PEOPLE

v. KOTTINGER PEOPLE v. PADAN

G.R. No. L-20569/ OCT 29, 1923/MALCOM, J. /CBONIFACIO G.R. No. / June 28 1957 / J. Montemayor / Immoral Doctrines Obscene Publications and
NATURE Appeal Exhibitions and Indecent Shows / dlpsanty
PETITIONERS THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RESPONDENTS J.J. KOTTINGER SUMMARY: Appellants were caught after participating in a live sex show by policemen
pretending to be spectators. They were all found guilty in the CFI. Padan and Fajardo
DOCTRINE. The test of obscenity is this: Where the tendency of the matter charged as appealed asking for a reduction in the penalty without denying the commission of the
obscene is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral offense. SC ruled that they did not deserve leniency as to the penalty imposed by the trial
influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall court.

FACTS. FACTS.
• The CFI convicted J.J. Kottinger, manager of Camera Supply Co., with having kept for sale in • Fthere was a crowd around the building because it has been advertised by word
the store obscene and indicent pictures, in violation of section 12 of Act No. 277. of mouth that an exhibition of actual copulation would be shown that night.
• The pictures which it is argued offend against the law on account of being obscene and • Manila Police got word of the affair so several of its members dressed in plain
indecent, disclose six different postures of non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines. clothes attended the show. Said policemen testified at the trial that customers
Exhibit A carries the legend "Philippines, Bontoc Woman." Exhibit A-1 is a picture of five paid P3 to gain entrance and that there were about 90 people inside the venue.
young boys and carries the legend "Greetings from the Philippines." Exhibit A-2 has the • At the gate was Fajardo who was assuring the collection of the entrance fee and
legend "Ifugao Belle, Philippines. Greetings from the Philippines." Exhibit A-3 has the legend he was the one who ordered that a bed be placed in the middle of the crowd.
"Igorot Girl, Rice Field Costume." Exhibit A-4 has the legend "Kalinga Girls, Philippines. • When the show was about to start, 2 girls one of whom was Padan, was chosen
Exhibit A-5 has the legend "Moros Philippines." by the crowd by Fajardo’s method of pointing and waiting for the crowd’s
ISSUES & RATIO. approval.
1. WON the post cards were obscene or indecent – NO. • After that, Padan and Cosme undressed and started having sex. Police among the
The word "obscene" and the term "obscenity" may be defined as something offensive to spectators then stopped the show by arresting the four appellants herein and took
chastify, decency, or delicacy. "Indeceny" is an act against behavior and a just delicacy. The pictures of Padan and Cosme still naked. Tickets being sold also had the name Pepe
test ordinarily followed by the courts in determining whether a particular publication or Fajardo stamped at the back, which defendant Fajardo admitted to be his name.
other thing is obscene within the meaning of the statutes, is whether the tendency of the • Marina Padan, Jose Fajardo, Cosme Espinosa and Ernesto Reyes were all found
matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such guilty in the CFI for violating Art 201. At first, they all pleaded not guilty upon
immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being arraignment but Padan later on reversed her plea.
obscene may fall. Another test of obscenity is that which shocks the ordinary and common • The four appealed to the SC but Espinosa and Reyes failed to file their briefs so
sense of men as an indecency, decision as to them became final and executory. Because of plea of guilty, Padan
prayed for a reduction of her penalty. Fajardo’s appeal on the other hand was
The pictures in question merely depict persons as they actually live, without attempted based of his contention that he was not the manager of the show which was raided
presentation of persons in unusual postures or dress. The aggregate judgment of the and that he was a mere by-stander, who was impleaded for his popularity as the
Philippine community, the moral sense of all the people in the Philippines, would not be sigaof the place. He further alleged that he was only requested by the spectators
shocked by photographs of this type. We are convicted that the post-card pictures in this to make the selection, after which he left without even watching for a while. He
case cannot be characterized as offensive to chastity, or foul, or filthy. was only caught because he returned after hearing a commotion caused by the
raid.
DECISION.
We hold that pictures portraying the inhabitants of the country in native dress and as they ISSUES & RATIO.
appear and can be seen in the regions in which they live, are not obscene or indecent within 2. WON THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS PROPER – YES.
the meaning of the Libel Law. Disagreeing therefore with the appellant on his technical
argument but agreeing with him on his main contention, it becomes our duty to order the The Supreme Court has had occasion to consider offenses like the exhibition of still or moving
dismissal of the information. pictures of women in the nude, which it condemned for obscenity and offensive to morals. In
Judgment is reversed, the information is dismissed, and the defendant-appellant is acquitted those cases, one might yet claim that there was involved the element of art; that connoisseurs
with all costs de oficio. of the same, and painters and sculptors might find inspiration in the showing of pictures in the
People v Aparici nude, or the human body exhibited in sheer nakedness as models in tableaux vivants. But an
actual exhibition of the sexual act, preceded by acts of lasciviousness, can have 110 redeeming
f eatures. In it, there is no room for art. One can see nothing in it but clear and unmitigated
obscenity, indecency and an offense to public morals, inspiring and causing as it does, nothing and Dominguez met at NISA, Dominguez said that he was only willing to pay P1k to
but lust and lewdness, and exerting a corrupting influence especially on the youth of the land. his creditors and the rest of the balance next year. So he visited Tabek who allegedly
Considering the seriousness of the crime, the relatively severe penalty imposed by the trial consented to the lesser amount. He further claims that Dominguez only framed him
court is proper. up because of a grudge due to a levy in the vehicles of Dominguez before. 


