Justine Rhoy F.

Salcedo
JD-1
CASE ANALYSIS OF PEOPLE VS. ESCOBER
I. Parties
Private complaining witnesses Vicente and Lina Chua.
Accused-appellant Juan Escober.
Accused-appellant Macario Punzalan.
II. Prior Proceedings
The accused appellants were subjected to custodial investigation at the
Police headquarters instigated by Police investigator Franco who later
referred the case to the fiscal for the filing of Information for the crime of
Robbery with Homicide against the two accused-appellants, Amadeo
Abuyen/Alorte the mastermind and two other John Does.
The case was then tried by the Prosecutors office before the RTC of
Quezon City were five accused were charged and in due course, accusedappellants found guilty of the crime charged, the other two being at large.

III. Theories of the parties

The Prosecution- Escober, the security guard on duty at Bee Seng
Electrical Supply shop, conspired with Abuyen/Alorte and group to rob the
aforesaid shops office by opening the gate and who also allowed the group to
enter the premises which led to the killing of Chuas two children. Punzalan on
the other hand, was then posted outside the gate as lookout.
Accused-appellant Escober He opened the gate when
Abuyen/Alorte knocked thereon as he knew him being a former co-security
guard at Bee Seng Electrical. Abuyen pointed a gun to him and forced to
climb at a back of a pickup car and was only able to free himself only when
the robbers were about to leave.
Accused-appellant Punzalan - He was invited to a drinking spree by
Abuyen/Alorte and thereafter was requested to join the group to proceed to
another place which happened to be Bee Seng Electrical. He saw Escober
open the gate and was told to wait for them outside where he waited for half
an hour. He heard moans of people and when he was about to enter he saw
Abuyen and his companions with bloodstains in arms. Abuyen and the group
started running so he just then followed them. He uttered that he does not
know what he have said in his extrajudicial confession which was done
without the assistance of a lawyer.

RTC- believed the prosecution and dismissed the defense of the

accused appellants and rendered a decision convicting them for the crime of
Robbery with homicide.
SC- reversed the conviction of Escober as prosecution failed to prove
that he conspired with the robbery group. That opening the gate does not
mean that he allowed them to enter as he was held at gunpoint and mere
speculation is not enough to sustain conviction. Prosecution can not rely on
the weakness of the defense and must rely on the strength of their evidence.
Sustained the conviction of Punzalan as he was found to have conspired with
the group.
IV. Objectives of the parties
.
Prosecution wants the Court to give weight on Punzalans extrajudicial
confession and convict him and Escober for the crime charged.
Accused appellant Escober posits that the decision of the RTC is null
and void as it does not state the facts and the law on which the decision was
based and decision was rendered even before all the stenographic notes of
the proceedings had been transcribed.
Accused-appellant Punzalan challenges the validity
extrajudicial confession done without the assistance of a counsel.

of

his

V. Key Facts
The key fact that made a disparity is the fact that Escober voluntarily
confess the information to Lina Chua that he was shot by Abuyen/Alorte but
was actually not.
According to the Prosecution the shooting was made only to avoid the
suspicion that Escober conspired with Abuyen/Alorte. Accused-Appellant
proffers that getting shot is too risky, as this could get him killed. He said that if
the intention is to elude the suspicion then tying him up would be safer and
easier that shooting him.
.
The SC was more persuaded by the contention of the AccusedAppellant.
VI. Issues
ISSUES resolved by the SC
1 .W/N the one and a half page decision of the RTC is sufficient in form
and substance?

