FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204767. May 14, 2021.]
DANILO DOMINGO y MANALO AND IKE DISABELLE y BOCES, petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 204767 — (DANILO DOMINGO y MANALO and IKE DISABELLE y BOCES, petitioners v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent). — This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated July 26, 2012 and the Resolution 3 dated November 28, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32489. The CA Decision and Resolution affirmed the Decision 4 dated November 19, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214, in Criminal Case No. MC-05-9483, which convicted petitioners Danilo Domingo y Manalo (Domingo) and Ike Disabelle y Boces (Disabelle) for the crime of qualified theft.
The Facts
An Information 5 dated August 30, 2005 was filed charging Domingo and Disabelle with the crime of qualified theft committed as follows:
That on or about the 27th day of August 2005, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, being then employees of "REDI FLAME INTER TRADE," represented by Mario Torres Muyot, and as such has access to the said establishment of the complainant, with grave abuse of confidence and taking advantage of the trust repose [sic] upon them, with intent to gain, without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously pilfer, take and steal (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) LPG amounting to P7,782.00 by transferring or reducing part of the contents of LPG filled tanks to another empty tank for the purpose of selling underweight or tampered LPG tanks, to the damage and prejudice of the said "REDI FLAME INTER TRADE,["] in the aforementioned amount of P7,782.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The antecedent facts and allegations of the parties were summarized by the CA as follows:
During the trial, the prosecution presented Mario Muyot, Virgilio Lledo, Maricar Navarro, PO1 Ryan Fari[ñ]as, Concepcion Muyot, PO3 Adonis Bacarra, and SPO2 Pablo Roxas. Gathered from their testimonies, Mario Muyot received a tip that his workers were stealing Total LPG known as REDI FLAME INTER TRADE from his establishment located at 375 Shaw Boulevard corner L. Gonzales [S]treet, Barangay Hagdang Bato, Mandaluyong City. He reported the said information to the police and on August 20, 2005, PO1 Ryan Fariñas and PO3 Adonis Bacarra went to the said establishment to conduct a surveillance but they did not notice any illegal activity.
Shortly after noon time of August 27, 2005, their informant relayed to Mrs. Concepcion Muyot that the suspects were again doing illegal activities inside their establishment. PO3 Bacarra and PO1 Fariñas immediately went to the said establishment and after coordinating with Mario Muyot, they planned their operation. On board a Nissan Patrol car, they went to REDI FLAME INTER TRADE and parked near the said establishment, where they can observe the activities in the bodega. After a few minutes, they saw the accused-appellant Danilo Domingo come out from the bodega and walked towards the office. PO3 Bacarra and PO1 Fariñas immediately alighted from the car and went inside the bodega. Upon arriving at the bodega, they saw the accused Ike Disabelle removing the hose (Exh. "L") connecting the big cylinder tank (Exh. "S") and the small cylinder LPG tank (Exh. "U"). At that moment, the accused-appellant Disabelle was transferring the contents of the big tank to the small tank. At that time, they saw about four (4) big cylinder tanks weighing fifty (50) kilograms each whose contents were transferred to the six (6) small cylinder tanks containing eleven (11) kilograms. According to Mario Muyot, the total cost of the contents of the big cylinder tanks amounted to P7,782.00.
Thereafter, PO3 Bacarra and PO1 Fariñas arrested the accused-appellants and the accused Cesar, and Go, who acted as a [lookout]. They found in possession of the accused-appellant Domingo various fictitious or false receipts. During their interrogation the accused-appellant Disabelle said that he did it for "pandagdag kain" while the other accused remained silent. Thereafter, the accused-appellants and their co-accused were brought to the headquarters where they were interrogated by SPO2 Roxas and later detained. The cylinder tanks were marked by PO1 Fariñas at the place where they were found and were brought to the headquarters for disposition by the investigator. aScITE
The theory of the police and the Spouses Muyot that the accused committed pilferage at the latter's establishment was fully supported by the testimonies of Virgilio Lledo and Maricar Navarro. Virgilio Lledo, driver of one of the trucks of REDI FLAME INTER TRADE, claimed that at noon of August 27, 2005, while checking his truck inside the bodega of REDI FLAME INTER TRADE, he saw the accused-appellant Disabelle transferring the contents of the big fifty (50) kilogram cylinder tank to the small eleven (11) kilogram cylinder tanks. He found it unusual since it was not ordered by Mr. Muyot. The accused-appellant Domingo was the one who ordered Disabelle to do the transfer. While Disabelle was doing his part, his co-accused Go and Cesar brought the other tanks to him.