ISSUE/S: WoN accused committed direct bribery? - YES RULING: Petition denied.
MANIPON v. SANDIGANBAYAN Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.
July 31, 1986 | Fernan, J. | Certiorari | Direct Bribery/JTRINIDAD
SUMMARY: Sheriff of Court Manipon was convicted of direct bribery by Sandiganbayan after the
former tried to help Dominguez, who had garnished accounts because of a labor case lost, to RATIO:
withdraw money in exchange of a consideration. The SC affirmed the decision averring that the 1. Defense’s allegations are too incredible to merit even the slightest degree of
defense stated by Manipon is too incredible. credibility. With all Manipon’s transactions and the alleged novation, never did he
DOCTRINE:Elements of direct bribery: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he received execute a written memorandum for his protection. His claim that he tried to give a
directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or receipt after the P1k was paid is also self-serving without support of evidence.
promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not Dominguez’s denial to accept a receipt is too irregular since it is his only proof that
constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do, and (4) he complied with his obligation. 

that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. The promise of a 2. Neither are the testimonies of his companion in the bank nor that of Tabek give
public officer to perform an act or to refrain from doing it may be express or implied support to his defense. His companion is a co-sheriff which can only signify bias in
FACTS: the testimony. While Tabek on the witness stand on several occasions showed
1. Manipon, a deputy sheriff of the CFI of Baguio, was assigned to enforce an order of hesitation. He also failed to show any evidence that he was given authority by his co-
the Minister of Labor dated Oct 31, 1979. Said order directed the Sheriff of Baguio creditors to authorize the acceptance of a lesser payment. 

City to execute the decision ordering Mayor Harry Dominguez of Tadian to pay 3. Manipon’s behavior of not executing the judgment even if he had already garnished
Tabek, et al. P2720. 
 the accounts of Dominguez and not notifying the labor arbiter of such is so irregular
2. Pursuant to the order, Manipon on Nov 9, 1979 sent a notice to Comtrust garnishing that it only shows how he had planned to get Dominguez to acquiesce to a
accounts of Dominguez. The bank agreed to hold the accounts but Manipon did not consideration for lifting the garnishment. 

inform the labor arbiter of the garnishment nor did he satisfy the judgment under 4. Seizure of the marked money cannot be deemed illegal and inadmissible as evidence.
execution. 
 It was a search and seizure incidental to an arrest by way of the entrapment
3. On Nov 12, 1979, Dominguez sought Manipon’s help in the withdrawal of the operation, which could not make it illegal. 

garnished account but the latter said it is not possible. 

