488 Phil. 293
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
When arraigned, the respondents, duly-assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Respondents Jesus Clavecilla[7] and Manuel Malapitan, Sr. were never arraigned.Criminal Case No. 17282 for robbery:
“That on or about the 24th day of November 1990 in the Municipality of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all public officers, RAYMUNDO JARQUE, being then a Brigadier General, ARTHUR TUPAZ, being then a 1st Lieutenant, AGUEDO VILCHES and BENJAMIN MARCHAN, both being Majors, all of the Philippine Army and all stationed at the Negros Island Command headed by accused RAYMUNDO JARQUE as its Commanding General, CAPT. RAMIRO DE JOYA, being then the Officer-in-Charge of the 601st CIS Provincial Field Office, Bacolod City; SGT. LEOPOLDO MARFIL, being then a Senior Police Officer 2, 331st PC Company, Camp Alfredo Montelibano, Jr., Camingawan, Bacolod City; SGT. ALEXIS GONZALES, being then an agent of the PNP-CIS, Bacolod City, and hence, all public officers, while in the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to their office, with evident bad faith, and conspiring and confederating with one another and with MAYOR ANTONIO SUATENGCO and with EDUARDO ABAJA, a civilian agent of the PC-CIS, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and with intent to gain steal, take and carry away without the consent of the owner Magdaleno M. Peña one Baume and Mercier wristwatch valued at P65,000.00, one M-16 Colt with Serial No. 900370, one M-16 Hydramatic with Serial No. 3399912, one 12-gauge Benelli shotgun with Serial No. 201700, and cash amounting to P85,000.00, by forcibly opening the cabinets inside the residential house of Soledad O. Montilla, thus causing damage and prejudice to Magdaleno M. Peña in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00), Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[2]Criminal Case No. 17283 for violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act:
“That on or about the 24th day of November 1990 in the Municipality of Pulupandan, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all public officers, Raymundo Jarque, being then a Brigadier General, Arthur Tupaz, being then a 1st Lieutenant, Aguedo Vilches and Benjamin Marohan, being then both Majors, all of the Philippine Army and all stationed at the Negros Island Command headed by accused Raymundo Jarque as the Commanding General, Capt. Ramiro de Joya, being then the Officer-in-Charge of the 601st CIS Provincial Field Office, Bacolod City; Sgt. Eduardo Jison, being then a Senior Police Officer 2, 601st Provincial Field Office, Bacolod City; Sgt. Leopoldo Marfil, being then a Senior Police Officer 2, 331st PC Company, Camp Alfredo Montelibano, Camingawan, Bacolod City; Sgt. Alexis Gonzales, being then a Police Corporal, Bacolod Police Station; Sgt. Alexander Tan, being then an Agent of the PNP-CIS, Bacolod City; Sgt. Rico Bondoc & Sgt. Rosenio Bersal, being both members of the CIS-PNP, and hence, all public officers, while the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to their office, with evident bad faith, and conspiring and confederating with one and another and with Mayor Antonio Suatengco, Eduardo Abaja, as civilian agent of the PC-CIS, Jesus Clavecilla, Nelson Alvañez, Manuel Malapitan, Sr., Rodolfo Talabon, Reming Jovenes and Atty. Allan Zamora, all private individuals, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to one Soledad Oppen Montilla and her attorney-in-fact Magdaleno Peña in the following manner; accused having been restrained by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 23469 entitled “Soledad Oppen Montilla v. Hon. Marietta Aliño, et al” from implementing the Orders dated October 22, 1990 and November 20, 1990 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, Branch 62, Bago City in Civil Case No. 394, and/or despite having prior knowledge of a Temporary Restraining Order to this effect issued by the Court of Appeals, insisted in implementing the aforesaid Orders to reinstate Bonifacio Peña in possession of the residential house belonging to Soledad O. Montilla, in complete disregard of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court of Appeals, and with the use of military vehicles and armaments, with the assistance of 150 military personnel, and without securing a break-open order from the court, the accused succeeded in destroying by means of force a portion of the perimeter fence of the compound where the aforesaid house is situated and thereafter opened the main gate of the compound, and after gaining entry thereto, took over the premises and the residential house therein, which act of defiance and unauthorized enforcement caused undue injury to Soledad Oppen Montilla and Magdaleno Peña.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[3]Criminal Case No. 17284 for qualified theft:
“That on or about the 3rd day of January 1991 in the Municipality of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all public officers, RAYMUNDO JARQUE, being then a Brigadier General, ARTHUR TUPAZ, being then a 1st Lieutenant, AGUEDO VILCHES and BENJAMIN MARCHAN, both being Majors, all of the Philippine Army and all stationed at the Negros Island Command headed by accused RAYMUNDO JARQUE as its Commanding General, CAPT. RAMIRO DE JOYA, being then the Officer-in-Charge of the 601st CIS Provincial Field Office, Bacolod City; SGT. LEOPOLDO MARFIL, being then a Senior Police Officer 2, 331st PC Company, Camp Alfredo Montelibano, Jr., Camingawan, Bacolod City; SGT. ALEXIS GONZALES, being a Police Corporal in the Bacolod Police Station, while in the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to their office, conspiring and confederating with one another and with MAYOR ANTONIO SUATENGCO, being then the Municipal Mayor of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, and in the company of other unidentified military personnel, and after having illegally entered the fishpond of one Soledad Oppen Montilla situated at Barangay Ubay, Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and with intent to gain harvest, take and carry away on board a dump truck 2 tons or 2,000 kilos of prawns from the aforesaid fishpond without the consent of said Soledad Oppen Montilla, thereby causing damage and prejudice to her in the amount of TWO HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P260,000.00), Philippine Currency, computed at the prevailing rate of P130.00 per kilo.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[4]Criminal Case No. 17285 for qualified theft:
“That on or about the 3rd day of January 1991 in the Municipality of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all public officers, RAYMUNDO JARQUE, being then a Brigadier General, ARTHUR TUPAZ, being then a 1st Lieutenant, AGUEDO VILCHES and BENJAMIN MARCHAN, both being Majors, all of the Philippine Army and all stationed at the Negros Island Command headed by accused RAYMUNDO JARQUE as its Commanding General, CAPT. RAMIRO DE JOYA, being then the Officer-in-Charge of the 601st CIS Provincial Field Office, Bacolod City; SGT. LEOPOLDO MARFIL, being then a Senior Police Officer 2, 331st PC Company, Camp Alfredo Montelibano, Jr., Camingawan, Bacolod City; SGT. ALEXIS GONZALES, being a Police Corporal in the Bacolod Police Station, while in the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to their office, conspiring and confederating with one another and in the company of other unidentified military personnel, and after having illegally entered the fishpond of one Soledad Oppen Montilla situated at Barangay Ubay, Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and with intent to gain harvest, take and carry away on board a dump truck 2.5 tons or 2,500 kilos of prawns from the aforesaid fishpond without the consent of said Soledad Oppen Montilla, thereby causing damage and prejudice to her in the amount of THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P325,000.00), Philippine Currency, computed at the prevailing rate of P130.00 per kilo.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[5]Criminal Case No. 17286 for qualified theft:
“That on or about the 3rd day of January 1991 in the Municipality of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all public officers, RAYMUNDO JARQUE, being then a Brigadier General, ARTHUR TUPAZ, being then a 1st Lieutenant, AGUEDO VILCHES and BENJAMIN MARCHAN, both being Majors, all of the Philippine Army and all stationed at the Negros Island Command headed by accused RAYMUNDO JARQUE as its Commanding General, CAPT. RAMIRO DE JOYA, being then the Officer-in-Charge of the 601st CIS Provincial Field Office, Bacolod City; SGT. LEOPOLDO MARFIL, being then a Senior Police Officer 2, 331st PC Company, Camp Alfredo Montelibano, Jr., Camingawan, Bacolod City; SGT. ALEXIS GONZALES, being a Police Corporal in the Bacolod Police Station, while in the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to their office, conspiring and confederating with one another and with MAYOR ANTONIO SUATENGCO, being then the Municipal Mayor of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, and in the company of other unidentified military personnel, and after having illegally entered the fishpond of one Soledad Oppen Montilla situated at Barangay Ubay, Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and with intent to gain harvest, take and carry away on board a dump truck 500 kilos of prawns from the aforesaid fishpond without the consent of said Soledad Oppen Montilla, thereby causing damage and prejudice to her in the amount of SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P65,000.00), Philippine Currency, computed at the prevailing rate of P130.00 per kilo.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[6]
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The orders of October 22, 1980, November 20 and 21, 1990 are declared null and void. The preliminary injunction is made permanent, and private respondent Bonifacio M. Peña is hereby restrained and prohibited from entering in, and interfering with the use, occupation, and enjoyment of, petitioner’s residential house and compound in Barrio Ubay, Pulupandan, Negros Occidental.At the instance of Magdaleno, the Office of the Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan, the Informations (earlier mentioned) for robbery, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and three (3) counts of qualified theft against herein respondents.
SO ORDERED.”[8]
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, for insufficiency of evidence, the Demurrer to Evidence is hereby granted. For failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence to overturn the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the herein accused, all the Informations in the above-entitled cases are hereby dismissed. As all the accused were already arraigned, any dismissal at this stage of the proceedings will be tantamount to an acquittal. Consequently, all the accused namely: B/GEN. RAYMUNDO JARQUE, ARTHUR TUPAZ, AGUEDO VILCHEZ, BENJAMIN MARCHAN, CAPT. RAMIRO DE JOYA, SGT. EDUARDO JISON, SGT. LEOPOLDO MARFIL, SGT, ALEXIS GONZALES, SGT. ALEXANDER TAN, SGT. RICO BONDOC, SGT. ROSENDO BERSAL, EDUARDO ABAJA, MAYOR ANTONIO SUATENGCO, JESUS CLAVECILLA, NELSON ALVAÑEZ, MANUEL MALAPITAN, SR., RODOLFO TALABON, REMING JOVENES, and ATTY. ALLAN ZAMORA are hereby acquitted of the crimes charged. The bail bonds for their provisional liberty are hereby cancelled.In acquitting respondents, the Sandiganbayan held that they were only seeking to implement a lawful order of the trial court. They came to know of the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals only after they had implemented the writ of execution. The charges were fabricated to enable Magdaleno to get even with the respondents for implementing the writ.
SO ORDERED.”[9]
“The crime of Robbery, defined and punished under Articles 293 and 294 contemplates of two (2) situations, the taking of personal property with the use of force against persons or the employment of force upon things.The basic issue raised by petitioner is whether the Sandiganbayan, in granting respondents’ demurrer to evidence, acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Apparently, herein accused are charged of having committed robbery with the use of force upon things, referring to the opening of the cabinets inside the bedroom of Magdaleno Peña on the 24th day of November 1990 while inside a residential house owned by Soledad Montilla. The Information alleges the taking of a Baume & Mercier wristwatch valued at P65,000.00; one (1) M-16 armalite rifle with serial number 900370 valued at P25,000.00; one (1) 12-gauge Benelli shotgun; and cash amounting to P85,000.00, for a total value of P200,000.00. When computed accurately, it should only be P175,000.00.
They are likewise charged of Qualified Theft defined and penalized under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
On the three (3) cases of Qualified Theft, defined and punished under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, what is punished as qualified theft is the taking of fish from a fishpond or fishery. What is alleged in the three (3) Informations is the taking of kilos of prawns which definitely is not defined and punished under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The allegations in the three (3) Informations, however, support the crime of Theft, defined and punished under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. And finally, some of the herein accused allegedly in conspiracy with private individuals violated Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
x x x
The quarrel between Atty. Magdaleno Peña, representing Soledad Oppen Montilla in this case and Bonifacio Peña is unquestionably a family feud. The Order of October 22, 1990 issued by Judge Alinio is legal nicety, inexorably unacceptable to Atty. Magdaleno Peña, the fiduciary complainant in this case but who ended up a villain. Anyone, therefore, who identified with his brother Bonifacio Peña was an instant enemy. Reminiscent of the biblical enmity between Cain and Abel. The herein accused found themselves in deep legal problem, whether to obey a Court Order or to honor an alleged Recall Order from the Honorable Court of Appeals. Evidence shows that the Order of the Honorable Court of Appeals came to the knowledge of the herein accused only after they have attempted to implement the Decision of Judge Alinio. Under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, fulfillment of a duty is a justifying circumstance. Obedience to an Order coming from a superior officer for some lawful purpose is likewise a justifying circumstance. General Jarque acted in obedience to a Court Order. Capt. De Joya and his men also acted in obedience to a Court Order. In order, however, that they may not put up the defense of legal duty, it was made to appear that several kilos of prawns, guns, and money were taken when the Court Order was implemented.”[10]
x x x
“On December 4, 1990, Montilla, represented by Atty. Magdaleno Peña, filed a Motion for contempt directed against Bonifacio Peña, Brig. General Jarque, Capt. Bobby de Joya, 1st Lt. Tupaz, Sgt. Jison, Eddie Abaja, Sgt. Marfil, Sgt. Alexis Gonzales, Sgt. Alexader Tan and other military personnel whose identities complainant could not yet ascertain.
x x x
The Court notes that the Motion to cite herein accused for contempt covered the period from November 23, 1990 to January 3, 1991. Notwithstanding the number of Affidavits presented to prove the contempt proceedings against herein accused, the photographs and the other documents submitted to the Court of Appeals, no allegation whatsoever was attributed to the herein accused that they committed robbery, three (3) cases of Qualified Theft and Violation of Sec. 3(e), otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The filing, therefore, of the present complaint for alleged violation of the Revised Penal Code or the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices act was an afterthought, perceived, conceived and apparently fabricated to get even with the herein accused for their acts in implementing the Writ of Execution issued in connection with Civil Case No. 394.
The series of acts attributed to the herein accused were intentionally done in order to attain the desired purpose of filing several cases for Violation of the Revised Penal Code and the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act.
This is not allowed under our jurisdiction. If ever herein accused are to be charged of the criminal offense, it must be for only one crime. It is called a continuous crime. A continued, continuous, and continuing crime is a single crime, consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal resolution and is therefore, a complex crime x x x Regularity in the performance of a duty is presumed. A person is presumed innocent, unless proven otherwise. Proof to sustain a verdict of conviction must pass the test of reason. Suspicion of guilt, no matter how strong, must not be permitted to sway judgment. In view thereof, there appears no cogent reason to maintain these cases against the herein accused.”[11]
“SEC. 15. Demurrer to evidence. – After the prosecution has rested its case, the court may dismiss the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence: (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution an opportunity to be heard; or (2) on motion of the accused filed with prior leave of court.The above Rule authorizes the trial court to dismiss a criminal case motu proprio or upon motion of the accused provided that the prosecution has been given an opportunity to be heard. In the instant cases, there is no question that the prosecution had presented its evidence in support of the charges against the accused.
If the court denies the motion for dismissal, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the accused files such motion to dismiss without express leave of court, he waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. (n)” (As amended by Resolution of the Supreme Court, dated July 7, 1988)