2. W/N Escober and Punzalan are guilty of the crime charged?

3. W/N conspiracy was proven?
ISSUES advanced by the parties.
1. W/N the one and a half page decision of the RTC is sufficient in form
and substance?
2. W/N Punzalans extrajudicial confession during custodial investigation is
valid even if executed without assistance of a counsel?
As to the issue of sufficiency in form and substance the Court held that
indeed the decision falls short of the proper standard. The inadequacy stems
primarily from the respondent judge's tendency to generalize and to form
conclusions without detailing the facts from which such conclusions are
deduced. As to the validity of the extrajudicial confession the Court held
that, the waiver appearing in Punzalans extra judicial statement
cannot be considered intelligently made, not having been fully and
truly informed of his right to counsel. For this reason, aside from
the fact that it was done without the assistance of counsel, said
waiver is not valid. Needless to say, the extrajudicial confession is
inadmissible in evidence.
VII. Holdings and Findings
The SC arrived at a conclusion of fact that the act of opening a gate
upon hearing a knock is by itself an innocent gesture. One who
imputes an evil motive or purpose thereto must prove his
allegations convincingly. In the case at bar, even if the version of
Macario Punzalan, Jr. that Escober opened the gate at the knock of
the alleged mastermind Amadeo Abuyen/Roberto Alorte were to be
believed, the same would not constitute sufficient and convincing
proof that Escober had knowledge of the nefarious plan. The worse
that could be attributed to him is lack of better judgment or laxity in
the performance of his duties as a security guard.
Conclusions of law
To hold the accused guilty as co-principal in the crime
charged, the existence of conspiracy between the accused and the
actual killers, must be shown, and the same degree of proof
required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding
of the presence of the conspiracy, i.e., it must be shown to exist as
clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself.
That whenever a homicide has been committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took
part as principals in the commission of the robbery are also guilty as
principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide

although they did not actually take part in the homicide unless it
clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide
VIII. Ratio Decidendi
the ratio decidendi in the case of Appellant Punzalan affirming
his guilt is that while Punzalans participation in the crime was to act
as a look-out, and as such, he did not participate in the killing of the
two helpless victims, he cannot evade responsibility therefor. Wellestablished is the rule in this jurisdiction that whenever a homicide
has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of
the robbery are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in
the homicide unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to
prevent the homicide.
On the other hand the ratio decidendi in holding that Appellant
Escober is not guilty is the fact the accused was at the scene of the
crime at the time of its commission is not, by itself, sufficient to
establish his criminal liability. To hold the accused guilty as coprincipal in the crime charged, the existence of conspiracy between
the accused and the actual killers, must be shown, and the same
degree of proof required for establishing the crime is required to
support a finding of the presence of the conspiracy, i.e., it must be
shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the
crime itself.
IX. Disposition
The SC disposed of this case by acquitting Accused Appellant Escober
for failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and affirming the guilt of Accused appellant
Punzalan beyond reasonable doubt.
Contained in the decretal portion of the judgment are the orders of
release for appellant Escober and the order penalizing Appellant Punzalan of
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the indemnification of the heirs of the
deceased victims.

California Clothing INC. and Michelle S. Ybaez vs Shirley G.Quiones

I. Parties
California Clothing INC. and Michelle S. Ybaez , Petitioner
Shirley G.Quiones , Respondent
II. Prior Proceedings
On June 20, 2003, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision
dismissing both the complaint and counterclaim of the parties. The trial court
concluded that the petitioners believed in good faith that respondent failed to
make a payment; that the employees merely exercised their rights under
honest belief that no payment was made. RTC found no evidence to prove
bad faith on part of the Guess employees to warrant the award of damages.
On appeal of the respondents the Court of Appeals then reversed and
set aside the RTC decision wherefore the instant appeal is granted.
Defendants Michelle Ybaez and California Clothing INC. are ordered to pay
the plaintiff-appellant Shirley G.Quiones jointly and solidarily moral damages
in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (50 000.00) and attorneys fees in the
amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos ( 20, 000.00)
III. Theories of the parties
The court expressed that the issuance of the receipt, notwithstanding,
petitioners had the right to verify from the respondent whether she indeed
made a payment if they had the reason to believe she did not, however the
question now is whether such right was exercised in good faith or they went
overboard giving respondents a case of action against them.It is evident from
the circumstances of the case that petitioners went overboard and tried to
force respondent to pay the amount they were demanding. In the guise of
asking for assistance, petitioners even sent a demand letter to respondents
employer not only informing it of the incident but obviously imputing bad acts
on the part of respondent.It can be inferred from the foregoing that in sending
the demand letter to respondents employer, petitioners intended not only to
ask for assistance in collecting the disputed amount but to tarnish
respondents reputation in the eyes of her employer. To malign respondent
without substantial evidence and despite the latters possession of enough
evidence in her favor, is clearly impermissible. A person should not use his
right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise, he opens
himself to liability. Respondent is entitled to an award of moral damages and
attorney s fees. Moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant s
wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiffs physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury in the
cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil
Code.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of
merit. The Court of Appeals Decision dated August 3, 2006 and Resolution
dated November 14, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 80309, are AFFIRMED.