4. However, on Dec 27, 1979, the two met again at National Intelligence and Security DACUMOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Authority (NISA) and Manipon told Dominguez that he “can remedy the withdrawal G.R. No. 95000 / April 16, 1991 /CRUZ, J. /GYATCO
so they will have something for the New Year.” Dominguez agreed to meet at the NATURE Appeal
bank later in the afternoon. 
 PETITIONERS Alfonso C. Dacumos
5. After Manipon left NISA, Dominguez confided the offer to NISA Commander Sanchez RESPONDENTS The Hon. Sandiganbayan And The People Of The Philippines
so they planned an entrapment operation. 
 SUMMARY. Petitioner offered Samia (manager of Revilla Interiors) a tax
6. The next day at Comtrust, Dominguez met with Manipon who was accompanied by clearance in exchange of money consideration. The latter pretended to go along
two people. Manipon delivered the letter to the bank lifting the garnishment and with it leading to the petitioner’s arrest during an entrapment operation by NBI.
Dominguez withdrew money. As soon as the money was handed, he took out P300 SC affirmed the decision of conviction by Sandiganbayan stating that the
from the withdrawn money and added it to the marked P700. Then they all left the petitioner failed to support his claims with substantial evidence.
bank. 
 DOCTRINE. Elements of direct bribery: (1) that the accused is a public officer;
7. After leaving the bank, Manipon walked down Session Road and moments later, PC (2) that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or
and NISA operatives accosted them and seized the P1000. 
 promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of
8. Sandiganbayan found Manipon guilty of direct bribery which the latter appealed to his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain
the SC. His appeal was rejected but upon a motion for reconsideration, SC reviewed from doing something which it is his official duty to do, and (4) that the crime or
the case. 
 act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. The promise of a
9. Manipon contended that the amount of P1000 given was in partial fulfillment of the public officer to perform anact or to refrain from doing it may be express or
judgment of the labor arbiter. He also pointed out that the P1000 was illegally seized implied
because there was no valid search warrant. His defense further contests when he
FACTS. DOCTRINE. Malversation consists not only ill misappropriation or converting public funds
1. Petitioner, a revenue examiner of the BIR, offered to settle the tex liability of Revilla Interiors or property to one's personal use but also by knowingly allowing others to make use of or
in the amount of P73k by pulling out its assessments papers and procuring a tax clearance. misappropriate them
Gregorio Samia, manager of the firm, pretended to go along with him but reported the matter
to NBI, which arranged an entrapment. FACTS.
2. On Oct 28, 1986, Samia met petitioner in Rizal Café and told him he only had P1000 but • From January 1978 to December 1980, petitioner Carmen Labatagos was the cashier and
would deliver the P9000 that same evening at his residence and that the balance of P20k will collecting officer of the Mindanao State University General Santos City. She filed a leave of
be paid in November. Petitioner agreed and received a white envelope containing the marked absence for the months of March, April and May 1978 and did not discharge her duties for
peso bills. NBI arrested him to which he reacted by trying to dispose of the envelope, but one the said period.
of the agents retrieved it. He was brought to the NBI headquarters wherein he was found • The COA conducted an examination of her transactions and was asked to produce all
positive with fluorescent powder from the marked money in the envelope. records, books receipts etc.
3. Petitioner claimed that the charges against him were fabricated. He said that he met with • It was found that she was missing P34,336.19 from January to August 1978 and P71,365.75
Samia because he was irritatingly insistent on securing his help regarding the firm’s tax from January 1979 to June 6, 1980. The petitioner signed without exception both Reports of
amnesty. He further contended that he could not have promised to pull out the assessment Examination as well as their supporting summaries.
papers as he had no access to that • During the trial, petitioner in her defense claimed that she signed the audit reports on the
place. understanding that her shortage would amount to only P2,000.00; that she could not be
held accountable for the collections for March, April and May 1978 because she was on
ISSUES & RATIO. maternity leave; and that several disbursements in the total amount of P49,417.12 were not
3. WON accused committed direct bribery? - YES credited in her favor by the auditors.
1. Petitioner failed to prove that respondent court’s decision is tainted arbitrariness or is not • She claimed further that she should not be held accountable for the alleged
supported by substantial evidence. His claim that he was framed is not convincing at all. It is misappropriations between the months of January 1978 and August 1978 in the amount of
belied by his own acts. The implausibility of his promises does not mean they were not made, P34,336.19 because those who appropriated the amounts were her superiors and that the
coming from one who has long experience in BIR and appeared to know his way around. amounts taken were properly receipted but that the receipts were lost.
2. The court also finds it remarkable that he met Samia a private place instead of his office at
the BIR, considering that they were discussing official business and it was Samia requesting his ISSUES & RATIO.
assistance. 4. WON petitioner is guilty of Malversation of Public Funds under RPC – YES.
3. Petitioner holding the respondent court at fault for misappreciating evidence will also not
merit him a reversal of the assailed decision. It is within the discretion of respondent court to
Her claim that she signed the audit report and statement of collections and deposits prepared
weigh the evidence of both parties and to admit such of it as it regarded as credible and reject
by the audit team of Francisco Rivera (COA) on the understanding that her shortage was only
those that it considered fabricated.
4. Petitioner claims in conclusion to his petition that judgment was rendered against him P2,000.00 is belied by the figures clearly reflected on the said documents.
because he happens to be a tax collector whom he says is unpopular and vilified by all as
proven by history. This plea does not persuade since he was convicted not because he is a tax The audit report which she signed without exception, shows that she incurred a shortage of
collector, but because he accepted a bribe. P34,336.19 for the period from January to August 1978; while the statement of her collections
and deposits for the same period which she certified as correct, indicates the same amount of
P34,336.19 as her shortage.
LABATAGOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 715815 / MAR 21, 1990 /PADILLA J. /IAQUINO Mrs. Ester Guanzon, the prosecution's rebuttal witness, confirmed that she assisted the
NATURE Appeal accused in the collection of fees; that the accused filed application for maternity leave in March
PETITIONERS CARMEN LABATAGOS 1978 but continued reporting for work during that month; that the accused did not report for
RESPONDENTS SANDIGANBAYAN & PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES work in April 1978; and that she (Guanzon) was the one assigned to collect the fees in her
stead.
SUMMARY: The cashier/collecting officer of Mindanao State University was short Php
34,336.19 in Jan-Aug 1978 and Php 71,365.75 from Jan-Jun 1979 for a total of Php Miss Guanzon, however, explained that she turned over all her collections to the accused
105,711.58. She signed the reports and the demand letters, and that she did not account during all the times that she was assisting her in collecting the fees; and that even in April 1978
for money taken by her superiors. when the accused was physically absent from office, she also turned over her collections to
the accused in the latter’s house with the duplicate copies of the receipts she issued which
the accused signed after satisfying herself that the amounts turned over tallied with the ESTEPA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
receipts. G.R. No. L-59670/ FEB 15, 1990/Malversation of public funds/ CBONIFACIO
NATURE Appeal
All the collections for the months of March and April 1978 are fully accounted for they are PETITIONERS LEONARDO ESTEPA
itemized in the reports of collection, and shown to have been duly remitted in the remittance RESPONDENTS SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
advices for those months.
DOCTRINE. In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that
the accountable officer had received the public funds and that he did not have them in his
The auditor was correct in refusing to credit the accused with the three (3) different amounts
possession when demand therefore was made and he could not satisfactorily explain his
mentioned in her letter of October 22, 1980. The first sum, P7,140.20, purporting to be refunds
failure so to account.
of tuition fees to students granted tuition privileges were not supported by any official

