Remedy on illegal search of vehicle

Galvante v. Hon. Casimiro et al (G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008)

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Petitioner's vehicle was search without his consent. He filed complaints before the Ombudsman. One of the criminal complaint he filed was warrantless search. 

Was the complaint proper?

No. The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the RPC punishes are only two forms of searches:

Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceedingP1,000.00 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.

Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.

Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies in his Affidavit-Complaint; rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a search on his vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC.

The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle is civil, (Silahis International Hotel, Inc. v. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087, February 20, 2006). under Article 32, in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

x x x x

(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;

x x x x

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

and/or disciplinary and administrative, under Section 41 of Republic Act No. 6975.(Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990).

To avail of such remedies, petitioner may file a complaint for damages with the regular courts (Lui v. Matillano, G.R. No. 141176, May 27, 2004) or an administrative case with the PNP/DILG,(Cayago v. Lina, G.R. No. 149539, January 19, 2005) and not a criminal action with the Ombudsman.

On credibility of witness, alibi and treachery

When it comes to the matter of credibility of a witness.

Settled are the guiding rules some of which are that:

(1) the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case;

(2) the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of a witness is entitled to great respect since it had the opportunity to examine his demeanor as he testified on the witness stand, and, therefore, can discern if such witness is telling the truth or not; and

(3) a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.

Jurisprudence also tells us that when a testimony is given in a candid and straightforward manner, there is no room for doubt that the witness is telling the truth. (People v. Jalbonian, G.R. No. 180281, July 1, 2013).

On matters of alibi.

For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.(People v. Hatsero, G.R. No. 192179, July 3, 2013.) These requirements of time and place must be strictly met.

Court have consistently assigned less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives since it was established in jurisprudence that, in order for corroboration to be credible, the same must be offered preferably by disinterested witnesses.(People v. Basallo, G.R. No. 182457, January 30, 2013) Friends and relatives cannot be considered as a disinterested witness.

It is jurisprudentially settled that positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable.(People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 190340, July 24, 2013)

It is likewise settled that where there is nothing to indicate that a witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. (People v. Zapuiz, G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013) 

On treachery

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself.

Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.

What is decisive in an appreciation of treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself.(People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014)

As per jurisprudence, when the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter.(People v. Cabtalan, G.R. No. 175980, February 15, 2012)

G.R. No. 199226

G.R. No. 199226: "Inconsistency on the place where the crime happened as a minor inconsistency which should generally be given liberal appreciation considering that the place of the commission of the crime in rape cases is after all not an essential element thereof. What is decisive is that [accused-appellant’s] commission of the crime charged has been sufficiently proved.

The alleged inconsistency is also understandable considering that AAA was only ten (10) years old at the time she testified before the trial court. Courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience like rape. Such inconsistencies on minor details are in fact badges of truth, candidness and the fact that the witness is unrehearsed. These discrepancies as to minor matters, irrelevant to the elements of the crime, cannot thus be considered a ground for acquittal. In this case, the alleged inconsistency in AAA’s testimony regarding the exact place of the commission of rape does not make her otherwise straightforward and coherent testimony on material points, less worthy of belief."



'via Blog this'

On separation pay of dismissed employee

Separation pay may be granted to a validly dismissed employee as an act of social justice or on equitable grounds only if the dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct; and (2) did not reflect on the moral character of the employee. 
When a dismissed employee from work intentionally circumvented a strict company policy, manipulated another entity to carry out own instructions without the company’s knowledge and approval, and directed the diversion of funds under the guise of shortening the laborious process of securing funds from the head office for promotional activities. These transgressions were serious offenses that warranted employee's dismissal from employment and denial of the separation pay (Unilever Phil. Inc. vs. Rivera, G.R. 201701, June 5, 2013).

Psychological incapacity

Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility do not equate with psychological incapacity. Nor were his supposed sexual infidelity and criminal offenses manifestations of psychological incapacity. If at all, they would constitute grounds for an action for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. (Mendoza vs. Republic, G.R. 157649, November 12, 2012,) 

On credibility of child witness testimony

"Testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. When a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was really committed." (People vs. Saban, G.R. 110559, November 24,  1999.)