Cynthia Moreno, petitioner, Vs. Sandiganbayan, respondent

GR. No. 256070, September 19, 2022

Cynthia Moreno is a former mayor of Aloguinsan, Cebu. On June 5, 2014, she was found guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, and was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Petitioner and her co accused filed a joint Motion for Reconsideration, but this was denied by the Sandiganbayan for lack of merit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Motion praying that she be allowed to serve her sentence under home care or house arrest, under the direct and close monitoring and supervision of the local BJMP officers.

In the Resolution, however, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's Motion for failure to provide evidence, i.e., medical records or physician's report, to show that she is suffering from such health conditions that thwarted her movement and usual way of living. The Sandiganbayan likewise noted that "home care/house arrest" does not appear in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and that there is no law providing for an alternative mode of confinement based on health considerations for prisoners convicted by final judgment; hence, petitioner should serve her sentence only in the places provided for by law in accordance with Articles 78 and 86 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's Motion?

Held:  The Court finds that petitioner's Motion is an unmeritorious motion which was correctly dismissed outright by the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 2(c), Part III of the Continuous Trial Guidelines.

(c) Meritorious Motions. — Motions that allege plausible grounds supported by relevant documents and/or competent evidence, except those that are already covered by the Revised Guidelines, are meritorious motions.

Motions that do not conform to the above requirements shall be considered unmeritorious and shall be denied outright.

As aptly found by the Sandiganbayan, petitioner's Motion was not supported by-relevant documents, i.e., medical record or physician's report. Notably, the documents attached by petitioner in her Motion, i.e., the various awards she received, etc., are irrelevant to the ground she cited as basis for her "home care/house arrest," that is, her poor health condition. Thus, the Sandiganbayan correctly denied the Motion outright in the Resolution without setting it for hearing.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that there was nothing capricious, whimsical, or even arbitrary in the Sandiganbayan's denial of petitioner's Motion.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Moon Sighting for Edil Al Fitr 2026

Religious practice is always a choice. But the recommended one was that based on the precepts of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ).

He said, “…Observe Saum at sighting of the crescent of Ramadan and terminate it at sighting the crescent (of Shawwal). If the sky is overcast, complete (the month as) thirty (days)." [Riyad As-Salihin, Book 8, Hadith No.235]

عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال‏:‏ قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ صوموا لرؤيته وأفطروا لرؤيته، فإن حالت دونه فأكملوا ثلاثين يومًا‏"    ‏  

Moreover, "When you see the crescent (of the month of Ramadan), start fasting, and when you see the crescent (of the month of Shawwal), stop fasting; and if the sky is overcast (and you can't see it) then regard the month of Ramadan as of 30 days."

[Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book No. 30, Hadith No. 10].

 

"‏ إِذَا رَأَيْتُمُوهُ فَصُومُوا، وَإِذَا رَأَيْتُمُوهُ فَأَفْطِرُوا، فَإِنْ غُمَّ عَلَيْكُمْ فَاقْدُرُوا لَهُ ‏"

 

What is the Doctrine of Verba Legis and how does it apply?

It is “A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is only room for application.” (Amores vs. House of Rep. Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010).

That precepts held by the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity. There is no room for any further interpretation, the only thing remaining is to apply the rules set forth by him.

While it is true that the crescent moon is only one and sighting it from one region does not bind the whole universe due to some circumstance (i.e., if the sky is cloudy). This is the reason of why Salatul Eid al Fitr will be held on Saturday, March 21, 2026, in some areas in the Philippines pursuant to the rulings of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ).

Happy Eid Fitr al Mubarak!

 

 

ATCI Overseas Corporation, vs. Ma. Josefa Echin, G.R. No. 178551, October 11, 2010

Doctrine of processual presumption

The party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the law, under the doctrine of processual presumption. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours.

