24.

G.R. No. 165065 September 26, 2006

MELCHOR G. MADERAZO, SENIFORO PERIDO, and VICTOR MADERAZO,

JR., petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS;

She testified that she had been the lessee of a stall in the Biliran public market. She paid a
monthly rental of P200.00.8 She was allowed to finish the construction of the market stall with
the permission of the Municipal Mayor and the Municipal Treasurer.9 She averred that Municipal
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1984,10 provides that, to facilitate the development of the public
market, in the absence of adequate government finance, construction by private parties of
buildings and other structures for commercial purposes may be allowed and the expenses thereof
shall be reimbursed to the builder by applying 50% to the monthly rentals when occupied for
business.11

She spent P24,267.00 for the construction of the market stall, as stated in the itemized statement
of expenses12 she submitted to then Municipal Treasurer Jose Lee on February 14, 1992. She was
not, however, reimbursed by the Municipality of her expenses. After the construction, she then
opened the stall for business. She paid the rent for the whole year of 1992 but did not pay the
rentals in 1993. On January 13, 1994, Verutiao and the Municipality entered into a one-year
lease contract,13 renewable every year with a monthly rental of P400.00. It is also provided that,
any violation of the conditions therein agreed shall be sufficient cause for its cancellation,
notwithstanding the fact that the contract has not yet expired.

In 1995, the Municipality partially paid her P10,000.00 of her total expenses in the construction
of the market stall.14However, considering that she had not been fully reimbursed of her
expenses for the construction of the stall, she did not pay her rent.15 Almost weekly, she went to
the Municipal Treasurer to request for the reimbursement.16 She was told by then Treasurer Lee
and his successor, Lorenzo Dadizon, that the Municipality had no money and she had to wait for
another budget hearing.17 The treasurers did not collect her rents for they knew that the
Municipality still owed her money.18 On December 22, 1996 Verutiao closed her stall and
proceeded to Mindanao where she spent the Christmas holidays.19 She returned to Caibiran on
January 15, 1997. On January 17, 1997, she and her husband received a letter-order from Mayor
Melchor Maderazo, directing her to vacate the stall within twenty-four (24) hours because of her
failure to pay the rentals for the stall.20 As of January 1997, Verutiao had an unpaid rental
of P2,532.00, after deducting her expenses for the construction of the stall. The Mayor declared
in his letter that the lease contract had been cancelled. On the same day, the spouses Verutiao,
through counsel, sent a letter21 to the Mayor, stating, among others, that they can only be ejected
from the market stall if the Municipality reimbursed them for what they had advanced for the
construction of the stall and if the Municipality was no longer willing to lease the subject
premises. They admitted that Verutiao had not paid any rent since 1993 but maintained that,
under Section 38 of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1984,22 she did not have to pay rental until her
expenses were reimbursed, as the rentals due would be debited from 50% of the amount she
advanced for the construction of the market stall, and that she will vacate the stall only after the
municipality shall have reimbursed her expenses in the construction. On January 21, 1997,
Mayor Maderazo padlocked the leased premises.23 The locks were opened on the authority of the
Mayor on January 27, 1997. The contents of the market stall were inventoried by Victor
Maderazo and taken to the police station for safekeeping.24 While these were being undertaken,
Verutiao was in her farm about 4 to 5 kilometers away from the market stall.25 She considered
the act of the Mayor as a political harassment, given that her husband, was then a candidate for
councilor under the ticket of the opposition; and that she was a leader of the opposing party.26

ISSUE:

Whether or not the People adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt of petitioners guilt for unjust
vexation.

RULING;

We agree with respondents contention that based on the evidence on record, the overt acts of
petitioners Mayor Melchor Maderazo and Victor Maderazo, Jr., on January 27, 1997, annoyed,
irritated and caused embarrassment to her. It was petitioner Melchor Maderazo who ordered
petitioner Victor Maderazo, Jr. to have the stall reopened, to conduct an inventory of the contents
thereof, and to effect the transportation of the goods to the police station. Petitioner Victor
Maderazo, who was a Sangguniang Bayan member, obeyed the order of the Mayor.

Although Verutiao was not at her stall when it was unlocked, and the contents thereof taken from
the stall and brought to the police station, the crime of unjust vexation was nevertheless
committed. For the crime to exist, it is not necessary that the offended party be present when the
crime was committed by said petitioners. It is enough that the private complainant was
embarrassed, annoyed, irritated or disturbed when she learned of the overt acts of the petitioners.
Indeed, by their collective acts, petitioners evicted Verutiao from her stall and prevented her
from selling therein, hence, losing income from the business. Verutiao was deprived of her
possession of the stall from January 21, 1997.