authorization for such refunds by the University authorities. Besides, the supposed list of
SUMMARY
students who were recipients of the refunds is incompetent evidence being a mere xerox
Estepa, a senior paymaster of the cash division of Manila’s city treasurer’s office, received
copy uncertified as a true copy of an existing original.
P850,000 of the cash advances he requested. Estepa did not voice out any problems after the
distribution of the cash. In two instances, Estepa had left one of the bags filled with money
The second sum, P4,494.80 was purportedly spent for the cost of uniforms of the school and unattended and P50,000 was later found missing from Estepa’s cash advances. Estepa was
basketball balls. P2,100.00 in all and the balance taken by Alikhan Marohombsar and Auditor neither able to produce the missing amount of P50,000.00 nor adequately to explain his failure
Casan. The third amount, P6,702.12, was supposedly covered by vouchers submitted to the to produce that amount. He was very relaxed and casual in the handling of the bundles of
Auditor's office through Rosa Cabiguin. The P2,100.00 cost of uniforms and balls, unsupported money entrusted to him.
by a duly accomplished and approved voucher, was not a valid disbursement. Since the
alleged vouchers for P6,792.12 were not presented in evidence nor was any effort exerted to FACTS.
compel their production in court by subpoena duces tecum, the same was properly refused to • Leonardo Estepa was a senior paymaster of the cash division of the city treasurer’s office
be deduced from the incurred shortage of the accused. of the city of manila.
• Estepa and 9 other paymasters and Marcelo, supervising paymaster, went to the Central
All the other sums allegedly taken from the accused by Director Osop, Alikhan Marohombsar Bank to get P7,640,000, which is the amount of cash advances requested by the 10
and Auditor Casan totalling P31,070.00. supported as they are by mere pieces of paper, despite paymasters. The cash was placed inside 2 duffel bags and transported to the city
the admission by Director Osop of having signed some of them were not valid disbursements. treasurer’s office of the city of manila.
Granting that the amounts reflected in the chits were really secured by the persons who signed • The cash distribution was made in the room of Atty. Kempis, head of cash division, where
them, the responsibility to account for them still rests in the accused accountable officer. the door was closed and guarded to stop people from entering
Malversation consists not only ill misappropriation or converting public funds or property to • With Atty. Kempis and the 10 paymasters, Marcelo opened the duffel bags and again
one's personal use but also by knowingly allowing others to make use of or misappropriate counted the sum of P7,640,000 (bills of 100s, 50s, 20s, 10s, and coins) and was placed in a
them. table. Each paymaster was given the sum they requested for in different denominations.
• Estepa was given the amount of P850,000. After all 10 paymasters got their money,
DECISION. Marcelo asked if everything was fine, no complaints were heard, even from Estepa. All of
them left the room.
WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error in the questioned decision of respondent court • Fearing that the public would start entering the office of Atty. Kempis, Estepa left the bag
and the issues raised in this petition being essentially factual, the petition for review is with bigger denomination on the sofa and transported the smaller denominations first to
DENIED and the appealed decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED the table three to four meters away as he could not carry both at the same time. He left
the table and went back to the sofa to bring other bag to his cage. Estepa left the cage to
go back to the bag on the table.
• After counting the money in his cage, he discovered that P50,000 was missing and reported
it to Marcelo. Marcelo summoned the 10 paymasters and asked if they got the correct
amount. All of them got the correct amount except for Estepa.
• Estepa reasoned out that he was not given the whole amount of P850,000 during the
distribution. Later, he said that a third person had stolen the missing P50,000.




