PAL vs CA (GR No. 49188, 30 January 1990)

Facts:
Amelia Tan was found to have been wronged by Philippine Air Lines (PAL). She filed her complaint in 1967. After ten (10) years of protracted litigation in the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals, Ms. Tan won her case. Almost twenty-two (22) years later, Ms. Tan has not seen a centavo of what the courts have solemnly declared as rightfully hers. Through absolutely no fault of her own, Ms. Tan has been deprived of what, technically, she should have been paid from the start, before 1967, without need of her going to court to enforce her rights. And all because PAL did not issue the checks intended for her, in her name. Petitioner PAL filed a petition for review on certiorari the decision of Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari against the order of the Court of First Instance (CFI) which issued an alias writ of execution against them. Petitioner alleged that the payment in check had already been effected to the absconding sheriff, satisfying the judgment.

Issue:
Whether or not payment by check to the sheriff extinguished the judgment debt.

Held:
​No. The payment made by the petitioner to the absconding sheriff was not in cash or legal tender but in checks. The checks were not payable to Amelia Tan or Able Printing Press but to the absconding sheriff. In the absence of an agreement, either express or implied, payment means the discharge of a debt or obligation in money and unless the parties so agree, a debtor has no rights, except at his own peril, to substitute something in lieu of cash as medium of payment of his debt. Strictly speaking, the acceptance by the sheriff of the petitioner’s checks, in the case at bar, does not, per se, operate as a discharge of the judgment debt. The check as a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment. A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary cheek, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.

​Mere delivery of checks does not discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished and remains suspended until the payment by commercial document is actually realized (Art. 1249, Civil Code, par. 3).

Tibajia vs CA (223 SCRA 163)

Facts:
A suit for a collection of a sum of money was filed against the petitioner, Tibajia spouses by Eden Tan to whom a favorable decision was rendered by the lower court. The Tibajia espouses delivered to the deputy sheriff the total money judgment in cashier’s check and cash which Eden Tan refused to accept as payment.

Issue:
Whether or not the cashier’s check tendered by petitioners for payment of the judgment debt is “legal tender.”

​Held:
No. A check whether a manager’s check or ordinary check is not legal tender. An offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.

GSIS vs CA (170 SCRA) 23 February 1989

Facts:
Mr. and Mrs. Isabelo R. Racho, together with the spouses Mr. and Mrs. Flaviano Lagasca, executed a deed of mortgage in favor of petitioner Government Service Insurance System and subsequently, another deed of mortgage in connection with two loans granted by the latter in the sums of P 11,500.00 and P 3,000.00, respectively. A parcel of land covered co-owned by said mortgagor spouses, was given as security under the aforesaid two deeds. They also executed a 'promissory note to be jointly, severally and solidarily liable.
The Lagasca spouses executed an instrument denominated "Assumption of Mortgage" under which they obligated themselves to assume the aforesaid obligation to the GSIS and to secure the release of the mortgage covering that portion of the land belonging to herein private respondents and which was mortgaged to the GSIS. 4 This undertaking was not fulfilled.

Upon failure of the mortgagors to comply with the conditions of the mortgage, particularly the payment of the amortizations due, GSIS extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and caused the mortgaged property to be sold at public auction.

Private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner and the Lagasca spouses in the former Court of First Instance of Quezon City, praying that the extrajudicial foreclosure "made on, their property and all other documents executed in relation thereto in favor of the Government Service Insurance System" be declared null and void.
Private respondents alleged that they signed the mortgage contracts not as sureties or guarantors for the Lagasca spouses but they merely gave their common property to the said co-owners who were solely benefited by the loans from the GSIS.

The trial court dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court.

Issue:
Whether or not the promissory note and the mortgage deeds are negotiable instruments.

Held:
No, the executed documents are not negotiable.
In submitting their case to this Court, both parties relied on the provisions of Section 29 of Act No. 2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, which provide that an accommodation party is one who has signed an instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor of indorser without receiving value therefor, but is held liable on the instrument to a holder for value although the latter knew him to be only an accommodation party.
​
This approach of both parties appears to be misdirected and their reliance misplaced. The promissory note hereinbefore quoted, as well as the mortgage deeds subject of this case, are clearly not negotiable instruments. These documents do not comply with the fourth requisite to be considered as such under Section 1 of Act No. 2031 because they are neither payable to order nor to bearer. The note is payable to a specified party, the GSIS. Absent the aforesaid requisite, the provisions of Act No. 2031 would not apply; governance shall be afforded, instead, by the provisions of the Civil Code and special laws on mortgages.
Therefore due to the lack of the essential requisites the promissory note and the deed of mortgage is not negotiable document of title.
​

Velasquez vs. People
G.R. No.195021, March 15, 2017
 
 
FACTS:
On May 24, 2003 in the evening, Velasquez (accused) while armed with stones and wooden poles, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and abuse of superior strength, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, maul and hit Jesus del Mundo inflicting upon him injuries in the vital parts of his body, the said accused having thus commenced a felony directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts of execution which could have produced the crime of Murder but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of some causes or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance to his damage and prejudice. 
​
The accused invoke the first and second justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code reiterating that it was Jesus, who was supposedly inebriated, vented his ire upon Nicolas and the other accused, as well as on Mercedes. The accused thus responded and countered Jesus' attacks, leading to his injuries. 
Petitioners Nicolas Velasquez and Victor Velasquez, along with four others -Felix Caballeda, Jojo Del Mundo, Sonny Boy Velasquez, and Ampong Ocumen - were charged with attempted murder under Article 248, in relation to Article 6, of the Revised Penal Code. 

