Article 182

5 Ark Travel v. Abrogar

Facts:

Ark Travel Express, Inc. (Ark Travel for brevity) filed with the City Prosecutor of Makati a
criminal complaint for False Testimony in a Civil Case under Article 182 of the Revised
Penal Code against herein private respondents Violeta Baguio and Lorelei Ira.
City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict private respondents for violation of said
law (Article 182) and accordingly filed the respective Informations against each of them
before the MTC, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895

The undersigned 2nd Assistant Prosecutor accuses VIOLETA S. BAGUIO of the crime of
Violation of Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code (False Testimony), committed as
follows:

That on or about the 19th day of February, 1996, in the City of Makati, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously give false testimony upon a material fact in
Civil Case No. 95-1542, relative to a complaint for Collection of sum of money, torts
and damages filed by Ark Travel Express, Inc. (Ark Inc. for short) against New
Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. (NFMA, Inc. for short) in the following manner, to wit:
during the trial of the aforesaid civil case on aforestated date before Branch 137 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Metro Manila, in which one of the principal issues
was whether or not payment of the claim of ARK, Inc. has been made by NFMA,
Inc., the said accused while testifying for NFMA, Inc., with malicious intent, did, then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly testified on direct
testimony, by way of a sworn statement, and while under oath on the witness
stand, that the claims of ARK, Inc. supported by a statements of accounts sent to
and received by defendant-corporation NFMA, Inc. is baseless and/or been paid,
which testimony as accused very well knew and ought to know, by reason of accused's
position as cashier, was false inasmuch as the claim based on the statement of
accounts of ARK, Inc. are, in truth and in fact, valid, legal and unpaid accounts of
NFMA, Inc. with ARK Travel Inc., herein represented by private complainant MA. PAZ
ALBERTO, to the damage and prejudice of the latter. CONTRARY TO LAW.

Private respondents filed a petition for review of the City Prosecutor's. In a resolution
dated March 9, 1998, Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito P. Zuo reversed the City
Prosecutor's resolution dated November 20, 1996. The prosecution office of Makati then
filed with the MTC a Motion to Withdraw Information
However, on May 15, 1998, Ark Travel filed an "Urgent Petition for Automatic
Review" with the DOJ. In a letter dated May 27, 1998, Secretary Silvestre H. Bello III
resolved to treat the urgent petition as a motion for reconsideration, reversed its
resolution dated March 9, 1998 and directed the City Prosecutor to proceed with the
prosecution of Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895.
MTC decided in June 10, 1998 that the Motion to Withdraw Information filed by the
prosecution is hereby DENIED.
In the meanwhile, private respondents Baguio and Ira filed a Motion for Reconsideration
alleging that: (1) the March 9,1998 resolution of Chief State Prosecutor Zuo finding no
 probable cause to indict them has become final and executory because the Urgent
Petition for Automatic Review was filed way beyond the 10-day reglementary
period; and (2) the said resolution of May 27, 1998 did not reverse the finding of the
March 9, 1998 resolution that respondents did not really act with malice/criminal
intent because the resolution of the Secretary merely stated that there was false
testimony.
Tapos ni grant ni DOJ Undersecretary Jesus A. Zozobrado, Jr., signing "For the
Secretary", ang Motion for Reconsideration ni private respondent at sabi nya set aside
ang order nung May 27, at ireinstate ang March 9.
Consequently, private respondents filed with the MTC a Motion for Reconsideration of its
June 10, 1998 Order alleging that there is no longer any obstacle, legal or otherwise, to
the granting of the Motion to Withdraw Information previously filed by the prosecution.
The MTC denied the motion. (Reason: In the Crespo Mogul case, it was held by the
Supreme Court that once an information is filed in court, such filing sets in motion the
criminal action against the accused before the court, and any motion to dismiss or
withdraw information is always addressed to the discretion of the court. The denial or
grant of any motion is done by the court not out of subservience to the secretary of
justice but in faithful exercise of its judicial prerogative.)
Private respondents questioned the MTC Orders dated June 10, 1998 and July 21, 1998
via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the respondent RTC of Makati.
RTC: As aptly stated in Ledesma vs. CA (Supra) and Marcelo vs. CA (Aug. 4, 1994) the
trial Court nonetheless should make its own study and evaluation of the said
motion and not reply merely on the awaited action of the secretary. No such
evaluation was ever conducted by the respondent Court before it issued the two (2)
questioned orders. In view hereof, it is this Court's opinion and stand that the respondent
Court may have indeed acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when it denied the Motion to Withdraw and the motion for reconsideration
based solely on its bare and ambiguous reliance on the Crespo Doctrine, since an
independent evaluation and assessment of the existence of a probable cause is
necessary before such orders denying the said motions could be issued. Informations in
Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895 are hereby considered withdrawn.
RTC denied Ark Travel's motion for reconsideration kasi di sila nakapagsubmit ng motion
within the 10 day period.
Hence, Art Travel filed a petition for certiorari against RTC

