Case Digest: Go-tan vs. Tan

Sharica Mari Go-Tan vs. Spouses Perfecto and Juanita Tan

G.R. No. 168852

September 30, 2008

Facts:

Petitioner Sharica filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against her husband,Steven, and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004."

Respondents contend that they cannot be included in the charge since they are not among the personalities liable as enumerated under the said law by virtue of “expresio unius est exclusion alterius.”

Ruling:

The Court ruled in favor of petitioner with regard to the inclusion of the respondent spouses.

A provision of the said law expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC (Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262), which allowed legal principles developed in the RPC may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A. 9262.

Citing jurisprudence, the court held that the “principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. Thus, general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators”.

Furthermore, Section 5 of R.A. 9262 recognizes the acts of violence against women and their children may be committed by an offender through another

The maxim "expressio unios est exclusio alterius" finds no application in the case at bar since it is only an

"ancillary rule of statutory construction” and not of universal application nor is it conclusive. It should be applied only as a means of discovering legislative intent when not plainly indicated.

However, proving conspiracy is a matter of evidence and can be best decided after fullblown trial on the merits.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Siera

Robert Siera vs. People

G.R. No. 182941

July 3, 2009

Facts:

Petitioner was found guilty of qualified rape.

Ruling:

In the case bar, the issue is no longer with regard to petitioner’s guilt but on his entitlement of exemption from criminal liability under R.A. 9344 since petitioner’s act of invoking such entitlement carried with it the admission of guilt.

The Court held that petitioner’s minority during the commission of the crime and his not being a habitual criminal entitled him to the retroactive provisions of the said Act.

The Court held that the burden of proving the minority of the accused relied not on the prosecution but to him who sought to benefit from such proof. In assessing the records, the court appreciated the testimonies by petitioner and CCC, his mother, as sufficient proof of establishing petitioner’s age in lieu of  the required birth certificate as provided in Rule 30-A of the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 9344. There was also no showing of the prosecution’s objection nor was there a presentation of evidence to contradict said testimonies.

The petitioner, having been granted criminal liability exemption, was nevertheless civilly liable. The Court ordered the payment of civil damages to victim following the characterization of the crime of simple rape, for failure of the prosecution to establish the age of the victim to hold petitioner guilty of qualified rape.

Case against petitioner was dismissed without prejudice to the civil liability. The Court ordered his immediate release and referral to the appropriate local social welfare and development officer who shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9344. 

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Lalli

People vs. Lalli, et al

G.R. No 195419

October 12, 2011

Facts:

The respondents were found guilty in the consolidated case for Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case no. 21930) and Trafficking in Persons.

Ruling:

The Court ruled against respondents with respect to Criminal Case no. 21930 for Illegal recruitment, reasoning that the inconsistency of the testimonies of respondents was more substantive than that of Lolita’s which involved only minor discrepancies. The victim’s inconsistency was held to be indicative of her candidness which meant that her statements were not rehearsed. Conspiracy under Article 8 was also appreciated by the court in determining the liabilities incurred by respondents. In addition, the Court stated that the mere referral of one respondents of the victim to the other respondent is classified as an act of recruitment under Art 13(b) of the Labor Code.

In Criminal Case No 21908, charging respondents for the violation of RA 9208 or The Anti-trafficking in persons Act, the court likewise ruled against them. The Court gave no credence to the claims of respondents and their witnesses against victim. Furthermore, provided that their statements were true, such statements were immaterial in this case since the crime of Trafficking in Persons can exist even with the victim’s consent or knowledge under Section 3(a) of RA 9208.

Respondents were found guilty of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate under RA 9208 because the crime of recruitment for prostitution also constitutes trafficking.

The prohibition of double jeopardy was inapplicable in the case since there were several offenses to which they were punished and had not been done so repeatedly for the same offense.

Read More

Caase Digest: DEL MONTE CORPORATION-USA, PAUL E. DERBY, JR., DANIEL COLLINS and LUIS HIDALGO, vs. MONTEBUENO MARKETING, INC., LIONG LIONG C. SY and SABROSA FOODS, INC.

G.R. No. 136154        February 7, 2001
DEL MONTE CORPORATION-USA, PAUL E. DERBY, JR., DANIEL COLLINS and LUIS HIDALGO,  vs.
MONTEBUENO MARKETING, INC., LIONG LIONG C. SY and SABROSA FOODS, INC.

RULING:

The Court ruled the validity of the arbitration clause in the Contract between the contracting parties. However, the Court held that provisions in a contract are binding only between the contracting parties, their assigns and heirs. In the present case, arbitration as provided in the contract can therefore be called for only as to petitioners DMC-USA, Paul Derby and respondents MMI and Lily Sy, and not to other parties. Only the assigns and heirs can have the right to arbitrate.

Citing the case of Salas Jr. vs. Laperal RealtyCorporation, the splitting of the proceedings to arbitration as to some of the parties on one hand and trial for the others cannot be allowed. Otherwise, it would result in a multiplicity of suits, duplicitous procedure and unnecessary delay.

To effect a speedy and efficient resolution of the issues and claims of the parties, a full blown trial must be had. Only then can the interest of justice be served.

Read More

Case Digest: HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. SALAS, JR vs, LAPERAL REALTY CORPORATION, et al

[G.R. NO. 135362.  December 13, 1999]

HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. SALAS, JR vs, LAPERAL REALTY CORPORATION, et al

RULING:

The Court granted the petition by petitioners regarding the dismissal of the latter’s complaint for rescission of several sale transactions.

The court held that rescission is an arbitrable issue, thus arbitration was necessary before a suit could be filed in court. The Court likewise held that the respondents other than Laperal Realty Corporation were not bound by the Agreement (Owner-Contractor Agreement), the respondent lot buyers not being those contemplated as assignees of the rights of respondent Laperal Realty.  The respondent lot buyers where therefore not vested with the right to arbitrate. However, to impose that arbitration be had between petitioners and Laperal Realty and a trial for respondent lot buyers would result in multiplicity of suits, duplicitous procedure and unnecessary delay.

The Court therefore set aside the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint and directed that the case proceed in the interest of justice.

Read More

Case Digest: BF Corporation vs. CA

G.R. No. 120105 March 27, 1998

BF CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC., RUFO B. COLAYCO, ALFREDO C. RAMOS, MAXIMO G. LICAUCO III and BENJAMIN C. RAMOS

RULING:

The court sustained the Court of Appeals decision against petitioner, BF Corporation. The court upheld the propriety of the filing of the special civil action of certiorari by respondent, reasoning that what was in question was the alleged premature assumption of jurisdiction by the trial court. In settling the issue, another had to be first determined: the existence of an ‘arbitration clause’.

As opposed to petitioner’s contention that there was no valid ‘Arbitration Clause’ in the contract with respondent because said contract only contained initials of the former’s representatives and none of the latter’s, the court held that failure of the respondents to affix their initial in the “Conditions of Contract” containing the arbitration clause did not affect the compliance with the formal requirements (RA 876, Sec4) for arbitration agreements. The Court held that the subject portion of the covenant between the parties was included by reference in the Articles of Agreement.

The Court also noted the attempt of respondent in pursuing arbitration through the July 12-conference and that the lapse of time from said conference to the day the respondent’s invoked the ‘arbitration clause’ was ‘reasonable’.

The Court therefore denied the petition for certiorari by BF Corporation.

Read More