY 23, 2004
Facts:
On May 22, 1998, Bentley Billon and Sanily, boarded a passenger
jeepney on their way to school and alighted on Zabarto Road. While Sanily
was crossing the street, a passenger jeepney hit her. The jeepney stopped
and suddenly accelerated running over Sanilys stomach. Bentley and
appellant pulled her from underneath the vehicle and brought her to the
hospital where she died four days later. The lower court rendered judgment,
finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
qualified by evident premeditation because he deliberately ran over the
slumped body of the victim.
Issue:
Whether or not he is guilty of murder or reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide.
Ruling:
The elements of evident premeditation are: 1) a previous decision by
the appellant to commit the crime; 2) an overt acts/acts manifestly indicating
that the appellant clung to his determination; and 3) a lapse of time between
the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow
appellant to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. When the vehicle
stopped and accelerated the crime. There is also no evidence that shows

overt acts for the commission of the crime. The court ruled that the accused
is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Art. 365 of the RPC states that reckless imprudence consists in
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution. In this
case, the appellant showed an inexcusable lack of precaution when he
disregarded a traffic sign cautioning motorist to slow down and drove his
vehicle in full speed despite being aware that he was transversing a school
zone and pedestrian were crossing the street.
Calimutan v. People
G.R. No. 152133, February 9, 2006
FACTS:
February 4, 1996 around 10 am: Cantre and witness Saano, together with
two other companions, had a drinking spree at a videoke bar but as they
were headed home, they crossed paths with Calimutan and Michael
Bulalacao.
Cantre, 26 years old and 5 ft. 9 inches, had a grudge against Bulalacao, a 15
year-old boy of 5ft. for suspecting that he threw stones at the his house on a
previous night so he punched him
Seeking to protect Bulalacao and to stop Cantre, Calimutan picked a stone,
as big as a mans fist and hitting Cantre at the left side of his back not
noticing that Bulalacao was already able to ran away.
Cantre stopped for a moment and held his back and Calimutan desisted from
any other act of violence
Witness Saano then brought Cantre home where he complained of
backache and also of stomach ache and was unable to eat
By night time, he felt cold then warm then he was sweating profusely and his
entire body felt numb
Having no vehicle, they could not bring him to a doctor so his mother just
continue to wipe him with a piece of cloth and brought him some food when
he asked.
After eating a little, he vomited.

Shortly after complaining again of his backache and stomach ache, he died.
The Post-Mortem Examination Report and Certification of Death, issued and
signed by Dr. Ulanday, stated that the cause of death of victim Cantre was
cardio-respiratory arrest due to suspected food poisoning
With the help of the Lingkod Bayan-Circulo de Abogadas of the ABS-CBN
Foundation, an autopsy was done by Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez which showed
that there was internal hemorrhage and massive accumulation of blood in his
abdominal cavity due to his lacerated spleen caused by a blunt object like a
stone.
RTC issued a warrant of arrest and during arraignment Calimutan pleaded
not guilty to the crime of homicide
RTC: Essentially adopting the prosecutions account of the incident, held that
Calimutan was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide with a penalty of
imprisonment from 8 years of Prision Mayor as minimum, to 12 years and 1
day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of Philip
Cantre the sum of P50,000 as compensatory damages and the sum of
P50,000 as moral damages
NOT defense of stranger , because after the boxing Bulalacao, he was able to
run thereby the unlawful aggression by Cantre ceased
The act of throwing a stone from behind which hit the victim at his back on
the left side was a treacherous
criminally liable for all the direct and natural consequences of this unlawful
act even if the ultimate result had not been intended
CA: Affirmed RTC
Calimutan filed a petition for review on certiorari contending that the
dissimilar findings on the cause of death constituted reasonable doubt
ISSUE: W/N he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide
HELD: NO. MODIFIED Calimutan is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, under Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code, and is accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum
period of 4 months of arresto mayor to a maximum period of two years and
one day of prision correccional. Petitioner Calimutan is further ORDERED to