Petitioner Mayor is tasked to enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the
Municipality and to implement all approved programs, projects, services and activities of the
Municipality40 and to ensure that all taxes and other revenues of the Municipality are
collected.41 He is obliged to institute or cause to be instituted administrative or judicial
proceedings for the recovery of funds and property.42 However, in the performance of his duties,
petitioner Mayor should act within the confines of the law and not resort to the commission of a
felony. A public officer is proscribed from resorting to criminal acts in the enforcement of laws
and ordinances. He must exercise his power and perform his duties in accordance with law, with
strict observance of the rights of the people, and never whimsically, arbitrarily and despotically.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision
of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that petitioner Seniforo Perido is
ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The bail bond posted by him for his provisional liberty is
cancelled. No costs.
EDUARDO P. MANUEL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

G.R. No. 165842

November 29, 2005

FACTS:

This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals affirming the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the petitioner for the crime of bigamy.

Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner, was first married to Rubylus Gaa on July 18, 1975, who,
according to the former, was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned and was never seen
again by him after his last visit. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996 when the latter was only
21 years old. Three months after their meeting, the two got married through a civil wedding in Baguio
City without Gandaleras knowledge of Manuels first marriage. In the course of their marriage, things
got rocky and Gandalera learned that Eduardo was in fact already married when he married him. She
then filed a criminal case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The latters defense being that his
declaration of single in his marriage contract with Gandalera was done because he believed in good
faith that his first marriage was invalid and that he did not know that he had to go to court to seek for
the nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina. The Regional Trial Court ruled against him
sentencing him of imprisonment of from 6 years and 10 months to ten years, and an amount 0f
P200,000.00 for moral damages.

Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA where he alleged that he was not criminally liable for bigamy
because when he married the private complainant, he did so in good faith and without any malicious
intent. The CA ruled against the petitioner but with modification on the RTCs decision. Imprisonment
was from 2 years, months and 1 day to ten years. Pecuniary reward for moral damages was affirmed.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it ruled that petitioners
wife cannot be legally presumed dead under Article 390 of the Civil Code as there was no judicial
declaration of presumptive death as provided for under Article 41 of the Family Code.

2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it affirmed the award of
Php200,000.00 as moral damages as it has no basis in fact and in law.

HELD:

1. The petition is denied for lack of merit. The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil
intent when he married the private complainant. As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the
accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal
intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Where a spouse is absent for the requisite period, the present spouse
may contract a subsequent marriage only after securing a judgment declaring the presumptive death of
the absent spouse to avoid being charged and convicted of bigamy; the present spouse will have to
adduce evidence that he had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. Such
judgment is proof of the good faith of the present spouse who contracted a subsequent marriage; thus,
even if the present spouse is later charged with bigamy if the absentee spouse reappears, he cannot be
convicted of the crime.

The court ruled against the petitioner.

1. The Court rules that the petitioners collective acts of fraud and deceit before, during and
after his marriage with the private complainant were willful, deliberate and with malice and
caused injury to the latter. The Court thus declares that the petitioners acts are against
public policy as they undermine and subvert the family as a social institution, good morals
and the interest and general welfare of society. Because the private complainant was an
innocent victim of the petitioners perfidy, she is not barred from claiming moral damages.
Considering the attendant circumstances of the case, the Court finds the award of
P200,000.00 for moral damages to be just and reasonable.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JERRY PEPINO y RUERAS and PRECIOSA GOMEZ y CAMPOS, Accused-Appellants.

Facts:

On June 28, 1997, two men and a woman entered the office of Edward Tan at Kilton Motors
Corporation in Sucat, Paranaque City, and pretended to be customers. When Edward was
about to receive them, one of the men, eventually identified as Pepino pulled out a gun. Thinking
that it was a holdup, Edward told Pepino that the money was inside the cashier's box. Pepino and
the other man looted the "'cashier's box, handcuffed Edward, and forced him to go with
them.2 From the hallway, Jocelyn Tan (mentioned as "Joselyn" in some parts of the record),
Edward's wife, saw Pepino take her husband. Pepino brought Edward to a metallic green Toyota
Corolla where three other men were waiting inside. The woman (later identified as Gomez) sat
on the front passenger seat.4 The abductors then placed surgical tape over Edward's eyes and
made him wear sunglasses. After travelling for two and a half hours, they arrived at an apartment
in Quezon City. Pepino approached Edward and asked for the phone number of his father so that
he could ask for ransom for his (Edward's) liberty. Edward told Pepino to negotiate with his
wife, but the latter insisted on talking to his father.5 The abductors negotiated with Jocelyn who
eventually agreed to a P700,000.00 ransom. The kidnappers told Jocelyn to pack the money into
two packages and to drop these at a convenience store in front of McDonald's at Mindanao
Avenue. They further demanded that Edward's vehicle be used to bring the money.6

After four days, or on July 1, 1997, Antonio Gepiga (the family driver) brought the agreed
amount to the 7-Eleven convenience store at Mindanao A venue as instructed.7 That evening,
three men and Gomez blindfolded Edward, made him board a car, and drove around for 30
minutes. Upon stopping, they told Edward that he could remove his blindfold after five minutes.
When Edward removed his blindfold, he found himself inside his own car parked at the UP
Diliman Campus. He drove home and reported his kidnapping to Teresita Ang See, a known
anti-crime crusader.8

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellant be held criminally liable for a crime of kidnap for ransom
punishable by death penalty.