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners may be held criminally liable for the physical harm inflicted on Jesus Del Mundo.

Held: 
Yes. A person invoking self-defense (or defense of a relative) admits to having inflicted harm upon another person - a potential criminal act under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons) of the Revised Penal Code. However, he or she makes the additional, defensive contention that even as he or she may have inflicted harm, he or she nevertheless incurred no criminal liability as the looming danger upon his or her own person (or that of his or her relative) justified the infliction of protective harm to an erstwhile aggressor. 
The accused's admission enables the prosecution to dispense with discharging its burden of proving that the accused performed acts, which would otherwise be the basis of criminal liability. All that remains to be established is whether the accused were justified in acting as he or she did. To this end, the accused's case must rise on its own merits: 
It is settled that when an accused admits harming the victim but invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he harmed the victim. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. 
 

Sesbreño v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 89252. May 24, 1993]


Facts:
Petitioner Raul Sesbreño made a money market placement in the amount of P300,000.00 with the Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (“Philfinance”). The latter issued a Certificate of Confirmation of Sale “without recourse” from Delta Motors Corporation Promissory Note, a Certificate of securities indicating the sale to petitioner, with the notation that the said security was in custodianship of Pilipinas Bank, andpost-dated checks payable with petitioner as payee, Philfinance as drawer. Petitioner approached private respondent Pilipinas Bank and handed her a demand letter informing the bank that his placement with Philfinance had remained unpaid and outstanding, and that he in effect was asking for the physical delivery of the underlying promissory note. Pilipinas did not deliver the Note, nor any certificate of participation in respect thereof, to petitioner.

Issue:
 Whether or not non-negotiable instruments are transferrable.

Held:
 YES. A non-negotiable instrument may, obviously, not be negotiated; but it may be assigned or transferred, absent an express prohibition against assignment or transfer written in the face of the instrument. It is important to bear in mind that the negotiation of a negotiable instrument must be distinguished from the assignment or transfer of an instrument whether that be negotiable or non-negotiable. Only an instrument qualifying as a negotiable instrument under the relevant statute may be negotiated either by indorsement thereof coupled with delivery, or by delivery alone where the negotiable instrument is in bearer form. A negotiable instrument may, however, instead of being negotiated, also be assigned or transferred. The legal consequences of negotiation as distinguished from assignment of a negotiable instrument are, of course, different.

Ang Tek Lian v. Court of Appeals
[G.R. No. L-2516. September 25, 1950]
 
Facts:
Petitioner drew a check payable to the order of “cash” knowing that he had no funds. He delivered it in exchange of money. Petitioner was found guilty of estafa, but petitioner argued that the check had not been indorsed by him, hence, he should not be held guilty thereof.

Issue:
Whether or not indorsement is necessary to negotiate a check payable to the order of “cash”.

Held:
NO. Indorsement is no longer necessary. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law (Sec. 9 [d]), a check drawn payable to the order of “cash” is a check payable to bearer, and the bank may pay it to the person presenting it for payment without the drawer’s indorsement. Being a bearer instrument, negotiation may be done by mere delivery of the instrument.
​
Where a check is made payable to the order of "cash", the word cash "does not purport to be the name of any person", and hence the instrument is payable to bearer. The drawee bank need not obtain any indorsement of the check, but may pay it to the person presenting it without any indorsement. .
 

Pay v.sPalanca
[G.R. No. L-29900. June 28, 1974]
 
Facts:
The promissory note indicated payment “upon demand”. Petitioner relied on this to mean that prescription would not lie unless there is demand from them. The petition was filed fifteen years after its issuance.
Petitioner George Pay is a creditor of the late Justo Palanca who... died in Manila on July 3, 1963.  The claim of the petitioner is based on a promissory note dated January 30, 1952, whereby the late Justo Palanca and Rosa Gonzales Vda. de Carlos Palanca promised to pay George Pay the amount of P26,900.00, with interest thereon at the rate... of 12% per annum.

The promissory note, dated January 30, 1962, is worded thus: "'For value received from time to time since 1947, we [jointly and severally promise to] pay to Mr. [George Pay] at his office at the China Banking Corporation the sum... of [Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos] (P26,900.00), with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum upon receipt by either of the undersigned of cash payment from the Estate of the late Don Carlos Palanca or upon demand.
 
Issue:
Whether or not a promissory note to be paid “upon demand” is immediately due and demandable.

​Held:
YES. Every obligation whose performance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event, or upon a past event unknown to the parties, is demandable at once (Art. 1179 of the New Civil Code). The obligation being due and demandable in this case, it would appear that the filing of the suit after fifteen years was much too late. Every obligation whose performance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event, or upon a past event... unknown to the parties, is demandable at once."