(summary ng facts: Ark Travel filed a case against Baguio and Ira for violation of Art 182; nag
file ng information si City Prosecutor kasi may probable cause daw against Baguio ang Ira; Nag
file ng petition for review sila B and I; on March 9 ni approve ng Chief state prosecutor ang
petition for review at nireverse ang decision ni City Prosecutor kaya nag file sila sa MTC ng
Motion to Withdraw Information; Nag file si Ark Travel sa DOJ ng review; Nung May 27 ni set
aside ni DOJ ang March 9 resolution; Nung June 10 dineny ni MTC ang motion to withdraw
information; Nagfile na naman ng motion for reconsideration si B and I sa decision ni MTC;
Inapprove ni DOJ Undersecretary ang Motion for Reconsideration ni B at I at sabi nya set aside
ang order nung May 27, at ireinstate ang March 9; at dahil dyan nag file ng motion ulit si B
and I ulit sa MTC na iset aside ang decision nung June 10; dineny ni MTC because of the
Crespo Mogul doctrine; nagalit si B and I kaya nag file sila ng certiorari case sa RTC para iset
aside ang orders ni MTC; sabi ni RTC mali daw si MTC na dineny nya ang motion nila B and I
based lang sa Crespo Mogul case so infavor si RTC kay B and I at dinismiss nya agad yung 2
criminal cases ni Ark Travel against B and I. TANG INA ANG DAMING KASO ANG YAMAN
NIYO DAMING PANGBAYAD SA LAWYER)
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHEN IT
NULLIFIED THE ORDERS OF THE COURT A QUO, ENJOINED THE SAID COURT A QUO
FROM HEARING CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 200894 AND 200895, AND THEREAFTER,
ORDERED THE OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF SAID CRIMINAL CASES.

Arguments ni Ark Travel:

the ruling of the RTC contravenes the doctrine laid down by this Court in the case of
Crespo vs. Mogul which enunciated that once a complaint or information is filed in
court any disposition of the case such as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of
the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court.
Ark Travel likewise insists that criminal prosecutions cannot be enjoined.

Counterargument nila private respondents:

(1) Appeal and not certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the appropriate remedy.
(2) But even if the petition at bar is treated as an appeal, the filing thereof way beyond the
15-day reglementary period within which to appeal, renders the instant petition
outrightly dismissable;
(3) Assuming arguendo that petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy, the
petition should still be denied and/or dismissed outright for having been filed beyond
the 60-day reglementary period provided by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court;
(4) The RTC's Orders have become final and executory, and consequently may no
longer be disturbed;
(5) The filing of the petition with this Court is grossly violative of the principle of
hierarchy of courts;
(6) There is no ground to reverse public respondent RTC's Orders which considered
the criminal cases as withdrawn because the petition does not rebut the validity of the
ruling of the DOJ that there is no probable cause to charge herein private
respondents with the crime of false testimony.