The respondents complaint against the petitioners stemmed from the

principle of abuse of rights provided for in the Civil Code on the Chapter of
Human Relations.
Article 19. A person must, in the exercise of legal right or duty,
act in good faith. He would be liable if he instead acted in bad faith,
with intent to prejudice another.
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals or good customs, or
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
The petitioners was well within their right to verify from respondents
whether she indeed paid or not and collect from her if she did not.
IV. Key Facts
The employers were able to talk to respondents at Cebu Pacific Office,
which started well. RTC and the CA held that both parties were in conflicting
views insisting their personal claims and beliefs. Petitioners sent a demand
letter to respondents employer not only informing it of the incident but
obviously imputing bad acts on the part of respondent.
Petitioners claimed that after receiving the receipt of payment and the
item purchased, respondent "was noted to hurriedly left (sic) the store." They
also accused respondent that she was not completely being honest when she
was asked about the circumstances of payment, thus:
x xxAfter receiving the OR and the item, Ms. Gutierrez was
noted to hurriedly left (sic) the store. x xx
When I asked her about to whom she gave the money, she gave out a
blank expression and told me, "I cant remember." Then I asked her how much
money she gave, she answered, "P2,100; 2 pcs 1,000 and 1 pc 100 bill."
Then I told her that that would (sic) impossible since we have no such
denomination in our cash fund at that moment. Finally, I asked her if how
much change and if she received change from the cashier, she then
answered, "I dont remember." After asking these simple questions, I am very
certain that she is not completely being honest about this. In fact, we invited
her to come to our boutique to clear these matters but she vehemently
refused saying that shes in a hurry and very busy.
Clearly, these statements are outrightly accusatory. Petitioners accused
respondent that not only did she fail to pay for the jeans she purchased but
that she deliberately took the same without paying for it and later hurriedly left
the shop to evade payment. These accusations were made despite the
issuance of the receipt of payment and the release of the item purchased.
There was, likewise, no showing that respondent had the intention to evade

payment. Contrary to petitioners claim, respondent was not in a rush in

leaving the shop or the mall. This is evidenced by the fact that the Guess
employees did not have a hard time looking for her when they realized the
supposed non-payment.
V. Issues
1. Whether or not the Petitioner acted in bad faith in enforcing its right
and in turn violating the rights of the respondent under Articles 1921 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
The issues advanced by the parties are:
Petitioner:
1. Whether or not there was a payment made by the respondent for
the purchases.
2. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in finding that the letter sent
to the Cebu Pacific Office was made to subject herein respondent
to ridicule, humiliation and similar injury.
3. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in awarding moral damages
and attorneys fees.
Respondent:
1. Whether or not the Petitioner acted in bad faith in enforcing its right
and in turn violating the rights of the respondent under Articles 1921 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
Issues of Facts:
1. Whether or not there was a payment made by the respondent for
the purchases
Issues of Law:
1. Whether or not it is within their right to verify from respondent
whether she indeed paid or not and collect from her if she did not.
2. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in finding that the letter sent
to the Cebu Pacific Office was made to subject herein respondent
to ridicule, humiliation and similar injury.
VII. Holdings and Findings
One conclusion of facts that the court has arrived is that petioners
acted in bad faith in the enforcement of its right to assure the payment of the
respondent. They also acted in bad faith when they asked for assistance in

securing and pressuring the respondent for their payment through a letter
sent.
No Obiter Dicta in the case at bar since all issues mentioned and
discussed give bearing or is substantial in arriving at a conclusion. The
violation of the respondents right in article 19-21 is a conclusion of law.
VIII. Ratio Decidendi
The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for
which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh. In this
case, petitioners obviously abused their rights. Complementing the principle of
abuse of rights are the provisions of Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code which
read:
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals or good customs, or
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
IX. Disposition
The court dispose the case in favor of the respondent and DENIED the
petition for lack of merit. The decretal portion states that the decision rendered
by the Court of Appeals be AFFIRMED, moral damages in the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos and attorneys fee of Twenty Thousand Pesos be granted to
the respondent.