Facts: Local agency hired Josefa on behalf of principal foreign employer as Medical Technologist for a period of two years. Their agreement states therein that Josefa will have to undergo a probationary period of one year, and that their agreement will be governed by the Kuwaiti Civil Administrative law. One year later after deployment, foreign employer terminated Josefa's employment contract on the ground that she failed to pass the probationary measure set forth in the Kuwaiti Civil Administrative law. When Josefa returned to the Philippines, she file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC.   

Issue:    Whether or not the Kuwaiti administrative law governed the employment contract between Josefa and her foreign employer? 

Held:      However, ATCI failed to prove the existence of Kuwaiti Civil Law as required under Section 24 of the Rule 132 of the Rules of court, which provide that “If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office”. 

The party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the law, under the doctrine of processual presumption. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours.

Amminudin Vs. People, G.R. No. 74869 July 6, 1988

 The mandate of the Bill of Rights is clear:

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Facts:

Aminnudin was arrested shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon in Iloilo City. He was arrested without a warrant of arrest. The police officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that the accused-appellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. He was Identified by name.

Acting on this tip, the police officer waited for him in the port of his destination. Thereafter, at the port he was apprehend as he descended from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. They detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner.

Aminnudin argued that the evidence charged against him is inadmissible since he was unlawfully arrested, and that there was no valid warrant of arrest or search warrant issued against him. However, the police officer averred that the arrest was valid by virtue of Flagrante Delicto.

Issue:              The issue in this case in relation to our subject is whether or not the warrantless arrest against Amminudin is valid?

 

Held:              No, the warrantless against Amminudin was not valid.

In the many cases where this Court has sustained the warrantless arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it has always been shown that they were caught red-handed, as a result of what are popularly called "buy-bust" operations of the narcotics agents. 25 Rule 113 was clearly applicable because at the precise time of arrest the accused was in the act of selling the prohibited drug.

In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest.

To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The Identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the trial court is REVERSED and the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED.

People VS. Sandiganbayan-Lauro Baja, GR No. 233437, April 26, 2021

Doctrine:      Once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant    amounts to an acquittal. Any further prosecution for the same offense would violate the accused's constitutional right against double jeopardy.

 

FACTS: 

On March 12, 2008, Jaime D. Jacob (Jacob), a representative of the Philippine Anti-Graft Commission, filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against Baja. He accused Baja of violating Republic Act No. 3019, and Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. He argued that:

LAURO L. BAJA, JR., holding then the position of Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Chief of Mission I, Department of Foreign Affairs, who by reason of his office and while in the exercise and discharge of his functions, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, and committing the offense in relation to office, when his reimbursement for non-existent or fictitious representation expenses in the total amounts of TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR DOLLARS, United States Currency (US$28,934.96), thereby causing undue injury to the Government in the said amount.

Baja filed his Demurrer to Evidence which stated that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain the Information. Among others, he argued that the expenses for which reimbursement claims had been made were not proven to be "non-existent or fictitious."  That Baja improperly documented the expenses, he said, did not mean that these expenses did not exist. He also argued that the prosecution failed to prove his bad faith, or that there was "undue injury, unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions."

The Sandiganbayan issued its Resolution granting Baja's Demurrer to Evidence.

ISSUE:         Whether or not the Petition for Certiorari is barred by respondent Lauro L. Baja, Jr.'s right against jeopardy?

HELD:          Under Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution, all persons have the right not to be placed in double jeopardy of punishment for one offense. This Court has held that once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant amounts to an acquittal, and any further prosecution for the same offense would violate Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution.

Under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, the trial court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence upon a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. Thus, in resolving the accused's demurrer to evidence, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt.

The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion. Significantly, once the court grants the demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal; and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.

In the case of accused Baja, the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence that accused Baja caused the reimbursement of non­-existent or fictitious representation expenses. The prosecution bore the burden to prove the allegations in the Information. If its evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of the offense charged, respondent Baja's guilt could not have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The grant of the Demurrer to Evidence was proper.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Sandiganbayan Resolution are AFFIRMED.