ISSUES & RATIO. with the crime of Malversation of Public Funds as defined and penalized under Article 217
5. WON the Estepa is guilty of malversation of public funds. YES of the Revised Penal Code.
• After trial, the respondent Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt
In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the accountable of the crime charged. Hence, this appeal.
officer had received the public funds and that he did not have them in his possession when • Petitioner would try to evade the application of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code by
demand therefore was made and he could not satisfactorily explain his failure so to account. arguing that he never misappropriated the amount of P118,003.10 for his own personal use
An accountable public officer may be convicted for malversation even if there is no direct as the bulk of it was given as cash advances to his co-employees. His defense is as follows:
evidence of personal misappropriation, where he has not been able to explain satisfactorily o “. . . the act of petitioner in giving out vales and/or cash advances should not be
the absence of the public funds involved. There is prima facie evidence of malversation where condemned or be considered as a criminal act but should instead be lauded not
the accountable public officer fails to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is only because the same was done purely for humanitarian reasons and that is to
chargeable upon demand by duly authorized officer. alleviate the plight of his co-employees during those hard times when the
In the present case, petitioner was neither able to produce the missing amount of P50,000.00 salaries of lowly government employees were very much below the ordinary
nor adequately to explain his failure to produce that amount. Petitioner's self-confessed level of subsistence and his desire to see to it that the public interest will not be
coming and going from — sofa to Pangilinan's desk; back to sofa and then to his cage; and back jeopardized, . . ., but also because this has been the undisturbed practice in their
“
to Pangilinan's desk and finally to his cage — created at least two (2) clear opportunities for office since time immemorial, even before the accused's incumbency . . . .
the invisible third person to pick up the missing P50,000.00. In addition, there was an
opportunity for Estepa to voice out that he had not been able to fully count the money given ISSUES & RATIO.
to him. His silence gave the impression that the money he had received was in accordance with 6. WON Petitioner is guilty of Malversation: YES
the amount due to him. Clearly, petitioner was very relaxed and casual in the handling of the
bundles of money entrusted to him. Petitioner's argument fails to persuade Us. In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary
for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received public funds and that he did
DECISION. not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made. There is even no need
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit and the Decision of the First of direct evidence of personal misappropriation as long as there is a shortage in his account