The story of Lledo was corroborated by Maricar Navarro who was also at the bodega at that time. She served as the eyes and ears of the owner of REDI FLAME INTER TRADE and was also the same person who informed the Spouses Muyot regarding the illegal activities of the accused-appellants in the establishment.
The accused-appellants interposed the defense of denial and alibi.
The accused-appellant Domingo alleged that he had just woke up when Mrs. Muyot arrived together with her daughter Cherry, who took pictures of him and the other accused. They were accompanied by policemen who invited him to come with them inside the teller booth. There, he saw the accused-appellant Disabelle already handcuffed. Thereafter, PO3 Bacarra also handcuffed him, took his wallet, bag containing his pawn ticket, money, and cellphone. He and his co-accused were brought to the police headquarters and detained for no reason at all.
On the other hand, the accused-appellant Disabelle recalled that in the afternoon of August 27, 2005, he just came from a delivery using the motorcycle owned by Mario Muyot. When he arrived at the bodega, he immediately helped the other workers unload the tanks from the truck of Virgilio Lledo. While he was unloading the tanks, PO3 Bacarra, nephew of Mrs. Concepcion Muyot arrived and immediately called him. Then PO3 Bacarra put his arm around accused-appellant Disabelle's shoulder and led him to the place where the big and small tanks were, and ordered him to remove the hose from the tanks. PO3 Bacarra then asked him to remove the hose from the tanks and asked him to stand beside the tanks and hose while PO3 Bacarra was taking video and pictures of him. Thereafter, PO1 Fariñas arrived and ordered accused-appellant Disabelle to kneel down. While he was in this position, PO1 Fariñas handcuffed him with his hand at his back. When PO3 Bacarra and PO1 Fariñas saw the accused-appellant Domingo, they also handcuffed him.
According to the accused-appellant Disabelle, Maricar Navarro testified against him because she owed a lot to Mrs. Muyot as it was the latter who paid for her hospitalization when she delivered her baby. In the case of Lledo, he said Lledo was not there at that time but just the same, he testified against them out of loyalty to Spouses Muyot because he is their godson. 6
RTC Ruling
The RTC issued its Decision 7 dated November 19, 2008 convicting Domingo and Disabelle as principals of the crime of qualified theft, along with their fellow workers Louie Cesar y Layson and Rolando Go y Ortida as accessories:
WHEREFORE, this court renders judgment finding the accused DANILO DOMINGO y MANALO and IKE DISABELLE y BOCES GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as principal of the crime of QUALIFIED THEFT and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law they are hereby sentenced to each suffer the prison term of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as minimum to EIGHT [8] YEARS and TEN (10) MONTHS of prision mayor as maximum. The court also finds the accused LOUIE CESAR y LAYSON and ROLANDO GO y ORTIDA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as accessory to the commission of the crime of qualified theft and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law they are hereby therefore sentenced to suffer the prison term of straight penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional. Accused are credited in full of the preventive imprisonment they have already served in confinement.
