TOPIC: STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME

US VS PABLO
35 PHIL 94

FACTS: In compliance to an order from his chief, Andres Pablo, a policeman of the
municipality of Balanga, went to the barrio of Tuyo to raid a jueteng game; but before the said
officer arrived there the players left and ran away. He was able to recover on his arrival a low
table, a tambiolo (receptacle) and 37 bolas (balls). Said officer also saw the men Maximo Malicsi
and Antonio Rodrigo left but only Francisco Dato was arrested. This information was contained
in his report to his chief who immediately filed a complaint in the court of justice of the peace
against Rodrigo, Malicsi, and Dato for illegal gambling in violation of municipal ordinance
No.5.

Pablo testified under oath that on a particular date he and a companion raided a jueteng game,
that when they arrived in the place they saw Dato and a low table that made them suspect that a
jueteng game was being held; that they did find a tambiolo and 37 bolas, but that they did not see
Rodrigo and Malicsi on the scene nor did they see them scamper; and that only after the incident
that they learned of Rodrigo and Malicsi as being the ringleaders of the said jueteng game
according to a source. This testimony was acted upon by the court acquitting the defendants
Rodrigo and Malicsi and sentenced only Dato.

The provincial fiscal investigated further on the case and found out that before the case came to
trial in the justice of the peace court, the policeman Pablo had conference with the accused
Malicsi and Rodrigo and agreed that he would exclude the involvement of the two in the case in
exchange of a bribe of fifteen pesos.

Because of this development, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint in the Court of First
Instance charging Andres Pablo with the crime of perjury in violation of section 3 of Act No.
1697 declaring that he wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously affirmed and swore under oath in
legal form before the justice of the peace during the hearing of the case of Rodrigo and Malicsi
for violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 5 of the municipality of Balanga when he excluded the
two accused from involvement in the incident despite being utterly false and material to the
decision of the case.

When the court found him guilty and sentenced to suffer years imprisonment, a fine, and
disqualification to hold public office as well as from testifying in Philippine courts, he appealed
for such judgment
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the crime of perjury or of false
testimony under art. 318 to 324 of the Revised Penal Code

HELD: Yes. The respondent is guilty of such crime under Article 318 to 324 of the penal
code since such articles are not expressly repealed by the Administrative code when it repealed
Act No. 1697.

Law 11, Title 2, Book 3, of the Novisima Recopilacion states that, “All laws… not expressly
repealed by other subsequent laws, must be literally obeyed and the excuse that they are not in
use cannot avail.”

Said articles of the Penal Code are in force and are properly applicable to crimes of false
testimony. In the present case, the proven evidence showed that Andres Pablo falsely testified
before the court by perverting the truth in favor of the alleged gamblers, Maximo Malicsi and
Antonio Rodrigo and in receiving bribe from the said accused which aggravated the crime –
proof showed he received P15 in order that he exclude the two ringleaders in his sworn
testimony. The court held that, “ … in the commission of the crime of false testimony, there
concurred the aggravating circumstance of price or reward, No. 3 of article 10 of the Code, with
no mitigating circumstance to offset the effects of the said aggravating one; wherefore the
defendant has incurred the maximum period of the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
degree to prision correccional in its medium degree, and a fine.”
TOPIC: EFFECTIVITY OF PENAL LAWS

NAGKAKAISANG MARALITA VS. MILITARY SHRINE

GR. 187587

FACTS: Proclamation No. 2476 dated January 7, 1986 issued by President Ferdinand E.
Marcos declared barangays Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan, and Signal Village open for
disposition under the provisions of Republic Act Nos.(R.A.) 274 and 730. At the bottom of
Proclamation No. 2476, President Marcos made a handwritten addendum which reads:

“P.S. – This includes Western Bicutan.”

However, Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official Gazette without the above-
quoted addendum.

On Aug 27, 1999, petitioner Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc.(NMSMI) filed a
petition with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems(COSLAP), asking for the
reclassification of the areas covering Lot 3 of SWO-13-000-298 of Western Bicutan, from public
land to alienable and disposable land pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476. COSLAP issued a
resolution granting the petition. The COSLAP ruled that the handwritten addendum of President
Marcos was an integral part of Proclamation No. 2476, and was therefore, controlling.