Division of the Sandiganbayan dated 15 December 1981 is hereby AFFIRMED. and petitioner cannot satisfactorily explain the same. In this case, petitioner was the official
custodian of the missing funds. He himself admitted the shortage of P118,003.10 in his cash
Ilogon v. Sandiganbayan and accounts as Acting Postmaster but could not give a satisfactory explanation for the
G.R. No.102356 / Feb 9, 1993/ Campos Jr., J. / Coronel same.
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari
PETITIONERS Calinico Ilogon The fact that petitioner did not personally use the missing funds is not a valid defense and
RESPONDENTS Sandiganbayan will not exculpate him from his criminal liability. And as aptly found by respondent
Sandiganbayan, "the fact that (the) immediate superiors of the accused (petitioner herein)
DOCTRINE. have acquiesced to the practice of giving out cash advances for convenience did not legalize
the disbursements". The fact also that petitioner fully settled the amount of P188,003.10
FACTS. later is of no moment. The return of funds malversed is not a defense. It is neither an
• This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision * of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal exempting circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing the accused's criminal liability. At

Case No. 9776 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Calinico B. Ilogon", dated May 14, 1991 best, it is a mitigating circumstance.
finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds as defined and
penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code DECISION.
• Petitioner Calinico B. Ilogon was the acting Postmaster of the Bureau of Posts in Cagayan de
Oro City from July, 1978 to January, 1986. He performed the task of accepting payments,
In the light of the above finding and under the plain language of the applicable laws, We hold
making collections and effecting disbursement as there was no cashier employed during the
that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict finding the petitioner guilty of the crime
period of his incumbency.
charged. The judgment of the Sandiganbayan is hereby AFFIRMED and the petition is
• On September 19, 1983, Commission on Audit Auditors Robin S. Aban and Alfonso A. Gala
DISMISSED.
conducted an examination of the cash and accounts of petitioner covering the period from
September 8, 1983 to September 13, 1988. The examination showed that the petitioner
incurred a shortage in his accounts amounting to P118,871.29, which upon further
inspection was reduced to P118,003.10. On November 27, 1984, petitioner was charged

 AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN jurisdiction over the crime charged. Article 203 of the RPC determines who are public
G.R. No. 116033 / Feb 26 1997 / J. Pangabiban / dlpsanty officers: “Who are public officers.—For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and
NATURE : PETITION for review of a decision of the the preceding titles of the book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular
Sandiganbayan. election, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the
PETITIONERS : Azarcon performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall
RESPONDENTS : Sandiganbayan, People, Bautista perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent,
or subordinate official, of any rank or classes, shall be deemed to be a public officer.”
SUMMARY. Petitioner, a private individual, was appointed the custodian of distrained
property by the BIR. However, such property was later removed from his custody, and he RODILLAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN
attempted to cancel his obligation to the BIR. He was charged with malversation before May 20, 1988 | Gutierrez, Jr, J. |Review | Evasion Through Negligence /JTRINIDAD
the Sandiganbayan and found guilty of the same. The SC held that the Sandiganbayan had SUMMARY: Petitioner was assigned to escort Zenaida to the court for a hearing. After the court
no jurisdiction over him. adjourned, petitioner allowed Zenaida and his family to take lunch. Thereafter, he consented to
the use of the comfort room of Zenaida because of a call of nature with a lady companion.
FACTS. Prisoner escaped and petitioner immediately tried to search for the escapee without reporting
• Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon, who owned and operated an earth-moving business it to his superior. Sandiganbayan’s decision of evasion through negligence was affirmed by the
hauling dirt and ore, was hired by the Paper Industries Corp. Of the Philppines SC.
(PICOP). Petitioner occasionally engaged subcontractors like James Ancia whose DOCTRINE: The elements of the crime under evasion through negligence are: a) that the offender
trucks were left at the former’s premises. is a public officer; b) that he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either
• On 25 May 1983, the BIR issued a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property to the detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and c) that such prisoner escapes through his
Regional Director or representative of Region 10, Butuan City, commanding the negligence.
distraint of personal properties of Jaime Ancia, petitioner’s subcontractor and a FACTS:
delinquent taxpayer. The Warrant of Garnishment was issued to petitioner 1. Accused is a Patrolman who was assigned with the jailsection. When he reported for
ordering him to transfer, surrender, transmit and/or remit the Ancia’s property in work on March 1980, the policewoman who was assigned to escort Zenaida to the
petitioner’s possession to the BIR. In voluntarily signing the Receipt for Goods, court was sick so he became the substitute together with Pat. Andres. 

