Lawyerly

AM No. SB-14-21-J

2014-09-23

ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH IN SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING

PER CURIAM

Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime refers to (1) the commission of at least two grave or less grave felonies that must both (or all) be the result of a single act, or (2) one offense must be a necessary means for committing the other (or others). Negatively put, there is no complex crime when (1) two or more crimes are committed, but not by a single act; or (2) committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or others).[60]

GR No. 179448

2013-06-26

CARLOS L. TANENGGEE v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

All the above-mentioned elements were established in this case. First, petitioner is a private individual. Second, the acts of falsification consisted in petitioner's (1) counterfeiting or imitating the handwriting or signature of Tan and causing it to appear that the same is true and genuine in all respects; and (2) causing it to appear that Tan has participated in an act or proceeding when he did not in fact so participate. Third, the falsification was committed in promissory notes and checks which are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in general, documents or instruments which are "used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions."[34] Promissory notes facilitate credit transactions while a check is a means of payment used in business in lieu of money for convenience in business transactions. A cashier's check necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appear thereon to encash the check and withdraw the amount indicated therein.[35]

GR No. 185195

2010-03-17

VIOLETA BAHILIDAD v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

All told, there is reasonable doubt as to petitioner's guilt. Where there is reasonable doubt, an accused must be acquitted even though his innocence may not have been fully established. When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, exoneration must be granted as a matter of right.[14]

GR No. 186101

2009-10-12

GINA A. DOMINGO

VELASCO JR., J.

Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's assertions, the questioned encashment slips are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in general, documents or instruments which are used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade.[10] An encashment slip necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appears thereon to encash a check and withdraw the amount indicated therein.

GR No. 127327

2009-02-13

LIBERATA AMBITO v. PEOPLE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Under Article 48 of the RPC,[49] a complex crime refers to (1) the commission of at least two grave or less grave felonies that must both (or all) be the result of a single act, or (2) one offense must be a necessary means for committing the other (or others). Negatively put, there is no complex crime when (1) two or more crimes are committed, but not by a single act; or (2) committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or others).[50]

GR No. 164326

2008-10-17

SEAOIL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. AUTOCORP GROUP

NACHURA, J.

The Vehicle Sales Invoice[12] is the best evidence of the transaction. A sales invoice is a commercial document. Commercial documents or papers are those used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions.[13] Business forms, e.g., order slip, delivery charge invoice and the like, are commonly recognized in ordinary commercial transactions as valid between the parties and, at the very least, they serve as an acknowledgment that a business transaction has in fact transpired.[14] These documents are not mere scraps of paper bereft of probative value, but vital pieces of evidence of commercial transactions. They are written memorials of the details of the consummation of contracts.[15]

GR NO. 139857

2006-09-15

LEONILA BATULANON v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The Court of Appeals[40] correctly ruled that the subject vouchers are private documents and not commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions[41] nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law.[42] Rather, they are private documents, which have been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. [43]

GR NO. 165711

2006-06-30

HERMOSO ARRIOLA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In all criminal cases, mere speculations cannot substitute for proof in establishing the guilt of the accused.[25] When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, it has been our policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence must be favored, and exoneration granted as a matter of right.[26]

GR NO. 168486

2006-06-27

NOE S. ANDAYA v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The second element of the offense charged in the information, i.e., the falsification was committed in Disbursement Voucher No. 58380, a private document, is likewise present. It appears that the public prosecutor erroneously characterized the disbursement voucher as a commercial document so that he designated the offense as estafa through falsification of commercial document in the preamble of the information. However, as correctly ruled by the trial court,[21] the subject voucher is a private document only; it is not a commercial document because it is not a document used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions[22] nor is it defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law.[23] Rather, it is a private document, which has been defined as a deed or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth,[24] because it acted as the authorization for the release of the P21,000.00 finder's fee to Guilas and as the receipt evidencing the payment of this finder's fee.

GR No. 125497

2000-11-20

UNICANE FOOD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING v. CA

PARDO, J.

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is DISMISSED and the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED."[10]

GR No. 125497

2000-11-20

UNICANE FOOD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING v. CA

PARDO, J.

