POLITICAL PERSECUTION AS A GROUND TO JUSTIFY THE PROHIBITION OF A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Indeed, this Court has recognized that, in certain instances, political persecution or political motives may have impelled the filing of criminal charges against certain political rivals. But this Court has also ruled that any allegation that the filing of the charges is politically motivated cannot justify the prohibition of a criminal prosecution if there is otherwise evidence to support the charges (Paredes, Jr. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 322 Phil. 709, 732-733 (1996). x x x x  To establish political harassment, respondents must prove that the public prosecutor, not just the private complainant, acted in bad faith in prosecuting the case or has lent himself to a scheme that could have no other purpose than to place respondents in contempt and disrepute. It must be shown that the complainant possesses the power and the influence to control the prosecution of cases. (Paredes, Jr. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 322 Phil. 709, 732-733 (1996).  x x x x  Likewise, the allegation that the filing of the complaint was politically motivated does not serve to justify the nullification of the informations where the existence of such motive has not been sufficiently established nor substantial evidence presented in support thereof (Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 324 Phil. 151, 167 (1996).  x x x x

Other than their own self-serving claims, respondents have adduced absolutely no proof of the perceived political persecution being waged by their rivals. Respondents have not shown any evidence of such a grand design. They have not alleged, much less proved, any ill motive or malice that could have impelled the provincial prosecutor, the judge, and even the Secretary of Justice to have respectively ruled in the way each of them did. In short, respondents are holding tenuously only on the hope that this Court will take them at their word and grant the relief they pray for. This Court, however, cannot anchor its ruling on mere allegations. Needless to say, a full-blown trial is to be preferred to ferret out the truth (AAA v. Carbonell, supra note 48, at 511, citing Abugotal v. Judge Tiro, 160 Phil. 884, 890 (1975) If, as respondents claim, there is no evidence of their culpability, then their petition for bail would easily be granted. Thereafter, the credibility of the prosecution’s and the accused’s respective evidence may be tested during the trial. It is only then that the guilt or innocence of respondents will be determined. Whether the criminal prosecution was merely a tool for harassment or whether the prosecution’s evidence can pass the strict standards set by the law and withstand the exacting scrutiny of the court will all be resolved at the trial of the case. The criminal Information in this case was filed four years ago and trial has yet to begin. The victim’s kin, indeed, all the parties, are awaiting its resolution. Any further delay will amount to an injustice. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSEPH "JOJO" V. GREY, G.R. No. 180109, July 26, 2010, NACHURA, J.)

PARTIAL OR DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION:

When an appeal had been duly perfected, execution of the judgment, whether wholly or partially, was not a matter of right, but of discretion provided good reasons therefor existed. The compelling grounds for the issuance of the writ must be stated in a special order after due hearing. Aside from the existence of good reasons, the rules also require that the motion for partial execution should have been filed while the trial court still had jurisdiction over the case. (Rules of Court, Rule 39, Section 2(b). x x x In the present case, the RTC's May 9, 2002 Order granting the issuance of the writ of execution failed to state good reasons for the issuance of the writ. The RTC mistakenly deemed that the execution should issue as a matter of right because it had held that part of its September 14, 2001 Decision had become final and executory. As previously discussed, the said proposition is erroneous because the Decision in the present case is not properly severable. x x x 

Furthermore, the motion for partial execution was filed only on August 22, 2001, more than four months after the appeal was perfected. "In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties." Each party only has at most 15 days from their receipt of the final order to appeal it. Thus, when respondents filed their motion for partial execution the RTC no longer had jurisdiction over the case and it no longer had jurisdiction to act on the said motion for partial execution. (Rules of Court, Rule 41, Section 9). (ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION and FLORANTE DY, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CRISPIN C. LARON, G.R. No. 167237, April 23, 2010 DEL CASTILLO, J.). 