RULING:

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, mandates the imposition of the death
penalty when the kidnapping or detention is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from
the victim or any other person. Ransom, as employed in the Jaw, is so used in its common or
ordinary sense; meaning, a sum of money or other thing of value, price, or consideration paid or
demanded for redemption of a kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases one from
captivity.53
In the present case, the malefactors not only demanded but received ransom for Edward's release.
The CA thus correctly affirmed the RTC's imposition of the death penalty on Pepino and Gomez.

With the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled ''An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines" (signed into law on June 24, 2006), the death penalty may no longer
be imposed. We thus sentence Gomez to the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.54

The reduced penalty shall likewise apply to the non-appealing party, Pepino, since it is more
favorable to him.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JERRY PEPINO y RUERAS and PRECIOSA GOMEZ y CAMPOS, Accused-Appellants.

Facts:

On June 28, 1997, two men and a woman entered the office of Edward Tan at Kilton Motors
Corporation in Sucat, Paranaque City, and pretended to be customers. When Edward was
about to receive them, one of the men, eventually identified as Pepino pulled out a gun. Thinking
that it was a holdup, Edward told Pepino that the money was inside the cashier's box. Pepino and
the other man looted the "'cashier's box, handcuffed Edward, and forced him to go with
them.2 From the hallway, Jocelyn Tan (mentioned as "Joselyn" in some parts of the record),
Edward's wife, saw Pepino take her husband. Pepino brought Edward to a metallic green Toyota
Corolla where three other men were waiting inside. The woman (later identified as Gomez) sat
on the front passenger seat.4 The abductors then placed surgical tape over Edward's eyes and
made him wear sunglasses. After travelling for two and a half hours, they arrived at an apartment
in Quezon City. Pepino approached Edward and asked for the phone number of his father so that
he could ask for ransom for his (Edward's) liberty. Edward told Pepino to negotiate with his
wife, but the latter insisted on talking to his father.5 The abductors negotiated with Jocelyn who
eventually agreed to a P700,000.00 ransom. The kidnappers told Jocelyn to pack the money into
two packages and to drop these at a convenience store in front of McDonald's at Mindanao
Avenue. They further demanded that Edward's vehicle be used to bring the money.6

After four days, or on July 1, 1997, Antonio Gepiga (the family driver) brought the agreed
amount to the 7-Eleven convenience store at Mindanao A venue as instructed.7 That evening,
three men and Gomez blindfolded Edward, made him board a car, and drove around for 30
minutes. Upon stopping, they told Edward that he could remove his blindfold after five minutes.
When Edward removed his blindfold, he found himself inside his own car parked at the UP
Diliman Campus. He drove home and reported his kidnapping to Teresita Ang See, a known
anti-crime crusader.8

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant be held criminally liable for a crime of kidnap for ransom
punishable by death penalty.

RULING:

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, mandates the imposition of the death
penalty when the kidnapping or detention is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from
the victim or any other person. Ransom, as employed in the Jaw, is so used in its common or
ordinary sense; meaning, a sum of money or other thing of value, price, or consideration paid or
demanded for redemption of a kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases one from
captivity.53

In the present case, the malefactors not only demanded but received ransom for Edward's release.
The CA thus correctly affirmed the RTC's imposition of the death penalty on Pepino and Gomez.

With the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled ''An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines" (signed into law on June 24, 2006), the death penalty may no longer
be imposed. We thus sentence Gomez to the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.54

The reduced penalty shall likewise apply to the non-appealing party, Pepino, since it is more
favorable to him.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JERRY PEPINO y RUERAS and PRECIOSA GOMEZ y CAMPOS, Accused-Appellants.

