De Roy v.

CA
The firewall of a burned out building owned by Felisa De Roy
collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family
of Luis Bernal resulting in injuries and even to the death of Bernals
daughter. De Roy claimed that Bernal had been warned prior hand
but that she was ignored.
In the RTC, De Roy was found guilty of gross negligence. She
appealed but the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. On the last
day of filing a motion for reconsideration, De Roys counsel filed a
motion for extension. It was denied by the CA. The CA ruled that
pursuant to the case of Habaluyas Enterprises vs Japzon (August
1985), the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for
reconsideration cannot be extended.
De Roys counsel however argued that the Habaluyas case should
not be applicable because said ruling was never published in the
Official Gazette.
ISSUE: Whether or not Supreme Court decisions must be published
in the Official Gazette before they can be binding.
HELD: No. There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme
Court decision in the Official Gazette before they can be binding
and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is bounden duty
of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of
decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have
been clarified, consistently reiterated and published in the advance
reports of Supreme Court decisions and in such publications as the
SCRA and law journals.
Pimentel v. Llorente
Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment against respondents
Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon for gross misconduct,
serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyer's oath in
connection with the discharge of their duties as members of the
Pasig City Board of Canvassers in the May 8, 1995 elections.

Salayon, then election officer of the Commission on Elections

(COMELEC), was designated chairman of said Board, while
Llorente, who was then City Prosecutor of Pasig City, served as its
ex oficio vice-chairman as provided by law. Complainant, now a
senator, was also a candidate for the Senate in that election.
Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. alleged that the
respondents tampered with the votes received by them by either
adding more votes for particular candidates in their Statement of
Votes (SoV) or reducing the number of votes of particular
candidates in their SoV. Pimentel filed an administrative complaint
for their disbarment. Respondents denied the allegations against
them. They alleged that the preparation of the SoVs was made by
the 12 canvassing committees which the Board had constituted to
assist in the canvassing. They claimed that the errors pointed out
by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight,
and/or fatigue.
Issue: Whether the respondents are held guilty of misconduct.
Held: YES. A lawyer who holds a government position may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge
of his duties as a government official. However, if the misconduct
also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility or the lawyers oath or is of such character as to
affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on
his part, such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar
for such misconduct. Here, by certifying as true and correct the
SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of
the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By express
provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the
government service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of
office as lawyers to do no falsehood. It may be added that, as
lawyers in the government service, respondents were under
greater obligation to observe this basic tenet of the profession
because a public office is a public trust.

Respondents' participation in the irregularities herein reflects on

the legal profession, in general, and on lawyers in government in
particular. Such conduct in the performance of their official duties,
involving no less than the ascertainment of the popular will as
expressed through the ballot, would have merited for them
suspension were it not for the fact that this is their first
administrative transgression and, in the case of Salayon, after a
long public service. Under the circumstances, a penalty of fine in
the amount of P10,000.00 for each of the respondents should be
sufficient and issued a stern warning that similar conduct in the
future will be severely punished.
Trieste v. Sandiganbayan
Trieste was the mayor of Numancia, Aklan. In 1980, during his
term, the Municipality of Numancia purchased construction
materials from Trigen Agro-Industrial Development Corporation.
Trieste was allegedly the president of said corporation. Trieste was
then sued for allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act particularly for willfully and unlawfully having
financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction
in connection with which said accused intervened or took part in
his official capacity and in which he is prohibited by law from
having any interest.
Trieste, in defense, said that he already divested his interest from
the corporation when he took his office as mayor; that he sold his
shares to his sister; he presented evidence to that effect. The
Solicitor General doubted said sale because it was not registered in
the Securities and Exchange Commission. Further, the
advertisement of Trigen in the local rotary club shows that Trieste
is the president of the corporation.
In time, the old Sol-Gen was replaced by a new one. The new SolGen gave credit to the arguments presented by Trieste as it
recommended the dismissal of the case on the ground that Trieste
did divest his interest from the corporation by virtue of his selling
his shares to his sister; that said sale cannot be doubted simply