SO ORDERED. 8
The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Virgilio Lledo (Lledo) and Maricar Navarro (Navarro). No evidence was presented to show any devious motives on their part to falsely ascribe the commission of the crime to Domingo and Disabelle. The relation of Lledo as private complainants' godson and Police Officer 3 Bacarra as Mrs. Muyot's nephew did not immediately disqualify or discredit them as witnesses. Significantly, their testimonies were sufficiently corroborated by other witnesses as well as object and documentary evidence. 9
Disabelle was convicted based on proof that he was caught transferring the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) from the big tank of Redi Flame Inter Trade to his smaller tanks. The crime was consummated as soon as he was able to get hold of the LPG tank, even if he was not able to carry it away and sell it. 10 Domingo, in turn, was convicted as a conspirator for his actuations, and acquiescence and approval to the illegal acts which evince his unity of purpose with Disabelle. His presence at the bodega and approval also lent moral support to Disabelle to commit the theft. 11
The element of grave abuse of confidence was appreciated against Domingo who held the fiduciary position of supervisor of Redi Flame Inter Trade. Disabelle also abused the trust and confidence reposed in him by private complainant through his various capacities and fiduciary roles that granted him full access to the LPG tanks and other valuables in the bodega. 12
Aggrieved, Domingo and Disabelle appealed the RTC Decision to the CA. They argued that the RTC erroneously convicted them based on a defective Information because it failed to allege an essential element of the crime of qualified theft, which is that the act was done "without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things." 13
CA Ruling
The CA rendered its Decision dated July 26, 2012 dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction of Domingo and Disabelle:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the court a quo dated November 19, 2008 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED. 14
The CA held that the absence of the allegation "but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things" 15 in the Information did not render it defective and cannot exculpate Domingo and Disabelle from conviction. All the elements of qualified theft were sufficiently alleged and proven during trial. 16 Their bare defenses of denial and alibi are weak and cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and corroborating evidence.
Domingo and Disabelle sought reconsideration of the decision but was denied by the CA in its Resolution 17 dated November 28, 2012 for lack of merit.
Hence, the instant petition.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in affirming the conviction of Domingo and Disabelle for qualified theft.
Ruling of this Court
Domingo and Disabelle merely reiterated their primary argument before the CA that it was erroneous for them to have been convicted based on a defective Information. They insist that the Information was defective because it did not specifically allege one of the essential elements of qualified theft, namely that "the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person nor force upon things." 18
Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment 19 to the Petition. It argued that the Information was sufficient since it clearly enabled Domingo and Disabelle to understand the charges against them. More importantly, all the elements of qualified theft were proven during trial.
It was further argued that if Domingo and Disabelle considered the Information defective, they should have filed a Motion to Quash before their arraignment. By failing to do so and entering their plea, they have waived all their objections to the sufficiency of the Information.
Domingo and Disabelle filed a Reply 20 to the Comment stating that the cases respondent cited did not contain a categorical pronouncement that the allegation of the element that the taking was accomplished "without violence against or intimidation of persons [nor] force upon things" 21 is a mere superfluity.
After reviewing the parties' arguments and the records of the case, the Court resolves to deny the petition.
Sufficiency of the Information
Sections 6 and 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court govern the requirements for the sufficiency of an Information, to wit:
Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.
Section 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
The required contents of an Information must be sufficiently alleged to enable the accused to suitably prepare a defense. Further, if found guilty, it will be possible to plead this conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. 22
The Court in People v. Dasmariñas23 elucidated that what is ultimately controlling to determine the sufficiency of an Information are the recitals and allegations of fact in its body which must be sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know the offense being charged: HEITAD
The text of the rule requires that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated "in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances." In other words, the nature and character of the crime charged are determined not by the specification of the provision of the law alleged to have been violated but by the facts stated in the indictment, that is, the actual recital of the facts in the body of the information, and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law. Indeed, the facts alleged in the body of the information, not the technical name given by the prosecutor appearing in the title of the information, determine the character of the crime. 24 (Citations omitted)
It was similarly pronounced in People v. Dimaano25 that what is controlling in an Information is the description of the crime charged and the facts recited therein, and not merely allegations of conclusions of law:
For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. 26 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Based on the foregoing, Domingo and Disabelle's argument that the Information needed to allege this specific element of the crime of qualified theft (i.e., that the taking was accomplished without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things) is erroneous. As worded, this element of the crime deduced from Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), is an averment of a conclusion. Hence, contrary to Domingo and Disabelle's argument, what is required to be stated in the Information is not a mere allegation of this element as worded which is a bare conclusion, but allegations of pertinent facts and/or omissions which, if proven, will substantiate this element. It is therefore sufficient that the Information allege the facts and/or omissions constituting the crime which, if proven, will show that no violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things was employed.