Facts:

On June 28, 1997, two men and a woman entered the office of Edward Tan at Kilton Motors
Corporation in Sucat, Paranaque City, and pretended to be customers. When Edward was
about to receive them, one of the men, eventually identified as Pepino pulled out a gun. Thinking
that it was a holdup, Edward told Pepino that the money was inside the cashier's box. Pepino and
the other man looted the "'cashier's box, handcuffed Edward, and forced him to go with
them.2 From the hallway, Jocelyn Tan (mentioned as "Joselyn" in some parts of the record),
Edward's wife, saw Pepino take her husband. Pepino brought Edward to a metallic green Toyota
Corolla where three other men were waiting inside. The woman (later identified as Gomez) sat
on the front passenger seat.4 The abductors then placed surgical tape over Edward's eyes and
made him wear sunglasses. After travelling for two and a half hours, they arrived at an apartment
in Quezon City. Pepino approached Edward and asked for the phone number of his father so that
he could ask for ransom for his (Edward's) liberty. Edward told Pepino to negotiate with his
wife, but the latter insisted on talking to his father.5 The abductors negotiated with Jocelyn who
eventually agreed to a P700,000.00 ransom. The kidnappers told Jocelyn to pack the money into
two packages and to drop these at a convenience store in front of McDonald's at Mindanao
Avenue. They further demanded that Edward's vehicle be used to bring the money.6
After four days, or on July 1, 1997, Antonio Gepiga (the family driver) brought the agreed
amount to the 7-Eleven convenience store at Mindanao A venue as instructed.7 That evening,
three men and Gomez blindfolded Edward, made him board a car, and drove around for 30
minutes. Upon stopping, they told Edward that he could remove his blindfold after five minutes.
When Edward removed his blindfold, he found himself inside his own car parked at the UP
Diliman Campus. He drove home and reported his kidnapping to Teresita Ang See, a known
anti-crime crusader.8

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellant be held criminally liable for a crime of kidnap for ransom
punishable by death penalty.

RULING:

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, mandates the imposition of the death
penalty when the kidnapping or detention is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from
the victim or any other person. Ransom, as employed in the Jaw, is so used in its common or
ordinary sense; meaning, a sum of money or other thing of value, price, or consideration paid or
demanded for redemption of a kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases one from
captivity.53

In the present case, the malefactors not only demanded but received ransom for Edward's release.
The CA thus correctly affirmed the RTC's imposition of the death penalty on Pepino and Gomez.

With the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled ''An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines" (signed into law on June 24, 2006), the death penalty may no longer
be imposed. We thus sentence Gomez to the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.54

The reduced penalty shall likewise apply to the non-appealing party, Pepino, since it is more
favorable to him.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JERRY PEPINO y RUERAS and PRECIOSA GOMEZ y CAMPOS, Accused-Appellants.

Facts:

On June 28, 1997, two men and a woman entered the office of Edward Tan at Kilton Motors
Corporation in Sucat, Paranaque City, and pretended to be customers. When Edward was
about to receive them, one of the men, eventually identified as Pepino pulled out a gun. Thinking
that it was a holdup, Edward told Pepino that the money was inside the cashier's box. Pepino and
the other man looted the "'cashier's box, handcuffed Edward, and forced him to go with
them.2 From the hallway, Jocelyn Tan (mentioned as "Joselyn" in some parts of the record),
Edward's wife, saw Pepino take her husband. Pepino brought Edward to a metallic green Toyota
Corolla where three other men were waiting inside. The woman (later identified as Gomez) sat
on the front passenger seat.4 The abductors then placed surgical tape over Edward's eyes and
made him wear sunglasses. After travelling for two and a half hours, they arrived at an apartment
in Quezon City. Pepino approached Edward and asked for the phone number of his father so that
he could ask for ransom for his (Edward's) liberty. Edward told Pepino to negotiate with his
wife, but the latter insisted on talking to his father.5 The abductors negotiated with Jocelyn who
eventually agreed to a P700,000.00 ransom. The kidnappers told Jocelyn to pack the money into
two packages and to drop these at a convenience store in front of McDonald's at Mindanao
Avenue. They further demanded that Edward's vehicle be used to bring the money.6

After four days, or on July 1, 1997, Antonio Gepiga (the family driver) brought the agreed
amount to the 7-Eleven convenience store at Mindanao A venue as instructed.7 That evening,
three men and Gomez blindfolded Edward, made him board a car, and drove around for 30
minutes. Upon stopping, they told Edward that he could remove his blindfold after five minutes.
When Edward removed his blindfold, he found himself inside his own car parked at the UP
Diliman Campus. He drove home and reported his kidnapping to Teresita Ang See, a known
anti-crime crusader.8

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellant be held criminally liable for a crime of kidnap for ransom
punishable by death penalty.

RULING:

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, mandates the imposition of the death
penalty when the kidnapping or detention is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from
the victim or any other person. Ransom, as employed in the Jaw, is so used in its common or
ordinary sense; meaning, a sum of money or other thing of value, price, or consideration paid or
demanded for redemption of a kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases one from
captivity.53

In the present case, the malefactors not only demanded but received ransom for Edward's release.
The CA thus correctly affirmed the RTC's imposition of the death penalty on Pepino and Gomez.

With the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled ''An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines" (signed into law on June 24, 2006), the death penalty may no longer
be imposed. We thus sentence Gomez to the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.54

The reduced penalty shall likewise apply to the non-appealing party, Pepino, since it is more
favorable to him.