pay the heirs of the victim Cantre the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity for the latters death and P50,000.00 as moral damages
Caminos Jr., v. People
G.R. No. 147437 May 8, 2009
Facts:
On the night of 21 June 1988 at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue and
Columbia Street in Mandaluyong City a vehicular collision happened
involving the private respondent Arnold Litonjua and herein petitioner Larry
Caminos Jr.
That while the private respondent driving and preparing to turn left as he is
reaching the said intersection, petitioner suddenly came bump into his car
from his right hand side.
Patrolman Ernesto Santos interrogated both the petitioner and the private
respondent and thenafter a traffic accident investigation report (TAIR) was
forthwith issued by P/Cpl. Antonio N. Nato of the Eastern Police District,
indicating that the private respondent had no right of way and that the
petitioner exceeding lawful speed.
In lieu with the proceedings, petitioner entered with a not guilty plea on the
arraignment; however, he was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to
damage of property before Regional Trial Court of Pasig City and was
affirmed by CA but mitigated the award of civil indemnity.
Issue:
Whether the contribution of the offended party on the said collision is a
defense extinguishing from criminal liability?
Held:
Moreover, in a prosecution for reckless or dangerous driving, the negligence
of the person who was injured or who was the driver of the motor vehicle
with which the accuseds vehicle collided does not constitute a defense.1 In
fact, even where such driver is said to be guilty of a like offense, proof
thereof may never work favors to the case of the accused.2 In other words,
proof that the offended party was also negligent or imprudent in the
operation of his automobile bears little weight, if at all, at least for purposes
of establishing the accuseds culpability beyond reasonable doubt. Hence,

even if we are to hypothesize that Arnold was likewise negligent in

neglecting to keep a proper lookout as he took a left turn at the intersection,
such negligence, contrary to petitioners contention, will nevertheless not
support an acquittal. At best, it will only determine the applicability of
several other rules governing situations where concurring negligence exists
and only for the purpose of arriving at a proper assessment of the award of
damages in favor of the private offended party.
But it must be asked: do the facts of the case support a finding that Arnold
was likewise negligent in executing the left turn? The answer is in the
negative. It is as much unsafe as it is unjust to assume that Arnold, just
because the TAIR so indicated that he at the time had no right of way, that
Arnold had performed a risky maneuver at the intersection in failing to keep
a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles. In fact, aside from petitioners bare
and self-serving assertion that Arnolds fault was the principal determining
cause of the mishap as well as his allegation that it was actually Arnolds car
that came colliding with his car, there is no slightest suggestion in the
records that could tend to negate what the physical evidence in this case has
established. Clearly, it was petitioners negligence, as pointed out by the
OSG that proximately caused the accident.
Finally, on the issue of damages, inasmuch as petitioner had not extended
efforts to present countervailing evidence disproving the extent and cost of
the damage sustained by Arnolds car, the award assessed and ordered by
the trial court must stand.
YU OH vs COURT OF APPEALS GR No. 12597 June 06, 2003
FACTS:
Petitioner purchased pieces of jewelry from Solid Gold International Traders,
Inc. Due to her failure to pay the purchase price, the company filed civil
cases against her for specific performance before the RTC of Pasig. On
September 17, 1990, petitioner and Solid Gold through it general manager,
Joaquin Novales III entered into a compromise agreement to settle said civil
cases. It was approved by the trial court provided that petitioner shall issue a
total of ninety-nine post-dated checks in the amount of PHP 50,000.00 each,
dated every 15th and 30th of the month starting October 1, 1990 and the
balance of over PHP 1million to be paid in lump sum on November 16, 1994
(the due date of the 99th post dated check). Petitioner then issued ten
checks at Php 50,000.00 each for a total of Php 500,000.00 drawn against
her account at the Equitable Banking Corporation (EBC). Novales then

deposited each of the ten checks on their respective due dates to the
company bank account. However, said checks were dishonored by the EBC
for the reason Account Closed. Dishonor slips were issued for each check
that was returned to Novales. On October 5, 1992, Novales filed 10 separate
informations before the RTC of Quezon City charging the petitioner with
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded
not guilty.
Nonetheless, RTC convicted her of ten counts of violation of BP 22. CA
affirmed the decision.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not appellate court was mistaken in not granting retroactive
effect to RA 7691 in view of Art 22 of the RPC.
(2) Whether or not notice of dishonor is indispensable in this case.
HELD:
(1) No. RA 7691 is not a penal law and therefore, Art 22 of the RPC does not
apply in the present case. A penal law is an act of the legislature that
prohibits certain acts and establishes penalties for its violations. It also
defines crime, treats of their nature and provides for its punishment. RA 7691
is a law that vests additional jurisdiction on courts, thus, it is substantive.
The court further held that it cannot be given retroactive effect.
(2) Yes. It is necessary that a notice of dishonor be received by the issuer
and the prosecution has the burden of proving the fact of service. It thus
stated in section 2 of BP 22. It is essential for the drawer to be notified of the
dishonor of her checks so she could make arrangements for its payment
within the period prescribed by law (5 days).
Hence, SC reversed the decision of the CA and acquits the petioner.