because it was not reported to the SEC; that sales of stocks are not
required to be reported in the SEC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the recommendation of the Solicitor General
is correct.
HELD: Yes. The Solicitor General is well within his rights to make
such recommendation. A public prosecutor should not hesitate to
recommend to the court the accuseds acquittal if the evidence in
his possession shows that the accused is innocent. If on appeal by
the accused from a conviction by the trial court he finds no legal
basis to sustain the conviction, he should not also hesitate to
recommend that the accused be acquitted.
Dimatulac v. Villon
FACTS:
SPO3 Virgilio Dimatulac was shot dead at his residence in Barangay
San Nicolas, Masantol, Pampanga. A complaint for Murder was filed
before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) private respondents
Mayor Santiago Yabut, Martin Yabut, Servillano Yabut, Evelino
David, Justino Mandap, Casti David, Francisco Yambao, Juan Magat,
Arturo Naguit, Fortunato Mallari, Jesus de la Cruz, Joselito Miranda,
SPO3 Gilberto Malabanan, Aniano Magnaye, Vladimir Yumul, a
certain Danny, and a certain Koyang/Arding.
Judge David conducted a preliminary investigation and found
probable cause, issued warrants for the arrest of the accused. Only
David, Mandap, Magat and Yambao were arrested; while only
Yambao submitted his counter affidavit.
After the prelim investigation, the judge found reasonable ground
to believe that Murder has been committed and the accused are
probably theperpetrators thereof. He recommended the issuance of
warrants of arrests and provided no bail

Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Sylvia Q. Alfonso-Flores conducted a

reinvestigation. It is not clear from the record whether she
conducted the same motu proprio or upon motion of private
respondents.

The offense committed was only homicide (NOT murder)

and all Yabuts were in conspiracy with one another. The 2
requisites of murder qualified by treachery were absent. She also
recommended bail of 20k each. (note: the Yabuts were not under
the custody of the law)

CA. Judge ignored this and set the arraignment. Yabuts entered
their plea of not guilty. Petitioners moved to set aside arraignment
but to no avail. SOJ Guingona FINALLY came up with a resolution of
the appeal. He directed the Provincial Prosec. To amend the info
against the accused from homicide to murder. But he wrote to
Provincial Prosec. Again and SET ASIDE his order to amend the info
from homicide to murder, considering the appeal was moot and
academic by the arraignment of the accused but Mallari must be
included.

Before the information for Homicide was filed, theheirs of

Dimatulac filed an appeal on theresolution of Ass. Prov. Pros.
Alfonso-Flores to the Secretary of Justice (SOJ) alleging mainly that
Alfonso-Flores erred in lowering the crime from Murder as originally
filed to Homicidedespite the glaring presence of treachery, evident
premeditation, etc. (Take note of Rule 70- NPS Rules on Appeal in
Syllabus )

Petitioners filed a Motion to Defer Arraignment of Accused

Fortunato Mallari, denied.

Notice of the appeal was furnished to the Office of the

Provincial Prosecutor. Alfonso-Flores ignored this and proceeded to
file the information for Homicide which the Prov. Prosecutor
(Manarang) approved and certified

Private prosecutor (counsel for private complainants) filed

a motion to defer proceedings (i.e. arraignment) before the RTC in
view of his clients pending appeal with the SOJ

YABUTs opposed motion to defer proceedings/arraignment

arguing that the pendency of theappeal before the SOJ was not a
ground to defer arraignment and they had a right to a speedy trial
[invoked the case of Crespo v. Mogul.
RTC judge denied motion to defer arraignment.RTC Judge set the
arraignment. Private prosecutor moved to inhibit the judge, and
filed a petition for prohibition to enjoin the judge from proceeding
with the arraignment. RTC Judge voluntarily inhibited himself and
then the case wastransferred to herein respondent Judge Villion.
Petitioners filed manifestation informing Judge Villlon him of the
cases pending before the SOJ and the prohibitioncase before the

CA also dismissed the petition.

Petitioners filed with the SC a petition for Certiorari/Prohibition and
Mandamus to reverse the order of respondent Judge denying their
Motion to Set Aside Arraignment; set aside arraignment of private
respondents; order that no further action be taken by any court in
criminal case until this petition resolved; and order Sec. of Justice
and the prosecutors concerned to amend the information from
homicide to murder.
ISSUES
1.
WON the provincial prosecutor erred downgrading
orlowering the crime charged from Murder to Homicide [YES]
2.
WON Judge Villion erred in proceeding with the
arraignment of the accused and denying motion to set aside
arraignment [YES]
3.
WON SOJ erred in reversing himself and his order to
amendthe information from Homicide to Murder [YES]
HELD:Petition GRANTED. The orders denying the Motion toDefer
Proceeding/Arraignment and denying the Motion to Set Aside
Arraignment are declared VOID and SET ASIDE. Thearraignment of
private respondents is likewise declared VOIDand SET ASIDE.
Furthermore, the order of SOJ is SET ASIDE andhis initial order