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. HON. ROMULO S. QUIMPO
and FRANCISCO S. GOZON II
G.R. No. L-53194,         March 14, 1988

Facts:
Francisco Gozon was a depositor of the Philippine National Bank (PNB Caloocan City branch). Ernesto Santos, Gozon’s friend, took a check from the latter’s checkbook which was left in the car, filled it up for the amount of P5,000, forged Gozon’s signature, and encashed it. Gozon learned about the transaction upon receipt of the bank’s statement of account, and requested the bank to recredit the amount to his account. The bank refused. Hence, the present action.

Issue:
Whether or not the bank shall bear the loss resulting from the forged check.

Held:
​Yes. The prime duty of a bank is to ascertain the genuineness of the signature of the drawer or the depositor on the check being encashed. It is expected to use reasonable business prudence in accepting and cashing a check being encashed or presented to it. Payment in neglect of duty places upon him the result of such negligence. Still, Gozon’s act in leaving his checkbook in the car, where his trusted friend remained in, cannot be considered negligence sufficient to excuse the bank from its own negligence. The bank bears the loss.

​REPUBLIC BANK vs. MAURICIA T. EBRADA
G.R. No. L-40796         July 31, 1975

Facts:
Respondent, Mauricia Ebrada encashed a back pay check for P1246.08 at Republic Bank -Escolta Branch. The Bureau of Treasury, which issued the check advised the bank that the alleged indorsement of the check by one “Martin Lorenzo” was a forgery as the latter has been dead since July 14, 1952; and requested that it be refunded the sum deducted from its account. The bank refunded the amount to the Bureau and demanded upon Ebrada the sum in question, who refused.

Hence, the present action.

Issue:
Whether or not the bank can recover from the last indorser.

Held:
According to Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), where the signature on a negotiable instrument is forged, the negotiation of the check is without force or effect. However, following the ruling in Beam vs. Farrel (US case), where a check has several indorsements on it, only the negotiation based on the forged or unauthorized signature which is inoperative. The last indorser, Mauricia Ebrada, was duty-bound to ascertain whether the check was genuine before presenting it to the bank for payment. Her failure to do so makes her liable for the loss and the Bank may recover from her the money she received for the check. Had she performed her duty, the forgery would have been detected and fraud defeated. Even if she turned over the amount to Dominguez immediately after receiving the cash proceeds of the check, she is liable as an accommodation party under Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

People v. Gako, GR 135045, 15 December 2000 

FACTS:

• Rafael Galan, Sr. was shot dead and an Information was filed against the three accused namely, de la Peña, Herodias and Go, charging them with the murder of Galan.
• Judge  Jacinto, then the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, issued a Warrant of Arrest against the accused.
• An Urgent Motion to confine Go in a hospital was thereafter filed which was later on granted.
• Judge Agana sustained the objections of the defense counsels each time that the prosecution attempted to establish the conspiracy to kill the victim.
• The prosecution filed a motion to inhibit Judge Agana, which motion was denied.
• Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the Order of Dismissal, ordered the inhibition of Judge Agana, and ordered the raffle of the case to another branch.
• With the dismissal of the appeal of Go and Herodias, the case was re-raffled and an Alias Warrant of Arrest was issued against Go and Herodias.
• The physician of Go, filed a Clinical Summary on the illness of Go and, to which Go filed a Petition for Bail.
• The case was finally assigned to Branch 5 with Judge Gako, Jr. as presiding judge.
• An Urgent Motion to Enforce the Alias Warrant of Arrest was filed praying for the arrest of Go first before his Clinical Summary Report could be heard.
• Judge Gako, Jr. issued an Order granting the Petition for Bail of Go.
• prosecution filed a Vehement Motion to Inhibit Judge Gako, Jr. due to his alleged delay in resolving the incidents in connection with the arrest of Go.
• Prosecution moved for the reconsideration of order which granted bail to Go.
• Judge Gako, Jr. thereafter issued an Order denying the: (1) Motion for Reconsideration of the Order which granted the Bail of Go (2) Motion to Inhibit; and (3) Supplemental Motion to Inhibit the Presiding Judge. 

 
ISSUE:
Whether Judge Gako’s grant of bail to Go was proper.
 
RULING:
No.
​The assailed Order granting bail is legally infirm for failing to conform with the requirement that in cases when the granting of bail is not a matter of right, a hearing for that purpose must first be conducted. Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides the instances when bail is a matter of right or discretionary, Section 7, Article 114 of the Rules of Court, as amended, reiterates that "no person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.” Based on the foregoing, bail is not a matter of right with respect to persons charged with a crime the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, when the evidence of guilt is strong. Go, accused in the criminal case, was charged with murder, before the passage of RA 7659, the law that re-imposed the death penalty. Murder then was a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua. Thus, accused Go’s right to bail is merely discretionary. When bail is discretionary, a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, should first be conducted to determine the existence of strong evidence or lack of it, against the accused to enable the judge to make an intelligent assessment of the evidence presented by the parties. It is inconceivable how Judge Gako, Jr. could have appreciated the strength or weakness of the evidence of guilt of the accused when he did not even bother to hear the prosecution.
The reliance of Judge Gako, Jr. on the “voluminous records” of the case simply does not suffice. As judge, he was mandated to conduct a hearing on the petition for bail of the accused since he knew that the crime charged is one that carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua, and in that hearing, the prosecution is entitled to present its evidence. It is worth stressing that the prosecution is equally entitled to due process
 Further, the order granting bail issued by Judge Gako, Jr. merely made a conclusion without a summary of the evidence, a substantive and formal defect that voids the grant of bail. Well settled is the rule that after the hearing, whether the bail is granted or denied, the presiding judge is mandated to prepare a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. The judge’s findings were based on the summary clinical report of Dr. Matiga dated 4 February 1997 while the order granting bail was issued on 10 November 1997. It could not therefore be reasonably assumed that the actual state of health of Go could still be accurately reflected by the said medical report when 9 months had already passed from the time that said medical report was prepared. It was therefore clear error for Judge Gako, Jr. to depend solely on the dated medical report in granting bail when the defense failed to present a more recent one that would convincingly raise strong grounds to apprehend that the imprisonment of the accused would endanger his life.

Go vs. Bongolan, AM 99-1464, 26 July 1999 

FACTS:
 On November 10, 1997, in the province of Abra,  Balmores,  Reynaldo, PO1 Molina, Cacal, and three other John Does, allegedly kidnapped and detained Samuel Go. The vehicle he was in during his transport from Abra to Ilocos Sur was intercepted by the PNP wherein Go was recovered.
                A case was filed against the accused for kidnapping with ransom. The prosecution recommended no bail for the accused as the penalty for the crime allegedly committed is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death.
               Balmores filed a motion, asking for the amendment of the information from kidnapping with ransom to simple kidnapping, alleging that the evidence presented did not show that the kidnapping was for ransom. Respondent Judge Benjamin Bongolan of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Balmores’ motion, holding that it is the State that determines the contents of the information and it is the State's responsibility to prove its allegation contained in the information under the principle of `allegata et probata'.
                Molina and Cacal, as allowed by the RTC, filed their separate memorandum for motion for bail, reiterating the claim that prosecution failed to prove kidnapping for ransom. The prosecution asserted that the motion was prematurely filed since they are still in the process of presenting further evidence to prove the commission of the crime.
                Judge Bongolan subsequently granted the motions for bail, holding that the prosecution did not show that the evidence of guilt is strong. He, however, gave the prosecution 10 days to file its motion for reconsideration.
                Before such motion could be filed, the accused were already released, through the order by Judge Alberto Banesa, the designated pairing judge of Judge Bongolan, which he issued based on seeing that Judge Bongolan already approved the motion for bail. Judge Bongolan was unaware of the accused release since he was in the hospital. Subsequently, Judge Bongolan denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not Judge Bongolan correctly granted the accused motion for bail before hearing the bail application.

RULING:
 No. Judge Bongolan incorrectly granted the accused motion for bail. Complaints involving irregular approval of bailbond and issuance of order release appear to be a common offense of judges. A bail hearing is necessary to give the prosecution reasonable opportunity to oppose the application by showing that the evidence of guilt is strong.
It is true that when asked by Judge Bongolan whether the prosecution would present additional evidence, Prosecutor Gayao responded in the negative. Subsequently, however, the prosecution changed its mind when it stated in its Opposition that a resolution of the Motion for admission to bail would be premature since it has additional witnesses to present. In his Comment, Judge Bongolan contends that it is not necessary for the prosecution to present all its witnesses before he could resolve the motion for bail. The stance cannot be sustained.
​
In Borinaga v. Tamin, the Court ruled that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present its evidence within a reasonable time whether the motion for bail of an accused who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial. If the prosecution is denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process. The records show that the prosecution was supposed to present its 6th and 7th witnesses on June 4, 1998 when Judge Bongolan prematurely resolved the motion. A bail application does not only involve the right of the accused to temporary liberty, but likewise the right of the State to protect the people and the peace of the community from dangerous elements. These two rights must be balanced by a magistrate in the scale of justice, hence, the necessity for hearing to guide his exercise of discretion.

Paderanga vs. Drilon, 247 SCRA 741 (1995) 