Angelito Magno, (petitioner) VS. Ombudsman (respondent), GR. NO. 230575, March 14, 2018

 DOCTRINE:  The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the case against him was designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of justice by mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases.

FACTS:

On May 14, 2003, an Information was filed before the RTC charging petitioner Angelito Magno with Multiple Frustrated Murder and Double Attempted Murder. In the course of the prosecution's presentation of witnesses, the RTC sustained a petitioner's objection on the admissibility of one of the witness's testimonies, prompting the prosecution to elevate the matter to the Sandiganbayan. The SANDIGANBAYAN issued a sixty (60)-day TRO enjoining the RTC from proceeding with Crim. Case No. DU-10123. In a Decision dated February 12, 2007, the SANDIGANBAYAN dismissed the Objection.

Meanwhile and after the expiration of the TRO in the Objection Case, petitioner filed on March 16, 2006 a Motion to Set Case for Continuous Hearing before the RTC, invoking his right to speedy trial. In an Order dated June 16, 2006, the RTC granted petitioner's motion, and accordingly, set the hearing on September 1, 2006. The prosecution moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in an Order dated August 18, 2006. On September 1, 2006. Such presentation continued all the way until June 7, 2007 when the prosecution requested to reset the hearing to August 16, 2007 due to the handling prosecutor's illness.

However, it appears that from such postponement until around early 2010, no hearings were conducted in the case. Hence, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of violation of his right to speedy trial which the trial court granted. But the Sandiganbayan set aside the trial’ court ruling and reinstituted the criminal action against the petitioner

ISSUE:  Whether or not petitioner Angelito Magno’s right to speedy disposition of       his    has                been violated?  

HELD:   The petition is meritorious. An accused's right to "have a speedy, impartial, and public trial" is guaranteed in criminal cases by Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

In Tan v. People, the Court ruled that the right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the case against him was designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of justice by mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases. 

In this case, the Court ruled that the numerous delays and postponements that occurred during the First Period were excusable. Under this case, the Supreme Court highlighted the essential elements of the right to speedy trial. These are the: Length of delay; Reason for the delay; Failure to assert the right of the accused; Prejudice caused by the delay. The Supreme Court also emphasized that a violation of this right should be accompanied by the following; vexatious, capricious, and oppressive to the defendant.

Thus, in view of the unjustified length of time miring the resolution of Criminal action as well as the concomitant prejudice that the delay in this case has caused, the Court concludes that petitioner's right to speedy trial had been violated.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in SANDIGANBAYAN are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.

MIRIAM SANTIAGO vs. GARCHITORINA, GR. NO. 109266, December 7, 1993

Doctrine:         

The doctrine of delicti continuado also known as continued crime. The court defined continued crime as to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.

FACTS:

Miriam Santiago, the petitioner in this case filed a motion for Bill of Particular in relation to the criminal case charged against her. In that Criminal case, it was alleged that the petitioner had violated Executive Order No. 324, when it approved the application of those aliens for legalization of their stay in the country, though these aliens are not qualified under the law. To that effect of the approval, she was prosecuted to be held accountable under R.A. 3019.

During the hearing of the motion for Bill of articular, the prosecutor manifested that they would file only one amended information. However, it turns out that the prosecutor had filed 32 Amended Informations against the petitioner.

Thus, the petitioner claimed that the Amended Informations did not allege that she had caused "undue injury to any party, including the Government, and could not be held accountable of those 32 Amended Informations.

 

The ISSUE in this case in relation to our subject is whether or not the petitioner Miriam Santiago is liable for the 32 Amended Informations instead of the single Information originally filed against her? 

 

HELD: 

In decision this case, the court reiterated the doctrine of delicti continuado also known as continued crime. The court defined continued crime as to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim. A delicto continuado consist of several crimes but in reality, there is one only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator.

In the case at the bench, the original information charged the petitioner with performing a single criminal act — that of her approving the application for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege.

The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists that the approval of the application or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document.

 

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED. The Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman is directed to consolidate the 32 Amended Informations.