Nagreply ulit si Ark kasi competitive sya: herein petition for certiorari is the proper remedy and
not appeal because what is being questioned is not the correctness of the subject Orders but
the jurisdiction of the RTC in considering the criminal cases as withdrawn when said cases
are not pending with it but the MTC; that appeal is not a speedy and/or adequate remedy;
and that herein petition does not violate the principle of hierarchy of court because it
presents a question of law.

Held: (guys madaming held, nilagay ko lahat kasi baka tanungin ni PJT)

Procedural aspect

Stating Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure -> the filing of the
petition on January 26, 1999 was filed on the 60th day from November 27, 1998, Ark
Travel's date of receipt of notice of the order denying Ark Travel's motion for
reconsideration
We have consistently held that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be
construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. In view
 of such retroactive application of procedural laws, the instant petition should be
considered as timely filed.
Further, herein case is a clear exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts. The
Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly
to it for compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues raised. This
case commenced in the MTC way back 1996 and still pends. We therefore set aside
such principle for this particular case, in the interest of speedy justice.

Substantive issue

General Rule: denial of a motion to withdraw information, just like a motion to dismiss a
complaint, is an interlocutory order and therefore it cannot be the proper subject of an appeal
or certiorari until a final judgment on the merits of the case is rendered.

Exceptions:
(a) when the trial court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction;
(b) where there is patent grave abuse of discretion by the trial court; or,
(c) appeal would not prove to be a speedy and adequate remedy as when an appeal would
not promptly relieve a defendant from the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order
maintaining the plaintiffs baseless action and compelling the defendant needlessly to go
through a protracted trial and clogging the court dockets by another futile case.

All three situations are present in this case. Thus, the petition for certiorari filed with this
Court is the proper remedy.

- It is settled that when confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information on the

ground of lack of probable cause based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary, the
bounden duty of the trial court is to make an independent assessment of the merits
of such motion. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case, the trial court is not
bound by such resolution but is required to evaluate it before proceeding further with
the trial and should embody such assessment in the order disposing the motion.
- The subject MTC Orders do not show that the MTC made an independent assessment
of the merits of the Motion to Withdraw Informations. The MTC merely based its first
order on the ruling of the DOJ that probable cause existed. In the second order, the
MTC merely stated that from its reading of the Informations, and in keeping with the
Crespo ruling, it is denying the motion for reconsideration. The MTC should have made
an independent evaluation and embodied its assessment in at least one of its assailed
orders, especially considering that the DOJ had issued contradicting rulings on the
existence of probable cause. Hence, on this point, we agree with the RTC that the
MTC committed grave abuse of discretion.
PERO WAIT THERES MORE MAY KASALANAN DIN SI RTC!!
- the subject cases are not within the jurisdiction of the RTC to dismiss. The only
issue brought to it is whether or not the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying the motion to withdraw without making any independent evaluation as to
whether or not there is a probable cause.
- Second, while ruling that the MTC should have made an independent assessment on
the merits of the Motion to Withdraw Informations, the RTC itself omitted to do the very
thing that it prescribed the MTC to do. It unceremoniously considered the criminal
cases as withdrawn, without evaluation or determination of the existence of the
probable cause.
 - The RTC should have only nullified the subject MTC Order and remanded the case to
the MTC for its determination of the existence of probable cause pursuant to the
aforementioned Crespo and Ledesma cases

PERO SABI NI SC NO TIME TO REMAND THE CASE NA DAW SA MTC KASI MASYADO NG
DRAGGING YUNG KASO

ETOOO NA TALAGAA!!!

ARTICLE 182 OF THE RPC

Elements:
(1) the testimony must be given in a civil case;
(2) the testimony must relate to the issues presented in the case;
(3) the testimony is false;
(4) the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false; and
(5) such testimony must be malicious and given with and intent to affect the issues
presented in the case.