Articles, and Things Seized Under Authority of the National Internal Revenue, 2. Zenaida was being prosecuted for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. While waiting
petitioner assumed the undertakings specified therein, particularly regarding a for the arrival of the judge, Pat. Andres who happened to be a relative of the husband
truck which he stipulated he would faithfully keep and protect, among others. of Zenaida approached the accused and requested the latter if he could permit
• Subsequently, petitioner wrote to BIR’s Regional Director for Region 10B Butuan Zenaida to talk with the husband. The accused consented and had a short talk with
City, stating that Ancia intended to cease his operations with them and sometime the husband.
in August 1985 Ancia withdrew his equipment from petitioner’s custody; and that 3. After the court adjourned, the husband of Zenaida requested the accused to allow
he therefore formally informed them that he was relinquishing whatever them to have lunch to which he consented. 

responsibilities he had over said properties by virtue of the receipt he had signed, 4. Husband of Zenaida then asked him if he could accompany her to the comfort room
effective immediately. Petitioner had also reported the taking of the truck to to answer the call of nature. The accused then accompanied Zenaida and a lady
PICOP’s security manager and requested him to prevent it from being taken from companion to the comfort room and allowed both of them to enter while he stood
PICOP’s concession, but such order was given too late. guard along the alley near the door. 

• The Regional Director responded that failure to observe the provisions of the 5. The lady companion of Zenaida came out and told the accused that she was going to
receipt wherein petitioner had voluntarily assumed the liability of safekeeping and buy sanitary napkins but she failed to return after 10 minutes. Accused became
preserving the unit on behalf of the BIR did not relieve petitioner of his suspicious and entered the comfort room where she found out that Zenaida escaped
responsibility. Petitioner was then charged with malversation of public funds or through the window. 

property, and was convicted of the same. 6. He immediately went out to look for the escapee with the help of patrolman Andres
but they were not able to see her. Andres advised the accused to go to Zenaida’s
ISSUES & RATIO. house and that husband of the escapee is from Nueva Ecija. Accused then borrowed
WON petitioner, who is a private individual, may be charged with malversation by virtue a car to go to Nueva Ecija but the escapee was not there. He returned to Zenaida’s
of being appointed custodian by the BIR over distraind property – NO. house in Caloocan where he met Cpl. Victoriano and related to the latter the escape
of Zenaida. He formally reported the matter to his superior after. 

The Information does not charge petitioner Azarcon of being a co-principal, accomplice or 7. Sandiganbayan convicted the accused. Upon appeal to the SC, appellant claimed that
accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Sandiganbayan based his conviction only on his admissions without evidence to
Thus, unless petitioner be proven a public officer, the Sandiganbayan will have no prove his guilt.
 FACTS.
ISSUE: WoN appellant is liable for evasion through negligence ? -YES RULING: Petition Simplicio Berdon, an Assistant Staff Civil Engineer assigned to Regional Office No. VII of the
dismissed. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed. Bureau of Public Highways in Cebu City, his wife and father were charged with having
RATIO: acquired unexplained wealth in violation of Republic Act No. 1379.
1. There is no question that the first two elements are present. The only disputed issue It was alleged that during the period from 1963 to 1969 he and his wife Gaudiosa Mangubat
is whether appellant’s acts are considered negligence which the court sees in the Berdon purchased parcels of land and constructed a house, the purchase prices and costs of
affirmative. It was improper for the petitioner totake lunch with the prisoner and her which were not commensurate to their incomes, savings or declared assets.
family when he wassupposed to bring his charge to the jail. As a police officer Republic of the Philippines, which valued the unexplained wealth at P124,495.82, thus
charged with the duty to return the prison to jail, the deviation from his duty was sought the forfeiture of the properties and the issuance of a writ of attachment.
clearly a violation of the regulations. 
 The trial court dismissed the case. This decision was affirmed by the IAC.
2. It is the duty of any police officer having custody of aprisoner to take necessary The IAC held that “the assets acquired by the respondent-spouses in excess of their income
precautions to assure the absence of any means of escape. A failure to undertake and receipts from their employment in the Government were satisfactorily explained, thus
these precautions will make his act one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to justifying the conclusion of the trial court that respondent-spouses do not have unexplained
deliberate non-performance of duty. 
 wealth subject to forfeiture under Republic Act 1379.”
3. The use of a toilet is one of the most familiar and common place methods of escape.
The arrangement with a lady friend should have aroused the petitioner’s suspicion ISSUES & RATIO.
because the only pretext given by the petitioner was that she was going to answer 7. WON the spouses are guilty? NO.
the call of nature. It was unnecessary for her to be accompanied by anyone. Despite According to R.A. 1379, the law creates a presumption against the public officer or employee
this, the petitioner allowed the two to enter the comfort room without first who acquires property grossly disproportionate to his income, i.e. that the property was
establishing for himself that there was no window or door allowing the possibility of unlawfully acquired. However, this presumption may be rebutted by the public officer or
escape. 
 employee by showing to the satisfaction of the court that his acquisition of the property was
4. Considering that the city jail was only a kilometer away, it would not have been lawful.
inhuman for the petitioner to deny the prisoner’s request to first take lunch. Neither In this case, respondent spouses had acquired properties and constructed a house the costs
would it have been inhuman if he cleared the toilet of female occupants and checked of which were disproportionate to their combined incomes from their employment in the
all possible exits first. 
 government but it had been proved that such were financed through a donation and loans
5. Moreover, instead of promptly reporting the matter so that an alarm could be sent
out to all police agencies and expert procedures followed, petitioner decided to take WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been committed by the Intermediate Appellate
matters into his own hands. This even gave the escapee greater opportunity to make Court, the instant petition is hereby DENIED and its decision dated March 31, 1986 is
good her escape because the chances of her being recaptured became much less. 
 AFFIRMED.