The Court on numerous occasions has recognized the sufficiency of Informations for qualified theft which did not contain a specific allegation of the element of "the taking was accomplished without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things." The Court in People v. Mejares 27 sustained the conviction of accused pursuant to the following Information:
That on or about the 22nd day of May 2012 in the City of San Juan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then a domestic servant of complainant Jacqueline Suzanne Gavino y Aquino, as such, enjoyed the trust and confidence reposed upon her with intent to gain, without the consent of the owner thereof and with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following items, to wit:
Rolex wrist watch (antique) — Php400,000.00
Assorted jewelries gold and — 1,000,000.00
Cash money — 50,000.00
Cash money ($2,000.00) — 86,308.00
Cash assorted foreign money — 20,000.00
with a total amount of Php1,556,308.00, belonging to said complainant to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforementioned amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 28
The conviction of the accused for qualified theft was also affirmed in People v. Cruz29 based on the following Information:
That, on or about the 19th day of February, 2002, or prior thereto, in the Municipality of Pateros, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then an employee of Chromax Marketing, enjoying the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his employer, with intent to gain, grave abuse of confidence and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away cash money amounting to Php97,984.00 representing sales proceeds of Chromax Marketing products and services, belonging to said Chromax Marketing owned by herein complainant Edgardo Carlos y Santos, to the damage and prejudice of the owner thereof in the aforesaid amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 30
The Court in People v. Puig31 ordered to remand the case to the RTC for trial on the merits based on the following Information filed:
That on or about the 1st day of August, 2002, in the Municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named [respondents], conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, with grave abuse of confidence, being the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge and/or consent of the management of the Bank and with intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00), Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said bank in the aforesaid amount. 32 (Emphasis omitted)
These cases demonstrate that it is the recitation of facts and/or omissions, and not allegations of conclusions of fact or law, which determine the sufficiency of an Information. The CA was thus correct to affirm the ruling that the Information filed against Domingo and Disabelle was not defective.
A perusal of the Information filed in this case shows that ultimate facts were alleged to indicate how Domingo and Disabelle committed the theft with grave abuse of confidence and without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things. These factual allegations sufficiently informed Domingo and Disabelle of the nature and cause of the action against them.
Domingo and Disabelle are
Anent the substantive merits of Domingo and Disabelle's conviction, the petition must still fail.
Qualified theft is punished under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC, which provide:
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products.
Art. 310. Qualified theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding articles, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
The Court has enumerated the following elements of qualified theft:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owner's consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; [and]
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. 33
All the foregoing elements are present in this case. cSEDTC
The first, second, and fourth elements are present as it was sufficiently proven that Domingo and Disabelle conspired to steal the LPG of Redi Flame Inter Trade worth P7,782.00. The taking of the LPG was consummated from the time Disabelle emptied the larger LPG tank and transferred it to their own smaller LPG tanks. This taking was done without private complainant's consent as the owner of Redi Flame Inter Trade.
The third element of intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, is an internal act that is presumed from Domingo and Disabelle's unlawful taking of the LPG. It is settled that actual gain from the unlawful taking is irrelevant. 34
The fifth element is present as the surreptitious means employed by Domingo and Disabelle clearly did not involve any use of violence against or intimidation of persons nor of force upon things.