1st and 2nd element: present in the case

- Ark Travel filed a complaint for collection of sum of money, torts and damages against
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. (NFMAI) and Angelina T. Rivera with the Regional
Trial Court of Makati (Branch 137), docketed as Civil Case No. 95-1542. In said civil
case, private respondents were presented by NFMAI as witnesses. They executed their
respective sworn statements and testified before the trial court that NFMAI has no
outstanding obligation with Ark Travel as the same had been paid in full.

3rd, 4th, 5th requisite: not clear

- The falsity of the subject testimonies of private respondents is yet to be established. It
is noted that at the time of the filing of the criminal complaints, the civil case filed by
Ark Travel is still pending decision. Ark Travel has yet to prove the validity of its
monetary claims and damages against NFMAI. It is only after trial that the RTC can
assess the veracity or falsity of the testimony and correspondingly render a decision.
Thus, the civil case is so intimately connected with the subject crime that it is
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the respondents in the criminal cases. In
other words, whether or not the testimonies of private respondents in the civil cases are
false is a prejudicial question. Hence, pending determination of the falsity of the
subject testimonies of private respondents in the civil case, the criminal action for false
testimony must perforce be suspended. As such, under the attendant circumstances,
although there is no motion to suspend proceedings on the part of the private
respondents, orderly administration of justice dictates that the criminal cases
should be suspended.

NULLIFIED LAHAT NG ORDERS NI RTC AND MTC. IN LIEU THEREOF, THE

SAID METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT IS DIRECTED TO SUSPEND THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE FINAL DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 95-1542 OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY

BUY BUST OPERATION

19 People v. Quigod

Facts:
The charge against accused-appellant stemmed from the following Information:
DARLENE QUIGOD y MIRANDA of the crime of Violation of Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. 9165,
committed as follows: That on or about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of September 6, 2002 at
Ong Yiu, Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, deliver two (2) sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise
known as shabu, weighing zero point four six seven zero (0.4670) grams, to SPO2 Antonio
Paloma Jamila (acting as poseur-buyer), which is a dangerous drug. Pleaded not guilty

Prosecution
In the morning of September 6, 2002, PDEA received confidential information from a police
informant that accused-appellant was selling "shabu" at Purok 7, Ong Yiu, Butuan City.
Acting on the information, a team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. SPO2 Jamila
was to act as the poseur-buyer.
At around 4:30 p.m., the team was dispatched to the area near the basketball court of Purok
7, Ong Yiu, Butuan City. Thereafter, the police informant contacted accused-appellant, and
introduced Jamila as a buyer of shabu. After agreeing to the price of shabu at PhP1,000 per
sachet, SPO2 Jamila ordered two (2) sachets.
Accused-appellant left to get the shabu and asked them to wait for her Shortly thereafter,
accused-appellant came back with the two (2) sachets of shabu and demanded immediate
payment for them from SPO2 Jamila who, in turn, carefully examined the articles. After that, the
officers rushed towards accused-appellant, identified themselves as PDEA agents, and arrested
her.
The team, together with accused-appellant, immediately proceeded to their
office for booking, documentation and filing of the case against her. The 2 articles seized,
respectively marked as RPM1 and RPM2, were under the initial custody of SPO2 Jamila. At
about 6:35 p.m., SPO2 Jamila, together with PO1 Morales and accusedappellant, submitted the
seized articles to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory.