"Under the foregoing provisions, where a party to a contract is illiterate, or can not read or understand the language in which the contract is written, the burden is on the party interested in enforcing the contract to prove that the terms thereof are fully explained to the former in a language understood by her (Sales v. Court of Appeals, 120 SCRA 897; Bunyi v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 504).In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his physical, mental or other handicap, the courts must be careful and vigilant for his protection (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 24; Rural Bank of Caloocan, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 104 SCRA 151)."[14]

	AM No. SB-14-21-J 2014-09-23	ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH IN SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING PER CURIAM
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime refers to (1) the commission of at least two grave or less grave felonies that must both (or all) be the result of a single act, or (2) one offense must be a necessary means for committing the other (or others). Negatively put, there is no complex crime when (1) two or more crimes are committed, but not by a single act; or (2) committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or others).[60]
	GR No. 179448 2013-06-26	CARLOS L. TANENGGEE v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
All the above-mentioned elements were established in this case. First, petitioner is a private individual. Second, the acts of falsification consisted in petitioner's (1) counterfeiting or imitating the handwriting or signature of Tan and causing it to appear that the same is true and genuine in all respects; and (2) causing it to appear that Tan has participated in an act or proceeding when he did not in fact so participate. Third, the falsification was committed in promissory notes and checks which are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in general, documents or instruments which are "used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions."[34] Promissory notes facilitate credit transactions while a check is a means of payment used in business in lieu of money for convenience in business transactions. A cashier's check necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appear thereon to encash the check and withdraw the amount indicated therein.[35]
	GR No. 185195 2010-03-17	VIOLETA BAHILIDAD v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
All told, there is reasonable doubt as to petitioner's guilt. Where there is reasonable doubt, an accused must be acquitted even though his innocence may not have been fully established. When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, exoneration must be granted as a matter of right.[14]
	GR No. 186101 2009-10-12	GINA A. DOMINGO VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's assertions, the questioned encashment slips are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in general, documents or instruments which are used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade.[10] An encashment slip necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appears thereon to encash a check and withdraw the amount indicated therein.
	GR No. 127327 2009-02-13	LIBERATA AMBITO v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Under Article 48 of the RPC,[49] a complex crime refers to (1) the commission of at least two grave or less grave felonies that must both (or all) be the result of a single act, or (2) one offense must be a necessary means for committing the other (or others). Negatively put, there is no complex crime when (1) two or more crimes are committed, but not by a single act; or (2) committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or others).[50]
	GR No. 164326 2008-10-17	SEAOIL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. AUTOCORP GROUP NACHURA, J.
The Vehicle Sales Invoice[12] is the best evidence of the transaction. A sales invoice is a commercial document. Commercial documents or papers are those used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions.[13] Business forms, e.g., order slip, delivery charge invoice and the like, are commonly recognized in ordinary commercial transactions as valid between the parties and, at the very least, they serve as an acknowledgment that a business transaction has in fact transpired.[14] These documents are not mere scraps of paper bereft of probative value, but vital pieces of evidence of commercial transactions. They are written memorials of the details of the consummation of contracts.[15]
	GR NO. 139857 2006-09-15	LEONILA BATULANON v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court of Appeals[40] correctly ruled that the subject vouchers are private documents and not commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions[41] nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law.[42] Rather, they are private documents, which have been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. [43]
	GR NO. 165711 2006-06-30	HERMOSO ARRIOLA v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In all criminal cases, mere speculations cannot substitute for proof in establishing the guilt of the accused.[25] When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, it has been our policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence must be favored, and exoneration granted as a matter of right.[26]
	GR NO. 168486 2006-06-27	NOE S. ANDAYA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The second element of the offense charged in the information, i.e., the falsification was committed in Disbursement Voucher No. 58380, a private document, is likewise present. It appears that the public prosecutor erroneously characterized the disbursement voucher as a commercial document so that he designated the offense as estafa through falsification of commercial document in the preamble of the information. However, as correctly ruled by the trial court,[21] the subject voucher is a private document only; it is not a commercial document because it is not a document used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions[22] nor is it defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law.[23] Rather, it is a private document, which has been defined as a deed or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth,[24] because it acted as the authorization for the release of the P21,000.00 finder's fee to Guilas and as the receipt evidencing the payment of this finder's fee.
	GR No. 125497 2000-11-20	UNICANE FOOD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING v. CA PARDO, J.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is DISMISSED and the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED."[10]
	GR No. 125497 2000-11-20	UNICANE FOOD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING v. CA PARDO, J.
"Under the foregoing provisions, where a party to a contract is illiterate, or can not read or understand the language in which the contract is written, the burden is on the party interested in enforcing the contract to prove that the terms thereof are fully explained to the former in a language understood by her (Sales v. Court of Appeals, 120 SCRA 897; Bunyi v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 504).In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his physical, mental or other handicap, the courts must be careful and vigilant for his protection (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 24; Rural Bank of Caloocan, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 104 SCRA 151)."[14]

AUREA R. MONTEVERDE v. PEOPLE