The sixth element is present that Domingo and Disabelle committed the theft with grave abuse of confidence since they utilized their fiduciary positions and the trust reposed in them by private complainant to gain access to the LPG tanks. The Court concurs with the CA's pertinent findings:
The crime perpetrated by the accused-appellants against the private complainant Mario Muyot is qualified theft. The accused-appellants Domingo and Disabelle could not have committed the crime had they not been working with REDI FLAME INTER TRADE as supervisor/operations manager and warehouseman/helper, respectively, which gave them access to the establishment/bodega of the private complainant. The private complainant reposed his trust and confidence in the accused-appellants as his workers, and it was this trust and confidence which they exploited to enrich themselves to the damage and prejudice of the private complainant in the amount of P7,782.00, the value of the LPG tanks pilfered from the private complainant's REDI FLAME INTER TRADE.
The crime of theft is qualified by the relation of trust between the accused-appellant and the private complainant, that had created a high degree of confidence between them which the former gravely abused. The accused-appellants willfully took advantage of their positions, who were duly trusted by the private complainant by giving them access to the bodega where the LPG tanks were placed, to carry out and consummate the theft, for which reason they should be punished accordingly. 35
Domingo and Disabelle's defenses of denial and alibi were unsubstantiated and cannot outweigh the testimonial, documentary, and object evidence presented by the prosecution to prove all the elements of the crime. There is no compelling reason for this Court to disturb the factual findings of the lower court, as affirmed by the CA, which duly support their conviction.
On the penalty imposed, it is notable that the penalty under Article 309 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, provides:
Art. 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over Five thousand pesos (P5,000) but does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000).
This amended penalty is now applied for being more favorable to the accused. Hence, the imposable penalty for qualified theft shall be determined from within the range next higher by two degrees, or from prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case, the maximum penalty shall be within the range of prision mayor in its maximum period, and the minimum penalty from the range of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period. Guided by the foregoing, the Court, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, modifies the penalty imposed to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
In view of these considerations, it appears that the period of Domingo and Disabelle's actual imprisonment has exceeded their maximum sentence. Consequently, they are now entitled to immediate release from their place of confinement for having fully served their sentence, unless there are other lawful causes to warrant their continued detention.
The Court orders the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections to verify the status of Domingo and Disabelle's detainment, implement this resolution, and render a compliance report within 10 days from notice.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated July 26, 2012 and the Resolution dated November 28, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR No. 32489 are AFFIRMED. Petitioners Danilo Domingo y Manalo and Ike Disabelle y Boces are GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of qualified theft penalized under Article 310, in relation to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposed is MODIFIED and they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
However, given that Domingo and Disabelle have been confined for longer than their maximum sentence, they are now considered to have fully served their respective sentences and must be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED, unless they are being detained for other lawful grounds.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-34.
2.Id. at 35-47; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser.
3.Id. at 48-49.
4.Id. at 50-56; penned by Judge Edwin D. Sorongon.
5.Id. at 91-92.
6.Id. at 37-40.
7.Id. at 50-56.
8.Id. at 56.
9.Id. at 53.
10.Id. at 54.
11.Id. at 55.
12.Id. at 54.
13.Id. at 22.
14.Id. at 47.
15.Id. at 42.
16.Id. at 44-45.
17.Id. at 48-49.
18.Id. at 25.
19.Id. at 127-134.
20.Id. at 136-139.
21.Id. at 136.
22.People v. Sandiganbayan, 769 Phil. 378, 388 (2015).
23. 819 Phil. 357 (2017).
24.Id. at 373-374.
25. 506 Phil. 630 (2005).
26.Id. at 649-650.
27. 823 Phil. 459 (2018).
28.Id. at 462-463.
29. 786 Phil. 609 (2016).
30.Id. at 613.
31. 585 Phil. 555 (2008).
32.Id. at 558.
33.People v. Cruz, supra note 29.
34.People v. Mejares, supra note 27 at 469; People v. Nielles, 754 Phil. 488 (2015).
35.Rollo, p. 45.