Respondent Military Shrine Services– Philippine Veterans Affairs Office(MSS-PVAO) filed a

Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the COSLAP. MSS-PVAO filed a Petition
with the Court of Appeals seeking to reverse the COSLAP Resolutions dated 1 September 2006
and 24 January2007. The then Court of Appeals First Division granted MSS-
PVAO’s petition. And so, the COSLAP resolution declaring the portions of land in question
alienable and disposable was reversed. NMSMI appealed the said Decision by filing a Petition
for Review with this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the subject lots were not
alienable and disposable on the ground that the handwritten addendum of Pres. Marcos was not
included in the publication of the said law.

HELD: No, because without publication, Western Bicutan was not declared alienable and
disposable as the handwritten note never had any legal force and effect. Therefore, the petition
by Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. is denied for lack of merit. The handwritten
addendum by President Marcos was not included when Proclamation No. 2476 was published in
the Official Gazette.

Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that “Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided.”
The requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to the law as to not deny the
public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it.

The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 97925dated 29 April 2009 is
AFFIRMED in toto and all pending motions to cite respondent in contempt is DENIED, having
been rendered moot. No costs
TOPIC: GENERALITY

JEFFREY LIANG VS PEOPLE

323 SCRA 682

FACTS: Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce
Cabal, he was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City with two counts of oral
defamation. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing
petitioner’s bail, the MeTC released him to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB. The next
day, the MeTC judge received an “office of protocol” from the DFA stating that petitioner is
covered by immunity from legal process under section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB
and the Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB in the country. Based on
the said protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge without
notice to the prosecution dismissed the criminal cases.

The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA. When its motion
was denied, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the RTC of Pasig
City which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of
arrest it earlier issued. After the motion for reconsideration was denied, the petitioner elevated
the case to the SC via a petition for review arguing that he is covered by immunity under the
Agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is covered by immunity under the agreement and
that no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court.

HELD: He is not covered by immunity because the commission of a crime is part of the
performance of official duty. Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the
communication from the DFA that a certain person is covered by immunity. That
a person is covered by immunity is preliminary. Due process is right of the accused as much as
the prosecution.

Slandering a person is not covered by the agreement because our laws do not allow the
commission of a crime such as defamation in the name of official duty. Under Vienna
convention on Diplomatic Relations, commission of a crime is not part of official duty.

On the contention that there was no preliminary investigation conducted, suffice it to say that
preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as the
one at bar. Being purely a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked only when
specifically granted by law. The rule on criminal procedure is clear than no preliminary
investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC. Besides, the
absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction nor does it
impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective.
TOPIC: TERRITORIALITY

PEOPLE VS WONG CHENG

46 PHIL 729

FACTS: The appellant, in representation of the Attorney General, filed an appeal that urges
the revocation of a demurrer sustained by the Court of First Instance of Manila presented by the
defendant. The defendant, accused of having illegally smoked opium aboard the merchant vessel
Changsa of English nationality while the said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half
miles from the shores of the city. In the said demurrer, the defendant contended the lack of
jurisdiction of the lower court of the said crime, which resulted to the dismissal of the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime committed
aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdictional waters.

HELD: Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed in our internal waters thus the
Philippine courts have a right of jurisdiction over the said offense. The Court said that having the
opium smoked within our territorial waters even though aboard a foreign merchant ship is a
breach of the public order because it causes such drugs to produce pernicious effects within our
territory. Therefore, the demurrer is revoked and the Court ordered further proceedings.
TOPIC: CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

PEOPLE VS MANABA
58 PHIL 665

FACTS: Defendant was charged for rape. The complaint was signed by the Chief of
Police. After trial, Defendant was convicted but the judgment was set aside and the case
dismissed on his motion that the court had no jurisdiction over his person or the subject matter,
because the complaint was not signed by the offended party.

Subsequently, the offended party signed a complaint charging Defendant of rape. Defendant
asked for dismissal on the ground of double jeopardy, but it was denied and he was convicted

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant was placed in double jeopardy

HELD: No. Whether or not Defendant was placed in double jeopardy depends on whether
or not he was tried on a valid complaint in the first case. Art. 334 of the Revised Penal Code
requires the offended party to file the complaint.

As the first complaint was not signed by the offended party, it was not a valid complaint in
accordance with law, and the judgment of the court was void for lack of jurisdiction over subject
matter, and defendant was never in jeopardy. The Spanish equivalent of the word filed is not
bound in the Spanish text which is controlling, because it was the Spanish text approved by the
legislature.