PETITION FOR RELIEF

It is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision or order is entered into through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. The relief provided for is of equitable character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no other available or adequate remedy. When a party has another remedy available to him, which may either be a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the lower court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking the appeal, he cannot avail himself of the relief provided in Rule 38. The rule is that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence or a mistaken mode of procedure, otherwise the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already been lost either because of inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake in the mode of procedure by counsel. x x x 

The mistake contemplated by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court pertains generally to mistake of fact, not of law, which relates to the case. The word "mistake" which grants relief from judgment, does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial. Such error may be corrected by means of an appeal. x x x  To reiterate, petition for relief is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy which is not present in petitioner’s case. Thus, petitioner's resort to a petition for relief under Rule 38 was not proper and the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for relief from judgment (SAMONTE vs. S.F. NAGUIAT, INC. G.R. No. 165544, October 2, 2009, Third Division, Peralta, J.).

DECLARATORY RELIEF:

An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and determination of the validity of the written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties’ rights or duties thereunder. The Court correctly made a distinction between the first and the second paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, describes the general circumstances in which a person may file a petition for declaratory relief, x x x may be brought before the appropriate RTC. The second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court specifically refers to (1) an action for the reformation of an instrument, recognized under Articles 1359 to 1369 of the Civil Code; (2) an action to quiet title, authorized by Articles 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; and (3) an action to consolidate ownership required by Article 1607 of the Civil Code in a sale with a right to repurchase. These three remedies are considered similar to declaratory relief because they also result in the adjudication of the legal rights of the litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the judgment into effect. x x x 

It is important to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically require that an action to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly uses the word "may" – that an action for quieting of title "may be brought under [the] Rule" on petitions for declaratory relief, and a person desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief "may x x x bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court." The use of the word "may" in a statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option. In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, uses the word "shall" and explicitly requires the MTC to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00. As found by the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as stated in Tax Declaration No. 02-48386 is only P410.00; therefore, petitioners’ Complaint involving title to and possession of the said property is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, not the RTC. (MALANA vs. TAPPA, G.R. No. 181303, September 17, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).

DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED TO BE STATE WITNESS:

Turning an accused into a state witness is not a magic formula that cures all the deficiencies in the prosecution’s evidence.  The state witness cannot simply allege everything left unproved and automatically produce a conviction of the crime charged against the remaining accused.  Corroboration of the account of the state witness is key.  It is in fact a requirement for the discharge of an accused to be a state witness under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court that the testimony to be given can be substantially corroborated in its material points.

           

“Sec. 17.  Discharge of accused to be state witness. — When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge, the court is satisfied that:

          (a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;

          (b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;

          (c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

          (d)  Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and

          (e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

            Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence” (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

 

          The Court is not unaware that as an exception to the general rule requiring corroboration, the uncorroborated testimony of a state witness may be sufficient when it is shown to be sincere in itself because it is given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner and full of details which, by their nature, could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought (People v. Sunga, G.R. No. 126029, March 27, 2003, 399 SCRA 624, 647-648). This exception, however, applies only if the state witness is an eyewitness since the testimony would then be direct evidence.  The above-quoted Section 17 of Rule 119 actually assumes that the testimony of the accused sought to be discharged as a state witness would constitute direct evidence (i.e., that he or she is an eyewitness) in that it requires that there is no other direct evidence, except the testimony of the said accused. 

         

Where, as here, the state witness is not an eyewitness, the testimony partakes of the nature of circumstantial evidence.  The rule on circumstantial evidence thus applies.  If the testimony is uncorroborated, it does not suffice.  It cannot merit full credence.  Again, the rule on circumstantial evidence requires that, among other things, there is more than one circumstance and the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.  The circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused of the crime charged only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. The uncorroborated testimony of Felicita does not suffice to establish that appellant committed violence on Uy.  Neither does appellant’s flight.  The fact remains that the three persons present at around the time the crime was committed all fled thereafter.  Appellant’s involvement in every element of the crime charged must still be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELICIANO  ANABE y CAPILLAN, G.R. No.  179033,September 6, 2010,CARPIO MORALES, J.)