Almeda v Perez
NOTES
Cabal v Kapunan The Solicitor General also makes much of the fact that the statements of assets and liabilities
filed by private respondent Simplicio Berdon covering the years material to the case did not
REPUBLIC v. IAC accurately reflect the donation and the loans granted to private respondent spouses and that
G.R. No. 74225/ APRIL 16, 1989/GRAFT and CORRUPTION / CBONIFACIO Simplicio's testimony in effect contradicts the entries in said statements. It must be
NATURE Appeal emphasized, however, that in determining whether or not there is unexplained wealth within
PETITIONERS REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, the purview of R.A. No. 1379 the courts are not bound by the statements of assets and
RESPONDENTS INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, SIMPLICIO BERDON, liabilities filed by the respondent.
GAUDIOSA BERDON and LUIS BERDON Jaravata v Sandiganbayan

Trieste v Sandiganbayan
DOCTRINE. According to R.A. 1379, the law creates a presumption against the public
officer or employee who acquires property grossly disproportionate to his income, i.e. Mejorada v Sandiganbayan
that the property was unlawfully acquired. However, this presumption may be rebutted Estrada v Sandiganbayan
by the public officer or employee by showing to the satisfaction of the court that his
acquisition of the property was lawful.




 ORGANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 136916/ DEC 14,1999/PLUNDER / CBONIFACIO
NATURE Habeas Corpus
PETITIONERS FLEURDELIZ B. ORGANO
RESPONDENTS SANDIGANBAYAN and the JAIL WARDEN OF MANILA

DOCTRINE. Under Republic Act (RA) No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
accused public officials only when they occupy positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27
or higher. Thus, RA 7080, insofar as it provided that all prosecutions for plunder fell within
the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction, was impliedly repealed.

FACTS.
An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan against Dominga S. Manalili, Teopisto A.
Sapitula, Jose DP. Marcelo, Lilia B. Organo, Gil R. Erencio, Reynaldo S. Enriquez and Luis S. Se,
Jr. for the violation of RA No. 7080 (Plunder).
Manalili, Sapitula, Marcelo, Organo, being then public officers and taking advantage of their
official positions as employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Quezon City, and Erencio,
Enriquez and Se, Jr., conspiring, confabulating and confederating with one another, amassed
and acquired funds belonging to the National Government by opening an unauthorized bank
account with the Landbank of the Philippines, West Triangle Branch, Diliman, Quezon City, for
and in behalf of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and deposit therein money belonging to the
government of the Philippines, consisting of revenue tax payments then withdraw, without
proper authority, through checks made payable to themselves and/or the sole proprietorship
firms of the above-named private persons.

ISSUES & RATIO.
8. WON the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over a case of plunder when none of the accused
occupy Salary Grade 27 or higher ? NO.

In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary
grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers
mentioned above, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial
court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the
case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

Since not one of the accused occupies such position, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction
over Criminal Case No. 24100.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the Manila jail warden is ORDERED to immediately
release Lilia B. Organo from custody, unless a valid information has been filed in the proper
court and a warrant for her arrest properly issued. Costs against petitioner.