Case Digest (G.R. No. L-74727)
Facts:
Melencio Gigantoni y Javier, G.R. No. 74727. June 16, 1988, Supreme Court Second Division, Yap, C.J., writing for the Court. This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. No. 01119 (People of the Philippines v. Melencio Gigantoni y Javier), promulgated November 13, 1985, which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court but modified the penalty.Petitioner Gigantoni was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, Branch 159, Pasig, with usurpation of authority under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on May 14 and 15, 1981, in Makati, Gigantoni, not a bona fide agent of the CIS (Philippine Constabulary Intelligence Service), willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and falsely represented himself to be such an agent.
Factually, the appellate court recited that in 1981 Gigantoni was employed by Black Mountain Mining, Inc. and Tetra Management Corporation. On May 14, 1981, acting as an employee of those companies, he went to the Philippine Air Lines (PAL) office in Makati, claiming to be a PC‑CIS agent investigating a kidnapping; he displayed an identification card purporting to be a PC‑CIS ID and requested passenger manifests for certain dates. PAL’s legal officer produced the records, Gigantoni made xerox copies and left. PAL later verified with PC‑CIS and learned from General Uy that Gigantoni had been dismissed from CIS (the appellate narrative places the dismissal in June 1980 and records show a June 23, 1980 letter regarding suspension/dismissal). PAL alerted NBI; when Gigantoni returned on May 15 he was confronted, admitted he was no longer with CIS and that he was checking travel for a per diem claim, and was then turned over to NBI agents, investigated, arrested and charged.
The trial court convicted Gigant...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Intermediate Appellate Court err in applying the disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to find that petitioner had been duly notified of his dismissal?
- If notification of dismissal was not proved, was petitioner nonetheless guilty of usurpation of authority under Article 177, Revised Penal Code, for represe...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)