G.R. No. 184266

November 11, 2013

APPLIED FOOD INGREDIENTS COMPANY, INC.,

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

I. The Parties
Petitioner, Applied Food Ingredients Company, Inc.,
Respondent is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
II. Prior Proceedings
Petitioner, brought its case to the Court of Tax Appeals First Division in
C.T.A. Case No. 6513 which denied petitioner's claim for the issuance of a tax
credit certificate representing its alleged excess input taxes attributable to
zero-rated sales for the period 1 April 2000 to 31 December 2000.
On appeal, the CTA En Banc likewise denied the claim of petitioner.
Hence, this petition.
III. Theories of the parties
Petitioner claimed that the export sales which transpired from April 1,
2000 to December 31, 2000 were "zero-rated" sales, pursuant to Section
106(A (2)(a)(1) of the N1RC of 1997. They also alleged that the accumulated
input taxes of P9,528,565.85 for the period of September 1, 1998 to
December 31, 2000 has not been applied against any output tax, that it
erroneously and excessively paid the tax and are entitled to the issuance of a
tax credit certificate or refund.
Respondents alleged that the request for tax credit certificate is still
under examination by respondent's examiners; that taxes paid and collected
are presumed to have been made in accordance with law, hence not
refundable; petitioner's allegation that it erroneously and excessively paid the
tax during the year under review does not ipso facto warrant the refund/credit
or the issuance of a certificate thereto; petitioner must prove that it has
complied with the governing rules with reference to tax recovery or refund,
which are found in Sections 204(C) and 229 of the Tax Code, as amended.
IV. Objectives of the parties
Through Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioners seeks to nullify the Decision dated 4 June
2008 and Resolution dated 26 August 2008 of the Court of Tax Appeals En
Banc (CTA En Bane in C.TA. EB No. 359). Petitioners alleging that it

erroneously and excessively paid taxes seeks the issuance of a tax credit
certificate or refund in the total amount of of P9,528,565.85.

V. Key Facts
Petitioner alleged that from September 1998 to December 31, 2000, it paid an
aggregate sum of input taxes ofP9, 528,565.85 for its importation of food
ingredients, as reported in its Quarterly Vat Return.
Subsequently, these imported food ingredients were exported between
the periods of April 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, from which the petitioner
was able to generate export sales amounting to P114, 577,937.24. Petitioner
further claimed that the aforesaid export sales which transpired from April 1,
2000 to December 31, 2000 were "zero-rated" sales, pursuant to Section
106(A (2)(a)(1) of the N1RC of 1997.
On March 26, 2002 and June 28, 2002, petitioner filed two separate
applications for the issuance of tax credit certificates in the amounts
of P5,385, 208.32 and P4,143,357.53, respectively.
On July 24, 2002, in view of respondent's inaction, petitioner elevated
the case before the Court of Tax Appeals by way of a Petition for Review,
docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 6513.

VI. Issues
1. Petitioner raises this sole issue for the consideration of this Court:
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a tax
credit certificate or refund of the amount of P9,528,565.85 representing
creditable input taxes incurred for the period of September 1, 1998 to
December 31, 2000 which are attributable to zero-rated sales for the
period of April 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000.
2. The Court raised the issue:
Whether or not the timeliness of petitioners claim is in accordance
with the provisions of Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997
VII. Holdings and Findings
1. The Petition has no merit. Our VAT Law provides for a mechanism that would
allow VAT-registered persons to recover the excess input taxes over the
output taxes they had paid in relation to their sales.
2. Failure of petitioner to observe the mandatory 120-day period is fatal to its
claim and rendered the CTA devoid of jurisdiction over the judicial claim. The
Court finds, in view of the absence of jurisdiction of the Court of the Tax

Appeals over the judicial claim of petitioner, that there is no need to discuss
the other issues raised.

VIII. Ratio Decidendi

1. "The VAT is a tax on consumption, an indirect tax that the provider of goods
or services may pass on to his customers. Under the VAT method of
taxation, which is invoice-based, an entity can subtract from the VAT
charged on its sales or outputs the VAT it paid on its purchases, inputs and
imports." As stated in Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of
the Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, this Court explained
that
IX. Disposition
The Court finds, in view of the absence of jurisdiction of the Court of
the Tax Appeals over the judicial claim of petitioner, that there is no need to
discuss the other issues raised.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED.