PEOPLE VS MATEO

G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7 2004

FACTS:
The MTC, Tarlac, Tarlac, Branch 1 found Mateo guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of 10 counts of rape and to
indemnify the complainant for actual and moral
damages. Mateo appealed to the CA. Solicitor General
assailed the factual findings of the TC and
recommends an acquittal of appellant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the case should be directly be
forwarded to the Supreme Court by virtue of express
provision in the constitution on automatic appeal
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or death.
RULING:
Up until now, the Supreme Court has assumed the
direct appellate review over all criminal cases in
which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment (or lower but involving
offenses committed on the same occasion or arising
out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the
more serious offense for which the penalty of death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed).
The practice finds justification in the 1987
Constitution

infirmity. What is really involved in this case is not the

removal or separation of the judges and justices from
their services. What is important is the validity of the
abolition of their offices.
It is a well-known rule that valid abolition of offices is
neither removal nor separation of the incumbents. Of
course, if the abolition is void, the incumbent is
deemed never to have ceased to hold office. As wellsettled as the rule that the abolition of an office does
not amount to an illegal removal of its incumbent is
the principle that, in order to be valid, the abolition
must be made in good faith.
Removal is to be distinguished from termination by
virtue of valid abolition of the office. There can be no
tenure to a non-existent office. After the abolition,
there is in law no occupant. In case of removal, there
is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose
his position. It is in that sense that from the
standpoint of strict law, the question of any
impairment of security of tenure does not arise.
In re: Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S.
Puno
Facts:

Article VIII, Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have

the following powers:

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on

appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts in:

x x x x x x x x x

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is

reclusion perpetua or higher.

It must be stressed, however, that the constitutional

provision is not preclusive in character, and it does
not necessarily prevent the Court, in the exercise of
its rule-making power, from adding an intermediate
appeal or review in favour of the accused.

In passing, during the deliberations among the

members of the Court, there has been a marked
absence of unanimity on the crucial point of guilt or
innocence of herein appellant. Some are convinced
that the evidence would appear to be sufficient to
convict; some would accept the recommendation of
acquittal from the Solicitor General on the ground of
inadequate proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Indeed, the occasion best demonstrates the typical
dilemma, i.e., the determination and appreciation of
primarily factual matters, which the Supreme Court
has had to face with in automatic review cases; yet, it
is the Court of Appeals that has aptly been given the
direct mandate to review factual issues.
De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294 (1982)
The issue in this case is whether or not B.P. 129, An
Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, is unconstitutional,
considering that in the time-honored principle
protected and safeguarded by the constitution the
judiciary is supposed to be independent from
legislative will. Does the reorganization violate the
security of tenure of justices and judges as provided
for under the Constitution?
HELD:
Nothing is better settled in our law than that the
abolition of an office within the competence of a
legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no

The petitioner, Reynato S. Puno, was first

appointed as Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeals on 1980.
On 1983, the Court of Appeals was
reorganized and became the Intermediate
Appellate Court pursuant to BP Blg. 129.
On 1984, petitioner was appointed to be
Deputy Minister of Justice in the Ministry of
Justice. Thus, he ceased to be a member of
the Judiciary.
After February 1986 EDSA Revolution, there
was
a
reorganization
of
the
entire
government, including the Judiciary.
A Screening Committee for the reorganization
of the Intermediate Appelate Court and lower
courts recommended the return of petitioner
as Associate Justice of the new court of
Appeals and assigned him the rank of number
11 in the roster of appellate court justices.
When the appointments were signed by Pres.
Aquino, petitioner's seniority ranking changes
from number 11 to 26.
Then, petitioner alleged that the change in
seniority ranking was due to "inadvertence"
of the President, otherwise, it would run
counter to the provisions of Section 2 of E.O.
No. 33.
Petitioner Justice Reynato S. Puno wrote a
letter to the Court seeking the correction of
his seniority ranking in the Court of Appeals.
The Court en banc granted Justice Puno's
request.
A motion for reconsideration was later filed
by Associate Justices Campos Jr. and Javellana
who are affected by the ordered correction.
They alleged that petitioner could not claim
reappointment because the courts where he
had previously been appointed ceased to
exist at the date of his last appointment.

Issue: WON the present Court of Appeals is merely a

continuation of the old Court of Appeals and
Intermediate Appellate Court existing before the
promulgation of E.O. No. 33.
Held:
The Court held that the Court of Appeals and
Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior to E.O. No.
33 phased out as part of the legal system abolished
by the 1987 Revolution. The Court of Appeals that

was established under E.O. No. 33 is considered as an

entirely new court.
The present Court of Appeals is a new entity, different
and distinct from the courts existing before E.O. No.
33. It was created in the wake of the massive
reorganization launched by the revolutionary
government of Corazon Aquino in the aftermath of
the people power in 1986.

Revolution is defined as "the complete overthrow of

the established government in any country or state
by those who were previously subject to it." or "as
sudden. radical and fundamental change in the
government or political system, usually effected with
violence or at least some acts of violence."