People vs. Brillantes, 671 SCRA 388, April 25, 2012
shabu and illegal FACTS: Jose Brillantes and Saturnino de la Cruz was charged with illegal sale of shabu possession of dangerous drug of shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 entitled An entitled An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act Of 2002. When arraigned, both the accused pleaded not guilty of the crimes charged. The RTC held that the prosecution successfully discharged the burden of proof in the cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs . The trial court relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of the police officials who conducted the buy -bust operation. The appellate court found no reason to depart from the ruling of the trial court. It upheld that all the elements of the offense of illegal sale and illegal possession of drugs were present and the finding against Brillantes and Dela Cruz were well established by the prosecution. A Notice of Appeal was filed by Brillantes through counsel before the Supreme Court. His co-accused De la Cruz, did not appeal his conviction. While this case is pending appeal, the accused-appellant Brillantes died while committed at the Bureau of Correction. ISSUE: Whether or not the criminal liability of Brillantes is extinguished by his death. HELD: Yes. It is plain that both the personal penalty of imprisonment and pecuniary penalty of fine of Brillantes were extinguished upon his death pending appeal of his conviction by the lower courts. There is no civil liability involved in violations of the Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. No 2002. No private offended party is involved as there is in fact no reference to civil liability in the decision of the trial court. Moreover, the appeal of Brillantes culminating in the extinguishment of his criminal liability does not have any effect on his co- accused De la Cruz who did not file a notice of appeal. The Rules on Criminal Procedure (Section 11, Rule 122) on the matter states that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. The T he extinguishment of Brillantes criminal cr iminal and pecuniary pecuniar y liabilities is predicated on his death and not on his acquittal. Following the provision, the appeal taken by Brillantes and subsequent extinguishment of his liabilities is not applicable to De la Cruz.
D'Aigle vs. People, 675 SCRA 206, June 27, 2012
FACTS: Petitioner D’Aigle is D’Aigle is charged with Estafa before the RTC. Petitioner was the former managing director of Samfit Philippines, Inc. (SPI) tasked with the management of the company as well as the management, care and custody of SPI’s personal properties. At the time that he wa s holding said position, petitioner was likewise a majority stockholder stockholder of TAC Manufacturing Manufacturing Corporation (TAC), an entity engaged in the fabrication of wire bending machine similar to that being used by SPI. Sometime in November 1996, petitioner petitioner was divested divested of his duties and responsibilities as SPI’s managing director due director due to alleged conflict of business interest. Because of this, Parducho, the current president of SPI, conducted an audit and inventory of SPI’s properties and reviewed its financial statemen ts, vouchers, books of account and other pertinent records. He also interviewed some of SPI’s employees. These revealed that several properties of SPI such as wire materials, electronic transformer, electronic and computer boxes, machine spare parts, while still under the management, care and custody of petitioner, went missing and were left unaccounted for. Further investigation revealed that some of SPI’s wire bending machines, computer and electronic boxes were inside the premises of TAC. This was confirmed by Daniel Gutierrez, a former employee of TAC, who likewise admitted that TAC copied the wire bending machines of SPI.
In a letter, SPI’s counsel formally demanded upon petitioner to turn over to SPI all its equipment under his care and custody. Ignoring the demand, petitioner was thus indicted with the present case. SPI also filed a replevin case against him for the recovery of the electronic and computer boxes. Subsequently, and by virtue of the Writ of Replevin, an electronic box found inside TAC’s premises p remises was recovered from petitioner while a computer box was later on surrendered to the Sheriff. RTC found that the prosecution had established the guilt of petitioner for the crime of Estafa. However, trial court’s Decision did not expressly mention that he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
ISSUE: Whether or not a judgment is rendered defective because of the absence of a declaration of guilt beyond reasonable reasonable doubt doubt in the dispositive portion.
HELD: NO. A judgment is not rendered defective just because of the absence of a declaration of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the dispositive portion. The ratio decidendi of the RTC Decision extensively discussed the guilt of the petitioner and no scintilla of doubt against the same was entertained by the courts below. Indeed, petitioner’s guilt was duly proven by evidence of the prosecution. In any event, a judgment of conviction, conviction, pursuant pursuant to Section Section 2, Rule 120 of of the Rules of Court, is sufficient if it states: states: "1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission; 2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as principal, accomplice or accessory; 3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and 4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived." The Court finds that all of these are sufficiently stated in the trial court’s Decision.