REINSTATED. The Office of the ProvincialProsecutor of Pampanga is

DIRECTED to file with the RTC theamended information for Murder.
Issue #1: WON the provincial prosecutor erred downgrading or
lowering the crime charged from Murder to Homicide [YES]
There was No Basis for the Reinvestigation or downgrading of the
Offense from Murder toHomicide.
Warrants of arrest were issued against the Yabuts but they were
never arrested/or surrendered and never brought into the custody
of the law. How can the Ass. Prov Prosec. Conduct a reinvestigation
then lower the crime from murder to Homicide? (Note that they reappeared after crime was downgraded).
She should have also waited for the resolution of the Sec of Justice,
but instead entertained the motion for reinvestigation, accepted
counter-affidavits and recommended bail. REMEMBER! They were
never brought into the custody of the law.
Petitioners had the right to appeal to the DOJ under Section 4 of
Rule 112of the Rules of Court and DOJ Order No. 223 S. 1993
recognizes the right of both offended parties and the accused to
appeal from resolutions inpreliminary investigations or
reinvestigations. The sec. speaks of dismissing criminal
complaintpetitioners herein were not barred from appealingfrom
the resolution holding that only homicide was
committed,considering that their complaint was for murder. By
holdingthat only homicide was committed, the Provincial
Prosecutor'sOffice of Pampanga effectively "dismissed" the
complaint formurder.
Appeal to the Sec. of Justice should not be dismissed motu propio
on account of the Yabuts arraignment.
The bar on Sec 4does not apply! The cases of Crespo v Mogul
forecloses the power of authorityof the SOJ to review resolutions of
his subordinates in criminalcases despite an information already
having been filed in court.The SOJ is only enjoined to refrain, as far
as practicable, fromentertaining a petition for review or appeal

from the action of theprosecutor once a complaint or information

is filed in court. There was clear and indecent haste on the part of
the public prosec. In the filing of the information for homicide
depriving the State and offended parties of due processs.
Issue #2: WON Judge Villion erred in proceeding with the
arraignment of the accused and denying motion to set aside
arraignment [YES]
Judge Villon set arraignment of the accused almost immediately
upon receiving the records of the case from theformer RTC Judge.
He should have gone over the case and noticed the multiple
motions, manifestations and uttervehemence of the petitioners to
hear their cause. The judge had COMPLETE control over the case
and any disposition rested on his discretion + was not bound to
await the DOJ resolution on appeal.
But he committed grave abuse of discretion in rushing the
arraignment of theYABUTs on the assailed information for homicide
denying due process.
Actions:nullifying without jurisdiction, the denial of the motion to
defer further hearings, the denial of the motion toreconsider such
denial, the arraignment of the YABUTs and their
plea of not guilty
Issue #3. WON SOJ erred in reversing himself and his order to
amend the information from Homicide to Murder [YES]
DOJ relinquished its power of control andsupervision over the
Provincial Prosecutor and the Asst. Provincial Prosecutors of
Pampanga; and meekly surrenderedto the latter's inappropriate
conduct even hostile attitude,which amounted to neglect of duty or
conduct prejudicial tothe best interest of the service.
The DOJ could have joined cause with petitioners to set aside
arraignment and, in the exercise of itsdisciplinary powers over its
personnel, the DOJ could havedirected the public prosecutors

concerned to show cause whyno disciplinary action should be

taken against them for neglect of duty or conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service.
In Re Gutierrez
Attorney Diosdado Gutierrez was convicted for the murder of one
Filemon Samaco in 1956. He was sentenced to the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. In 1958, after serving a portion of the penalty,
he was granted a conditional pardon by the President. He was
released on the condition that he shall not commit any crime.
Subsequently, the widow of Samaco filed a disbarment case
against Gutierrez by reason of the latters conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude. Murder, is without a doubt, such a crime.

ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez may be disbarred considering the

fact that he was granted pardon.
HELD: Yes. The pardon granted to Gutierrez is not absolute but
conditional. It merely remitted his sentence. It does not reach the
offense itself. Gutierrez must be judged upon the fact of his
conviction for murder without regard to the pardon (which he
invoked in defense). The crime was actually qualified by treachery
and aggravated by its having been committed in hand, by taking
advantage of his official position (Gutierrez being municipal mayor
at the time) and with the use of motor vehicle. The degree of moral
turpitude involved is such as to justify his being purged from the
profession.