Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 128213, December 13, 2005
Azcuna, J.:
Facts: Alberto and Avella entered into an agreement for the sale of the formers house
and lot for P1.2 million pesos. An earnest money in the amount of ten thousand pesos
(P10, 000) was given to Alberto by Avella. On even date, one hundred and fifty-five
thousand pesos (P155, 000) was delivered by Avella representing the down payment for
the house and lot. A subsequent payment of five thousand pesos (P5, 000) was made.
Avella prepared two identical receipts with respect to this last transaction in her own
handwriting. Later on, the relationship between the parties turned sour. Avella filed a
complaint for estafa against Alberto for his failure to execute a deed of sale and deliver
the subject property. As evidence, she submitted a copy of the receipt she prepared.
However, said receipt appeared to have been altered in the following manner: 1) the
word fifty was inserted before the word five on the second line of the receipt to read
fifty five thousand instead of five thousand; 2) the number 5 was inserted before
5,000.00 on the third line of the receipt so that it would read 55,000.00; 3) additional
words were inserted in the last sentence of the receipt which reads, Now covered by
T.C.T. # 3998 R.D. Mandaluyong MM. the parties agree to execute of valid deed of
conveyance covering the same sale; 4) on the date January 21 the number 4 was
superimposed so that it would read as January 24 instead; and 5) there now appears
the amount of 55,000.00 and below it the word value on the upper left hand corner of
the receipt. Alberto on the other hand, instituted a criminal action against Avella for
falsification of private document (Art 172 (2) in relation to Art 171 (6) of RPC). On her
defense, Avella admitted that she did in fact alter the receipt but claims that it was done
in the presence and at the request of Alberto. The trial court ruled against Avella. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification as to the penalty.
Hence, this petition for review.
Issue: Whether or not Avella could be held criminally liable for the crime charged.
Held: Yes. The elements of the crime of falsification under Article 171 (6) of the Revised
Penal Code are: (1) that there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a
document; (2) that it was made on a genuine document; (3) that the alteration or
intercalation has changed the meaning of the document; and (4) that the changes made
the document speak something false. When these are committed by a private individual
on a private document the violation would fall under paragraph 2, Article 172 of the
same code, but there must be, in addition to the aforesaid elements, independent
evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person. Given the
admissions of Avella that she altered the receipt, and without convincing evidence that
the alteration was with the consent of private complainant, the Court holds that all four
(4) elements have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As to the requirement of
damage, this is readily apparent as it was made to appear that Alberto had
receivedP50, 000 when in fact he did not. Hence, Avellas conviction.
Held: Petitioner is wrong. COA Circular No. 78-84 dated August 1, 1978, provides that
negotiated contracts may be entered into under certain conditions. However, none of
the conditions existed when the petitioner purchased the fire extinguishers on a
negotiated basis from Powerline. The petitioner did not require Cunanan to submit any
certification from the Department of Trade and Industry that he was the exclusive
distributor or manufacturer of fire extinguishers. Neither did he require Cunanan to
certify or execute an affidavit that no sub dealer had been designated to sell the said
product at a lower price. The petitioner failed to ascertain whether a suitable substitute
could be obtained elsewhere, under terms more advantageous to the government. It
turned out that as declared by the trial court, another business enterprise, Systems
Products Industries, was selling the same brand and specifications at only P2,900.00
per unit. Finally, accused Oani failed to present proof that no suitable substitute can be
obtained elsewhere at more advantageous terms to the government, as thus, required
by COA Circular 78-84, series of 1978.
In Danville Maritime, Inc. v. Commission on Audit,[33] the Court emphasized that By its
very nature and characteristic, a competitive public bidding aims to protect the public
interest by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open competition.
Another self-evident purpose of public bidding is to avoid or preclude suspicion of
favoritism and anomalies in the execution of public contracts. Public bidding of
government contracts and for disposition of government assets have the same purpose
and objectives. Their only difference, if at all, is that in the public bidding for public
contracts the award is generally given to the lowest bidder while in the disposition of
government assets the award is to the highest bidder.
In a public bidding, there must be competition that is legitimate, fair and honest. The
three principles of a public bidding are the offer to the public; an opportunity for
competition; and a basis for exact comparison of bids. A contract granted without the
competitive bidding required by law is void, and the party to whom it is awarded cannot
benefit from it. In the present case, the petitioner purchased the fire extinguishers and
office and school supplies without the benefit of a public bidding, in gross and evident
bad faith, resulting in the considerable overpricing of the fire extinguishers and the
supplies, to the gross prejudice of the government.
was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the
evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
With respect to corpus delicti, Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources or dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the persons/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof;
xxx
In the instant case, it is indisputable that the procedures for the custody and disposition of
confiscated dangerous drugs, as mandated in Section 21 of RA 9165, were not observed. The
records utterly failed to show that the buy-bust team complied with these procedures despite
their mandatory nature as indicated by the use of shall in the directives of the law.
While this Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 of RA
9165 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, for and as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the siezed items are properly preserved by the apprehending
team,[73] these conditions were not met in the case at bar. No explanation was offered by the
testifying police officers for their failure to observe the rule. In this respect, we cannot fault the
apprehending policemen either, as PO1 Roy admitted that he was not a PDEA operative[74] and
the other witness, PO3 Rivera, testified that he was not aware of the procedure involved in the
conduct of anti-drug operations by the PNP.[75] In fine, there is serious doubt whether the drug
presented in court was the same drug recovered from the appellant. Consequently, the
prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the corpus delicti.
Furthermore, the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to reveal the identity of the
person who had custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending
presentation in court. Thus, the prosecution likewise failed to establish the chain of custody
which is fatal to its cause. In fine, the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. There was likewise a break in the chain of custody which proves
fatal to the prosecutions case.
Since the seizing officer usually has to turn over the seized drugs to the desk officer or
some superior officer, who would then send a courier to the police crime laboratory with
a request that the same be examined to identify the contents, it is imperative for the
officer who placed his marking on the plastic container to seal the same, preferably with
adhesive tape that usually cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic
container. If the drugs were not in a plastic container, the police officer should put it in
one and seal the same. In this way the drugs would assuredly reach the laboratory in
the same condition it was seized from the accused.
Further, after the laboratory technician has tested and verified the nature of the powder
in the container, he should seal it again with a new seal since the police officers seal
had been broken. In this way, if the accused wants to contest the test made, the Court
would be assured that what is retested is the same powder seized from the accused.
If the sealing of the seized article had not been made, the prosecution would have to
present the desk officer or superior officer to whom the seizing officer turned over such
article. That desk officer or superior officer needs to testify that he had taken care that
the drugs were not tampered with or substituted. And if someone else brought the
unsealed sachet of drugs to the police crime laboratory, he, too, should give similar
testimony, and so on up to the receiving custodian at the crime laboratory until the drugs
reach the laboratory technician who examined and resealed it.
Here, the police arrested Peralta and seized the sachet of shabu from him on July 21,
2002 and made the request for testing on July 22, 2002. Since the prosecution did not
present evidence that the sachet had been marked shortly after seizure and that its
integrity had been preserved by proper sealing, the prosecution failed to prove the third
element of the crime: the existence of the corpus delicti.