Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE:
1. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Medrano
Ma. Ruby A. Dumalaog, a teacher, filed before the petitioner the administrative complaint against Medrano even if an affidavit
Office of the Ombudsman a sworn letter-complaint against her of desistance has already been filed by Dumalaog
The Ombudsman rendered its decision with an offended party against any impropriety or wrongdoing
the administrative case and found Medrano guilty of grave committed by a public officer. It provides the three remedies
misconduct. Medrano moved for reconsideration of the decision available: 1.) civil, 2.) criminal, and 3.)administrative. These
and assailed not only the factual findings and conclusions of the remedies may be invoked separately, alternately,
Ombudsman, but for the first time, challenged its jurisdiction over simultaneously or successively. Sometimes, the same offense
the case. With regard to the criminal case, Ombudsman found may be the subject of all three kinds of remedies.
Medrano filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable. Hence, such
(CA), assailing Ombudsman‘s jurisdiction over desistance, by itself, is not usually a ground for the dismissal of an
the administrative case. The CA annulled Ombudsman‘s decision action once it has been instituted in court.
directs that the petitioner “may refer certain complaints to the Weeks later, after the Senate approved the proposed bill
expanding the jurisdiction of the CTA, w hi l e c o mpl ai n ant
proper disciplinary authority for the institution of and her c om pa ni o ns w er e co ng r at ul ati ng an d ki ssi ng
eac h ot h er , r es po n de nt suddenly placed his arms around her
appropriate administrative proceedings against erring public shoulders and kissed her.
She responded that such was not her intention and reminded him of
his requirement that he must first see the applicants before he sign
their clearance. He did not sign the clearance, sent then out and
shouted “Bullshit ka!” at her thrice. They all then went out of the
courtroom and proceeded back to the staff room. She went to her
table and buried her face in her hands, crying. Respondent followed
her and continued uttering unsavory remarks. Thereafter, he asked
the utility aide to buy him four bottles of beer.
The respondent, who was sitting at the judge’s chair, then extended
his hand to her, as if he wanted to shake her hands. She reciprocated
by extending her hands and jokingly put his hands on her forehead
(agmanmano). She afterwards tried to free her hands off his but he
would no let her. Instead, he told her, “Wait for a while, I would just
like to tell you something. I love you, is that okay? Tell me that you
love me too. No strings attached.” She retorted, “As if you are my
father.” Spurned, he got mad. This kind of incident happened at least
ten more times.
ISSUE:
WON Accused is guilty of the charges filed against him.
Ruling:
Under the circumstances, we find respondent guilty of sexual
harassment. His severely outrageous acts, which are an affront to
women, constitute sexual harassment because they necessarily
result in an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working
[35]
environment for his female subordinates. He abused the power
and authority he exercises over them, which is the gravamen of
[36]
the offense in sexual harassment. Sexual harassment in the
workplace is not about a man taking advantage of a woman by
reason of sexual desire – it is about power being exercised by a
[37]
superior over his women subordinates. That power emanates
from the fact that he can remove them if they refuse his amorous
advances.
ANTI-FENCING LAW (PD 1612) deprivation of one’s property.
Ruling:
In the instant case, the first and second elements were duly
established. Qualified theft had been committed. Quantities of
phenolic plywood were stolen and were discovered in the
premises of private respondents. The question is whether the
third element exists. Did private respondents know or should they
have known that the phenolic plywood were the subjects or
proceeds of crime?
2. Dunlao vs CA
Intent to gain is an element in Anti-Fencing Law. However, it
need not be proved. For the mere possession of any good,
article, etc. of value which has been the subject of robbery
or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
The trial court found that petitioner issued the check as The prosecution presented the testimonies of private complainant
guarantee for his loan obtained from Bernardo. At the time he Efren R. Ables and Valentin Luzuriaga, a bank teller of the
issued the check, he knew that his account with the PNB had been Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). The prosecution
closed. When Bernardo deposited the check, it was dishonored by presented Exhibits "A" to "E" with submarkings consisting of the
the PNB, the drawee bank, for the reason "account closed." check issued by the petitioner, the demand letter sent by private
Petitioner was duly notified of such dishonor. In fact, he admitted complainant to petitioner and bank records to show that the said
having received Bernardo's demand letter urging him to make check was dishonored as the account was closed even before the
good the check within five (5) banking days from notice. But said check was issued.
petitioner failed to heed such demand.
Petitioner contends first that there was absence of deceit as the
Ruling: complainant knew that there was no funds at the time of the
issuance of the check. But it was settled that it is criminal fraud or
deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under
Issuing a check merely as guarantee is not a defense in the crime
the Revised Penal Code, and not the nonpayment of a debt.
of BP22, as compared to that of estafa. Also, the argument that
the subject check was issued without consideration is
inconsequential. The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a Afterwards, Petitioner contends that no presumption or prima
worthless check. As stated in the case: facie evidence of guilt would arise if there is no proof as to the
date of receipt by the drawer of the said notice "since there
would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial 3-day period"
“The purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and
from receipt of notice of dishonor of the check within which the
conditions relating to its issuance, or any agreement surrounding
amount necessary to cover the check may be done as provided by
such issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of
paragraph 2 (d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as
petitioner. To determine the reason for which checks are issued,
amended.
or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode
the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value
of checks as currency substitutes, and bring havoc in trade and in Ruling:
banking communities. The clear intention of the framers of B.P. 22
is to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum The absence of proof as to receipt of the written notice of
prohibitum. “
dishonor notwithstanding, the evidence shows that petitioner
had actual notice of the dishonor of the check because he was
verbally notified by the respondent and notice whether written
or verbal was a surplusage and totally unnecessary considering
that almost two (2) months before the issuance of the check,
petitioner's current account was already closed. Under these
circumstances, the notice of dishonor would have served no
useful purpose as no deposit could be made in a closed bank
account.
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
A review of the records shows that the prosecution did not prove
that the petitioner received the notice of dishonor. Registry
return cards must be authenticated to serve as proof of
receipt of letters sent through registered mail.
Held:
- The chain of proven circumstances leads to the logical
conclusion that the tricycle was unlawfully taken by the two
accused from its owner, Miguel de Belen, and the latter was
killed on the occasion thereof. Miguel was last seen with the
two accused; three hours later, the two were again spotted
riding the tricycle without Miguel. The following morning,
the two accused were found in possession of a wheel of the
tricycle. Such possession, which remained without any
satisfactory explanation, raises the presumption that the
two accused authored the carnapping. This presumption
remains unrebutted.
- That only the wheel was found in possession of the accused
and was intended to be appropriated by the latter is of no
moment. The unlawful taking of the tricycle from the owner
was already completed. Besides, the accused may be held
liable for the unlawful taking of the whole vehicle even if
only a part thereof is ultimately taken and/or appropriated
while the rest of it is abandoned.
- The crime was committed before the effectivity of R.A.
7659. Therefore, we have to apply the original provision
prescribing the penalty of "life imprisonment to death"
where the "owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped
motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the
carnapping".
Held:
- During the commission of the crime, which was on February
4, 1992, there was no crime denominated as carnapping
with homicide. The proper denomination for the crime is
carnapping as defined and penalized under of Republic Act Prepared by: Shenna Jane Parado
No. 6539, Sections 2 and 14. Under Republic Act No. 6539,