People v.

JESSIE MALIAO

The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC by finding accused Maliao guilty not as principal but as an accomplice to the crime as well as modifying the damages awarded. To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: (1) community of design, which means that the accomplice knows of, and concurs with, the criminal design of the principal by direct participation; and (2) the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. In this case, Maliao facilitated the commission of the crime by providing his own house as the venue thereof. His presence throughout the commission of the heinous offense, without him doing anything to prevent the malefactors or help the victim, indubitably show community of design and cooperation, although he had no direct participation in the execution thereof. 2.The Court of Appeals correctly held that despite the inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession, Maliao is not entitled to an acquittal. Citing People v. Culala, the Court of Appeals rightfully noted that the extrajudicial confession of an accused who was assisted by a Municipal Attorney during the custodial investigation is not admissible in evidence because the latter cannot be considered an independent attorney.

Facts: On March 18, 1998, the naked and lifeless body of AAA was found between two banana plants in a vacant lot near her house. An investigation was conducted by the police authorities and a cartographic sketch of the suspect was prepared by an artist of the NBI. As the police officers were conducting an investigation in the area, SPO2 Maninang noticed a man who looked like the person in the cartographic sketch which he was carrying at the time. The police officers arrested the man who turned out to be accused-appellant Jessie Maliao. Upon interrogation, Maliao told the police officers that he was bothered by his conscience. Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez, Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI testified that AAA sustained numerous abrasions and contusions on different parts of her body, hematoma on the forehead and scalp, fractures on the skull and complete laceration of her hymen at the 3 oclock and 6 oclock positions. After the prosecution rested its case, the accused Bohol and Chiong filed a Motion for Express Leave of Court to File Judgment on Demurrer which the RTC denied. Among the accused, only Maliao put up a defense.

In spite of the inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession, Maliao is not entitled The RTC rendered a decision finding all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to suffer three death penalties. Issue: Was accused-appellant Maliaos guilt as accomplice in the crime of rape with homicide proven beyond reasonable doubt? Ruling: 1.Appellant Maliaos conviction as accomplice in the crime of rape with homicide must be sustained. to an acquittal because when he testified on cross-examination, he admitted that all the answers he gave to the questions propounded on him by the police investigator are true and correct of his own personal knowledge. Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court on Evidence provides that an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. As elucidated by the autopsy report and testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, no doubt can be entertained as to Maliaos guilt. Beyond reasonable doubt, he is guilty as accomplice to the crime of rape with homicide.

People V. Dumlao

information had no authority to do so; (e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of material averments of an information would establish the essential elements of the crime. Facts: GSIS entered into a lease-purchase agreement with the Rep. of the Phil through the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) involving a property for a consideration of P1.5 million. That among the three members of the board of trustees who signed the minutes only accused Dumlao was charged in this case. Dumlao filed a Motion to quash/dismiss on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. Issue: W/N facts charged in the information constitute an offense; W/N insufficiency of evidence is a ground for motion to dismiss; minutes vs resolution; death of an accused; double jeopardy; conspiracy; No unfair discrimination Ruling: 1.The elements of the crime under Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 are as follows: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. After examining the information, we find that the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically admitted, will prove all the elements of Section 3(g) as against respondent Dumlao.

Insufficiency of evidence is a ground for dismissal of an action only after the prosecution rests its case. Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. 3. Sandiganbayan erred in equating the minutes of the meeting with the supposed resolution of the GSIS Board of Trustees. A resolution is distinct and different from the minutes of the meeting. A board resolution is a formal action by a corporate board of directors or other corporate body authorizing a particular act, transaction, or appointment. It is ordinarily special and limited in its operation, applying usually to some single specific act or affair of the corporation; or to some specific person, situation or occasion. On the other hand, minutes are a brief statement not only of what transpired at a meeting, usually of stockholders/members or directors/trustees, but also at a meeting of an executive committee. The minutes are usually kept in a book specially designed for that purpose, but they may also be kept in the form of memoranda or in any other manner in which they can be identified as minutes of a meeting.

2.Insufficiency of evidence is not one of the grounds of a Motion to Quash. The grounds, as enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, are as follows: (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) That the officer who filed the

The non-signing by the majority of the members of the GSIS Board of Trustees of the said minutes does not necessarily mean that the supposed resolution was not approved by the board. The signing of the minutes by all the members of the board is not required. There is no provision in the Corporation Code of the Philippines that requires that the minutes of the meeting should be signed by all the members of the board. The proper custodian of the books, minutes and official records of a corporation is usually the corporate secretary. Being the custodian of corporate records, the corporate secretary has the duty to record and prepare the minutes of the meeting. The signature of the corporate secretary gives the minutes of the meeting probative value and credibility. However, said issue has already been mooted by the death of respondent Lao. The death of an accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal as well as civil liability based solely thereon. Accordingly, the case against respondent Lao was dismissed. 4. To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the [24] first. The first jeopardy attaches attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. In the instant case, double jeopardy has not yet set in. The first jeopardy has not yet attached. There is no question that four of the five elements of legal jeopardy are present. A purely capricious dismissal of an information deprives the State of a fair opportunity to prosecute and convict. It denies the prosecution a day in court. It is void and cannot be the basis of double jeopardy. 5. A conspiracy is in its nature a joint offense. One person cannot conspire alone. The crime depends upon the joint act or intent of two or more person. Yet, it does not follow that one person cannot be convicted of conspiracy. As long as the acquittal or death of a coconspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty of the offense. In the case at bar, the absence or presence of conspiracy is again factual in nature and involves evidentiary matters.

6.There was no clear and intentional discrimination in charging respondent Dumlao. A discriminatory purpose is never presumed. Mere speculation,

unsupported by convincing evidence, cannot establish discrimination on the part of the prosecution and the denial to respondent of the equal protection of the laws.