Liability Extinguished by Death of Accused

According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability for personal penalties is totally extinguished by the death of the convict. In contrast, criminal liability for pecuniary penalties is extinguished if the offender dies prior to final judgment. The term “personal penalties” refers to the service of personal or imprisonment penalties, while the term “pecuniary penalties” (las pecuniarias) refers to fines and costs,  including civil liability predicated on the criminal offense complained of (i.e., civil liability ex delicto).  However, civil liability based on a source of obligation other than the delict survives the death of the accused and is recoverable through a separate civil action (Artemio Villareal Vs. People of the Philippines/People of the Philippines Vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al./Fidelito Dizon Vs. People of the Philippines/Gerarda H. Villa Vs. Manuel Lorenzo Escalona II, et al.,
G.R. No. 151258/G.R. No. 154954/G.R. No. 155101/G.R. Nos. 178057 & G.R. No. 178080. February 1, 2012)

Hearsay - Entries in Official Records

In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, this Court reiterated the requisites for the admissibility in evidence, as an exception to the hearsay rule of entries in official records, thus: (a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his or her duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him or her stated, which must have been acquired by the public officer or other person personally or through official information.      

Notably, the presentation of the police report itself is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule even if the police investigator who prepared it was not presented in court, as long as the above requisites could be adequately proved (Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. Vs. Rodelio Alberto and Enrico Alberto Reyes, G.R. No. 194320. February 1, 2012).

Inconsistency in Testimony

The RTC and the Court of Appeals brushed aside the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Maria Liza and Pedro, these being relatively trivial and insignificant, neither pertaining to the act constitutive of the crime committed nor to the identity of the assailant.  (People of the Philippines Vs. Vicente Vilbar @ "Dikit",  G.R. No. 186541. February 1, 2012).

Injunction

Similarly, in the instant case, while the assailed resolutions of the NEA Board may have long been implemented, such acts of the NEA Board may well be repeated by other government agencies in the reorganization of their offices. Petitioners have not lost their remedy of injunction (United Claimant Association of NEA (Unican) etc., et al. Vs. National Electrification Administration (NEA), et al., G.R. No. 187107. January 31, 2012).

Notice of Hearing

Elementary is the rule that every motion must contain the mandatory requirements of notice and hearing and that there must be proof of service thereof. The Court has consistently held that a motion that fails to comply with the above requirements is considered a worthless piece of paper which should not be acted upon.  The rule, however, is not absolute. There are motions that can be acted upon by the court ex parte if these would not cause prejudice to the other party. They are not strictly covered by the rigid requirement of the rules on notice and hearing of motions.

The motion for execution of the Spouses Co is such kind of motion. It cannot be denied that the judgment sought to be executed in this case had already become final and executory. As such, the Spouses Co have every right to the issuance of a writ of execution and the RTC has the ministerial duty to enforce the same. 

As can be gleaned therefrom, under Paragraph 1 of Section 1 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the Spouses Co can have their motion for execution executed as a matter of right without the needed notice and hearing requirement to petitioner. This is in contrast to the provision of Paragraph 2 of Section 1 and Section 2 where there must be notice to the adverse party (Douglas F. Anama Vs. Court of Appeals, Philippine Savings Bank, Spouses Saturnina Baria & Tomas Co and the Register of Deeds, Metro Manila, District II,
G.R. No. 187021. January 25, 2012).

Allegation of Elements of Crime in Information

Thus, while it is necessary to allege the essential elements of the crime in the information, the failure to do so is not an irremediable vice. When the complaint or the resolution by the public prosecutor which contain the missing averments is attached to the information and form part of the records, the defect in the latter is effectively cured, and the accused cannot successfully invoke the defense that his right to be informed is violated (Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, July 25, 2005).

Presumption of Forgery

We are not unaware of the established presumption and rule that when it is proved that a person has in his possession a falsified document and makes use of the same the presumption or inference is that such person is the forger (Serrano vs. Court of Appeals, 404 SCRA 639, 651 [2003]), citing Koh Tieck Heng vs. People, 192 SCRA 533, 546-547 [1990]). Yet, the Supreme Court declared that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used it is presumed to be the forger (citing People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120, 141 [1978]). Very clearly then, a satisfactory explanation could render ineffective the presumption which, after all, is merely a disputable one (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank), represeted by Rosella A. santiago Vs. Antonio O. Tobias III, G.R. No. 177780. January 25, 2012).