Defense
She testified that she was a fish vendor who looked after her family's carenderia before she got
arrested. Accused-appellant identified herself as a police asset whose task is to conduct
surveillance on persons suspected of selling illegal drugs in Ong Yiu, Butuan. According
to her, she has worked with Toto Maravilla as a police asset since 2001. Accused-appellant
recounted that on September 6, 2002, she was instructed to conduct surveillance on a certain
Jamil Osman Manua, who was suspected of engaging in illegal drug trade activities, at
Purok 7, Ong Yiu. In the course of the surveillance, SPO2 Jamila arrested accused-appellant
and brought her to the PDEA Office for investigation. When accused-appellant identified herself
as a police asset, SPO2 Jamila did not believe her. Also, she claimed that no marked money
was given to her during the alleged buy-bust operation

RTC: Quigod is guilty

On appeal to the CA, she raised the issue of whether the chain of custody of the shabu
allegedly recovered from her was properly established. She argued that SPO2 Jamila failed to
properly identify the prohibited drug and that the prosecution was unable to prove that the drugs
presented in court were the same drugs seized from her.
CA: CA affirmed the judgment of the lower court. It ruled that all the elements necessary to
establish the fact of sale or delivery of illegal drugs were aptly established by the prosecution,
including the chain of custody
During the trial, the prosecution through SPO2 Jamila (as poseur-buyer) was able to establish
the consummation of the sale by agreeing to purchase sachets of shabu at P1,000.00 each
from appellant, which the latter had voluntarily delivered at the total price of P2,000.00 for two
(2) sachets of shabu. SPO2 Jamila personally identified appellant in court as the same person
who sold to him the shabu. The two (2) sachets of shabu conscated from appellant, properly
marked as Exhibits "RPM1 and RPM2", were immediately brought to the laboratory for
qualitative examination. The result of tests conducted confirmed that the specimen submitted
were positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. More so, appellant's urine specimen that
was taken by the authorities was found with traces of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, thus
indicating that she had recentlty "used" shabu
Issue: WON Quigod is guilty

Held: YES

Buy-Bust Operation is a Legitimate Mode of Apprehending Drug Pushers (relevant)

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.
In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proven to be an effective method of
apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards
is undertaken.

In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that the buy-bust operation
conducted by the police officers, who made use of entrapment to capture accusedappellant in
the act of selling a dangerous drug, was valid. It has been established that it was the police
informant who made the initial contact with accused-appellant when he introduced SPO2
Jamila as a buyer for shabu. SPO2 Jamila then ordered two (2) sachets of shabu which
accused-appellant agreed to sell at PhP1,000 per sachet. Accused-appellant left for a while
and shortly thereafter, she came back with the two (2) sachets containing a white
crystalline substance which was later identified as shabu and gave them to SPO2 Jamila. The
latter then paid her with the previously marked money he brought with him. Subsequently,
upon giving the pre-arranged signal, the accused-appellant was arrested. Evidently, the
facts themselves demonstrate a valid buy-bust operation that is within the bounds of a
fair and reasonable administration of justice.

Chain of Custody was Properly Established

Elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs:

(1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and
(2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.

All these elements were ably proven by the prosecution in the instant case. The accused-
appellant sold and delivered the shabu for PhP2,000 to SPO2 Jamila posing as buyer; the said
drug was seized and identified as a prohibited drug.

Further, it is worth noting that the chain of custody was also clearly established. In every
prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug, i.e., as part of
the corpus delicti, as evidence in court is also material. Corpus delicti is the body or
substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has actually been
committed.
For the purpose of ensuring that the chain of custody is established, the
Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165. Non compliance with
Section 21 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused."

In the instant case, there was substantial compliance with the law, and the integrity of the drugs
seized from the accused-appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject
matter of the case was shown not to have been broken.

The factual milieu of the case reveals that after SPO2 Jamila seized and confiscated the
dangerous drugs, as well as the marked money, the accused-appellant was immediately
arrested and brought to the police station for investigation. Immediately thereafter, the
confiscated substance marked as "RPM1" and "RPM2," respectively, together with a letter of
request for examination, was submitted by SPO2 Jamila to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
laboratory examination to determine the presence of any dangerous drug. Notably, PO1
Morales and accused-appellant herself were with SPO2 Jamila when he delivered the same
to the laboratory. Also, it was P/Insp. Banogon himself who received the specimen from
SPO2 Jamila.

PETITION DENIED