​FACTS:
 On 28 January 1990, Paderanga was belatedly charged in an amended information as a co-conspirator in the crime of multiple murder in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 of Cagayan de Oro City for the killing of members of the Bucag family sometime in 1984 of which Paderanga was the mayor at the time. The original information, filed on 6 October 1986 with the Regional Trial Court of Gingoog City, had initially indicted for multiple murder 8 accused suspect, namely, Felipe Galarion, Manuel Sabit, Cesar Sabit, Julito Ampo, Eddie Torion, John Doe, Peter Doe And Richard Doe as the alleged conspirators in the indiscriminate slaying of the spouses Romeo and Juliet Bucag and their son, Romeo, Jr. However, only one of the accused, Felipe Galarion, was apprehended, tried and eventually convicted. Galarion later escaped from prison. The others have remained at large up to the present. In a bizarre twist of events, one Felizardo Roxas was implicated in the crime. As Paderanga was his former employer and thus knew him well, Roxas engaged the former's services as counsel in said case. Ironically, in the course of the preliminary investigation therein, Paderanga, in a signed affidavit which he later retracted on 20 June 1990, implicated Paderanga as the supposed mastermind behind the massacre of the Bucag family.  Pursuant to a resolution of the new prosecutor dated 6 September 1989, Paderanga was finally charged as a co-conspirator in said criminal case in a second amended information dated 6 October 1992. Paderanga assailed his inclusion therein as a co-accused all the way to the Supreme Court in GR 96080 entitled "Atty. Miguel P. Paderanga vs. Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, Hon. Silvestre H. Bello III, Atty. Henrick F. Gingoyon, Helen B. Canoy and Rebecca B. Tan." In an en banc decision promulgated on 19 April 1991, the Court sustained the filing of the second amended information against him.
 
The trial of the base was all set to start with the issuance of an arrest warrant for Paderanga's apprehension but, before it could be served on him, Paderanga through counsel, filed on 28 October 1992 a motion for admission to bail with the trial court which set the same for hearing on 5 November 1992.  As Paderanga was then confined at the Cagayan Capitol College General Hospital due to "acute costochondritis," his counsel manifested that they were submitting custody over the person of their client to the local chapter president of the integrated Bar of the Philippines and that, for purposes of said hearing of his bail application, he considered being in the custody of the law. ProsecutorAbejo, on the other hand, informed the trial court that in accordance with the directive of the chief of their office, Regional State prosecutor Jesus Zozobrado, the prosecution was neither supporting nor opposing the application for bail and that they were submitting the same to the sound discretion of the trail judge. Upon further inquiries from the trial court, Prosecutor Abejo announced that he was waiving any further presentation of evidence. On that note and in a resolution dated 5 November 1992, the trial court admitted Paderanga to bail in the amount of P200,000.00. The following day, 6 November 1992, Paderanga, apparently still weak but well enough to travel by then, managed to personally appear before the clerk of court of the trial court and posted bail in the amount thus fixed. He was thereafter arraigned and in the trial that ensued, he also personally appeared and attended all the scheduled court hearings of the case.  On 1 October 1993, Prosecutor Gingoyon elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals through a special civil action for certiorari. The resolution and the order of the trial court granting bail to Paderanga were annulled on 24 November 1993 by the appellate court. Paderanga filed the petition for review before the Supreme Court.
 
ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not Paderanga was in the custody of the law when he filed his motion for admission to bail.
 
RULING:
 Paderanga had indeed filed his motion for admission to bail before he was actually and physically placed under arrest. He may, however, therefore, be considered as being constructively and legally under custody. Thus in the likewise peculiar circumstance which attended the filing of his bail application with the trial court, for purposes of the hearing thereof he should be deemed to have voluntarily submitted his person to the custody of the law and, necessarily, to the jurisdiction of the trial court which thereafter granted bail as prayed for. Paderanga, through his counsel, emphatically made it known to the prosecution and to the trail court during the hearing for bail that he could not personally appear as he was then confined at the nearby Cagayan Capitol College General Hospital for acute costochondritis, and could not then obtain medical clearance to leave the hospital Certainly, it would have taken but the slightest effort to place Paderanga in the physical custody of the authorities, since he was then incapacitated and under medication in a hospital bed just over a kilometer away, by simply ordering his confinement or placing him under guard. Thus, Paderanga was by then in the constructive custody of the law.

Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), GR 213847, 18 August 2015

 
FACTS:
The Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile, 90 years of age, and several others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of their purported involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Upon voluntary surrender, Enrile filed his Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital, and his Motion to Fix Bail. Enrile claims that before judgment of conviction, an accused is entitled to bail as matter of right; that it is the duty and burden of the Prosecution to show clearly and conclusively that Enrile comes under the exception and cannot be excluded from enjoying the right to bail; that the Prosecution has failed to establish that Enrile, if convicted of plunder, is punishable by reclusion perpetua considering the presence of two mitigating circumstances – his age and his voluntary surrender; that the Prosecution has not come forward with proof showing that his guilt for the crime of plunder is strong; and that he should not be considered a flight risk taking into account that he is already over the age of 90, his medical condition, and his social standing. In its Comment, the Ombudsman contends that Enrile’s right to bail is discretionary as he is charged with a capital offense; that to be granted bail, it is mandatory that a bail hearing be conducted to determine whether there is strong evidence of his guilt, or the lack of it; and that entitlement to bail considers the imposable penalty, regardless of the attendant circumstances.
 
ISSUE: 
Whether or not  Enrile is entitled to Bail.
 
RULING:
Yes, Enrile is entitled to bail as a matter of right based on humanitarian grounds.For his social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter respect for the legal processes of this country. We also do not ignore that at an earlier time many years ago when he had been charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, he already evinced a similar personal disposition of respect for the legal processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of his trial because he was not seen as a flight risk. With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail.

Lavides vs. CA, GR 129670, 1 February 2000 

​FACTS:
 
Manolet Lavides was arrested on April 3, 1997 for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610 and that his arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the police. Based on the sworn statement of complainant and the affidavits of the arresting officers, which were submitted at the inquest, an information for violation of Art. III, §5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 was filed on April 7, 1997 against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City
 
On April 10, 1997, Lavides filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause; (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest; and (3) In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above Incident, Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged
 
On April 29, 1997, nine more informations for child abuse were filed against Lavides by the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office by the same complainant, Lorelie San Miguel, and by three other minor children, Mary Ann Tardesilla, Jennifer Catarman, and Annalyn Talingting
 
No bail was recommended for the cases. Nonetheless, Lavides filed separate applications for bail in the nine cases. The court resolved the Omnibus Motion on May 16, 1997 wherein it allowed Lavides to post bail amounting to Php 80,000.00 per case for a total of Php 800,000.00 subject to the following conditions to wit: 
a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these cases. He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases;
b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited, warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia;
c) The hold-departure Order of this Court dated April 10, 1997 stands; and
d) Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment to enable this Court to immediately acquire jurisdiction over the accused;
3. Let these cases be set for arraignment on May 23, 1997 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.
 
On May 20, 1997, petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations against him, except those filed in Criminal Case No. Q-97-70550 or Q-97-70866. Pending resolution of his motion, he asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment scheduled on May 23, 1997.Then on May 22, 1997, he filed a motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to P40,000.00 for each case and that the same be done prior to his arraignment.
 
On June 2, 1997, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 44316) in the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court's order, dated May 16, 1997, and its two orders, dated May 23, 1997, denying his motion to quash and maintaining the conditions set forth in its order of May 16, 1997, respectively.
 
While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, two more informations were filed against petitioner, bringing the total number of cases against him to 12, which were all consolidated.
 
The appellate court eventually invalidated the first two conditions imposed in the May 16, 1997 order for the grant of bail to petitioner but ruled that the issue concerning the validity of the condition making arraignment a prerequisite for the approval of petitioner's bail bonds to be moot and academic. 
ISSUE/S: 
 
Whether the court should impose the condition that the accused shall ensure his presence during the trial of these cases before the bail can be granted.
 
RULING:
 
In cases where it is authorized, bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. For if the information is quashed and the case is dismissed, there would then be no need for the arraignment of the accused. In the second place, the trial court could ensure the presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings, such as arraignment. Under Rule 114, §2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, one of the conditions of bail is that "the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules," while under Rule 116, §1(b) the presence of the accused at the arraignment is required.
 
On the other hand, to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. These scenarios certainly undermine the accused's constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail.

People vs. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1968) 

FACTS:
 
The accused were charged for murder. The prosecution and the defense agreed that the motions for bail of the defendants would be considered in the course of the regular trial instead of in a summary proceeding. In the course of the regular trial, after the prosecution had presented eight witnesses, the trial court resolved the motions for bail granting the same despite the objection of the prosecution on the ground that it still had material witnesses to present. Bail was granted on the ground that the evidence of guilt was not strong.
 
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution was deprived of procedural due process when trial court granted bail without allowing the prosecution to present their other witnesses.
 
RULING:
 Yes. Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil action, the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground. The orders complained of dated October 7, 9 and 12, 1968, having been issued in violation of procedural due process, must be considered null and void.
The court’s discretion to grant bail in capital offenses must be exercised in the light of a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution; otherwise, it would be uncontrolled and might be capricious or whimsical. Hence, the court’s order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by its conclusion whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. The orders of October 7, 9 and 12, 1968, granting bail to the five defendants are defective in form and substance because they do not contain a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution. They only contain the court’s conclusion that the evidence of guilt is not strong. Being thus defective in form and substance, the orders complained of cannot, also on this ground, be allowed to stand.

Herras Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil 634 (1945) 

FACTS:
Haydee Herras Teehankee is a political prisoner for the crime of treason. Her husband, Alberto, filed a petition, her immediate release be ordered on the ground that no evidence exists upon which she could be charged with any act punishable by law, or, alternatively, that the People's Court fix the bail for her provisional liberty. One of the Associate Judges ordered her provisional release under a bond of P50,000. However, the presiding judge and the other Associate Judge entered an order to deny the same.
Hence, this petition for writs of certiorari and mandamus.
 
ISSUE: 
Whether or not the petition for provisional release under bail be denied.
 
RULING:
 No, the Court ruled that a hearing of the petitioner's application for bail be held. 
Article III, section 1(16), of the Commonwealth Constitution refers to all persons, not only to persons against whom a complaint or information has already been formally filed, it lays down the rule that all persons shall before conviction be bailable except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong.
Upon application by a political prisoner or detainee to the People's Court for provisional release under bail, a hearing, summary or otherwise, should be held with due notice to the Office of Special Prosecutors, as well as to the prisoner or detainee.
While it is true that the Solicitor General recommended Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) as a reasonable bail "on the strength of the evidence at hand," it may happen that thereafter his office may have secured additional evidence which, in addition to or in connection with that he already possessed, in his opinion is sufficiently strong to prove petitioner's guilt for a capital offense, in which case, he may yet decide to oppose the application for bail heretofore filed by the petitioner at the hearing thereof. 

Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia, GR 153675, 19 April 2007

FACTS:
Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court  with three (3) counts of the offense of “accepting an advantage as agent,” in violation of Section 9 (1)  of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong.  Petitioner Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila petition for the extradition of private respondent.  After hearing, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is  no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high “flight risk.” Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further hearing and the case was raffled off to another judge.  Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail.  The application for bail was granted by respondent judge.  Petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but it was denied.  Hence, the instant petition.
 
ISSUE/S: 
Whether or not a potential extraditee has a right  to bail.
 
RULING:
Yes.
The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. Slowly, the recognition that the individual person may properly be a subject of international law is now taking root. The vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international law are limited only to states was dramatically eroded towards the second half of the past century. For one, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of individual defendants for acts characterized as violations of the laws of war, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. Recently, under the Nuremberg principle, Serbian leaders have been persecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia. These significant events show that the individual person is now a valid subject of international law.
On a more positive note, also after World War II, both international organizations and states gave recognition and importance to human rights. Thus, on 1948 December 10, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which the right to life, liberty and all the other fundamental rights of every person were proclaimed. While not a treaty, the principles contained in the said Declaration are now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the international community. Thus, in Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons, this Court, in granting bail to a prospective deportee, held that under the Constitution, the principles set forth in that Declaration are part of the law of the land. In 1966, the UN General Assembly also adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the Philippines signed and ratified. Fundamental among the rights enshrined therein are the rights of every person to life, liberty, and due process.

If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue. Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired.

Perez vs. People, GR 164763, 12 February 2008

FACTS:
-          Zenon Perez, the herein petitioner , was under cash examination of his account conducted by Auditor I Arlene R. Mandin, Provincial Auditor’s Office, Bohol.
-          The findings of Cash examination indicated that he was short of Php 72,784 a discrepancy of the amount found in his safe which is Php21,331.79 from the supposed money in hand with total amount of Php94,16.36. Accordingly, the result of examination was contained in Cash Production Notice where he was informed and required to produce the missing funds and the cash count sheet signed and acknowledged by him indicating the correctness of the amount found in his safe and counted in his presented. Thereafter, a demand letter was issued to him requiring the production of the missing funds.
-          He explained to the Auditing team that the missing funds was used to pay for the loan of his late brother and another portion was spent for the food of his family and the rest for his medicine.
-          Hence, the auditor prepared a memorandum addressed to the Provincial Auditor of Bohol recommending the filing of the appropriate criminal case against him.
-          Thereafter, he partly remitted the amounts 1.) Php 10k and Php15k; 2.) Php 35k; 3.) Php2k and Php 2784.00, until he fully restituted the missing total amount.
-          However, he was charged before the Sandiganbayan with Malversation of public funds under Art 217 of the RPC. Thereafter, he pleaded not guilty. However, Sandiganbayan rendered finding the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the said crime.
The petitioner then appealed at the SC claiming that he was violated the right to a speedy trial and due process, as over 13 years had passed before the case had been filed against him and that the sentence imposed upon him is cruel and violates section 19 of Art III of the Constitution.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not petitioner contention in his First Answer should not have been given probative weight because it was executed without the assistance of counsel is valid
 
RULING:
 No.  There is no law, jurisprudence or rule which mandates that an employee should be assisted by counsel in an administrative case. On the contrary, jurisprudence is in unison in saying that assistance of counsel is not indispensable in administrative proceedings
The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing and in the presence of counsel, is a right afforded a suspect or accused during custodial investigation. It is not an absolute right and may be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with more reason, in an administrative inquiry. 
While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of respondent’s capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel.
 
Thus, the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
 There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party in a non-litigation proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that, without such representation, he shall not be bound by such proceedings. The assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable. The legal profession was not engrafted in the due process clause such that without the participation of its members, the safeguard is deemed ignored or violated. The ordinary citizen is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at all except only with a lawyer at his side.not give a reasonable excuse for its disappearance. An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily.
 Verily, an accountable public officer may be found guilty of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of malversation because the law establishes a presumption that mere failure of an accountable officer to produce public funds which have come into his hands on demand by an officer duly authorized to examine his accounts is prima facie case of conversion.

Because of the prima facie presumption in Article 217, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to adequately explain the location of the funds or property under his custody or control in order to rebut the presumption that he has appropriated or misappropriated for himself the missing funds. Failing to do so, the accused may be convicted under the said provision.

People vs. Lauga, GR 186228, 15 March 2010

FACTS:
 Antonio Lauga was accused of qualified rape committed against his 13-year old daughter. One of the witnesses for the prosecution was Moises Boy Banting, a bantay bayan in the barangay. Banting testified that after his assistance was sought, he proceeded to Lauga's house and found the latter wearing only his underwear. He invited Lauga to the police station, to which Lauga obliged. At the police outpost, Lauga admitted to him that he raped his daughter AAA because he was unable to control himself. Lauga contested the admissibility in evidence of his alleged confession with Banting. He argues that even if he, indeed, confessed to Moises Boy Banting, a “bantay bayan,” the confession was inadmissible in evidence because he was not assisted by a lawyer and there was no valid waiver of such requirement.
 
ISSUE: 
 Is the extrajudicial confession made before a bantay bayan without the assistance of a lawyer admissible in evidence.



RULING:
 No. Bantay bayan is a group of male residents living in the area organized for the purpose of keeping peace in their community. Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the “bantay bayan,” are recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties and responsibilities delegated to a “bantay bayan,” particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession of appellant taken without  counsel was inadmissible in evidence.
 

Ho Wai Pang vs. People, GR 176229 (2011) 


FACTS: The UAE Airlines Flight from Hongkong arrived at the NAIA. 13 passengers were Hongkong nationals. At the arrival area, the group leader presented a Baggage Declaration Form to Customs Examiner Gilda Cinco.
Cinco examined the baggages of each of the 13 passengers. Upon examining the second bag, she noticed chocolate boxes which were almost of the same size as those in the first bag. She took out 4 of the chocolate boxes and opened one. She saw inside was white crystalline substance contained in a white transparent plastic. After calling the attention of her immediate superiors, she guided the tourists to the Intensive Counting Unit while bringing with her the 4 chocolate boxes earlier discovered.
18 chocolate boxes were recovered from the baggages of the 6 accused, including Petitioner Ho Wai Pang.
A NARCOM Agent conducted a test on the white crystalline substance contained in said chocolate boxes. The result of his examination yielded positive for shabu. Thereafter, the chocolate boxes were bundled together with tape, placed inside a plastic bag and brought to the Inbond Section.
The 13 tourists were brought to the NBI for further questioning. Out of the 13 tourists, the NBI found evidence for violation of R.A. No. 6425 only as against petitioner Ho Wai Pang and his 5 co-accused. Initially, 6 Informations were filed. However, Ho Wai Pang filed a Motion for Reinvestigation and the reinvestigation gave way to a finding of conspiracy among the accused and this resulted to the filing of a single Amended Information. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. All invoked denial as their defense. They claimed their traveling bags were provided by the travel agency.
 
ISSUE:
Whether the violation of the petitioner's right to counsel made the evidence taken from the petitioner inadmissible.
 
RULING:
​The SC held in the negative. The SC reiterated that infractions to the accused during the custodial investigation render only extrajudicial confession or admissions of the suspect inadmissible as evidence.
 
Also, the guilt of Pang was based on the testimony of Cinco when she caught Pang in flagrante delicto transporting shabu.

People vs. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36 (1992) 

 
FACTS:
 
On the morning of 17 January 1983, 18-year old Rowena Capcap left her home at Deva Village, Tambak, Taguig, Metro Manila to attend classes at the University of Manila where she was a sophomore commerce student. She would usually be home by 7:30 to 8:00 on school evenings, 1 but on that tragic day, she would not reach home alive. On that particular evening, her father Panfilo Capcap arriving home from work at around 7:30 p.m., noted her absence and was told by his wife and other children that Rowena was not yet home from school. Later, a younger brother of Rowena, sent on an errand, arrived home carrying Rowena’s bag which he had found dropped in the middle of a street in the village. Panfilo Capcap lost no time in seeking the help. The search ended in a grassy vacant lot within the Deva Village Subdivision, only about 70 to 80 meters from the Capcap residence, where lay the apparently lifeless body of Rowena, that the presence of spermatozoa showed that the victim had sexual intercourse prior to death; and that death was due to asphyxia by mutual strangulation. By 5 March 1984, an information had been filed in the trial court charging Ernesto C. Luvendino, Cesar Borca alias “Cesar Putol” and Ricardo de Guzman alias “Ric” with the crime of rape with murder. The trial court rendered a decision finding Luvendino guilty, sentencing him to death, requiring him to indemnify the heirs of the victim Rowena in the amount of P50,000.00 for the damages suffered as a result of her death. Appellant Luvendino contends that the trial court committed grievous error.
 
ISSUE: 
Whether or not the re-enactment of the accused of a crime he was charged of, without the presence of an independent and competent counsel, can be admitted as evidence in the court.
 
RULING:
The trial court took into account the testimony given by Panfilo Capcap on what had occurred during the re-enactment of the crime by Luvendino. The re-enactment was apparently staged promptly upon apprehension of Luvendino and even prior to his formal investigation at the police station. The decision of the trial court found that the accused was informed of his constitutional rights "before he was investigated by Sgt. Galang in the police headquarters" and cited the "Salaysay" of appellant Luvendino. The decision itself, however, states that the re-enactment took place before Luvendino was brought to the police station. Thus, it is not clear from the record that before the re-enactment was staged by Luvendino, he had been informed of his constitutional rights including, specifically, his right to counsel and that he had waived such right before proceeding with the demonstration. Under these circumstances, the Court must decline to uphold the admissibility of evidence relating to that re-enactment.