Case Digest (G.R. No. 88158)
Facts:
The case centers around Edwina Rimando y Fernando (petitioner) and Romeo Rimando y Cachero, who were charged with violating Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines for possessing and using counterfeit U.S. dollars. The events took place in Makati City on September 14, 2012. The prosecution's evidence indicated that a bank officer from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Alex MuAez, received a tip about a group led by "Pastor Danny" and "Datu Romy" engaged in counterfeit currency activities. Following surveillance and a test-buy on September 5, 2012, where MuAez purchased three counterfeit $100 bills, an entrapment operation was arranged for September 14. The operation took place at Savory Restaurant in Makati, where MuAez met with Romeo Rimando and Edwina Rimando. During the meeting, Romeo handed over counterfeit U.S. dollars while MuAez exchanged marked money. This led to their arrest after MuAez signaled the other agents to intervene. The
Case Digest (G.R. No. 88158)
Facts:
- Procedural and Case Background
- The case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- It seeks the reversal of a Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated September 6, 2016 and a subsequent Resolution dated January 31, 2017, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated February 6, 2014.
- The RTC, Branch 137 of Makati City, convicted Romeo Rimando y Cachero and Edwina Rimando y Fernando for violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), charging them with the illegal possession and use of counterfeit US dollar notes.
- Factual Allegations and Prosecution’s Evidence
- Nature of the Crime
- The accused were charged with conspiring to possess counterfeit US$100 notes on September 14, 2012, in Makati City.
- The charge was based on the allegation that the accused, with intent to use false currency, possessed and attempted to sell 100 pieces of counterfeit US$100 notes.
- Investigative Operation by BSP and PNP
- Alex MuAez, Bank Officer I of the Investigation Division of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), testified that he was assigned to investigate offenses affecting the integrity of currencies.
- In July 2012, information from a confidential informant led the investigators to persons involved in the manufacture and distribution of counterfeit US dollar notes.
- On September 5, 2012, the informant introduced the team to the suspected group during a test-buy operation at Farmer's Market, Cubao, where three counterfeit notes were purchased, validating the suspicions.
- The Entrapment Operation on September 14, 2012
- Romeo Rimando called MuAez offering to sell 100 pieces of counterfeit US$100 notes at a predetermined price per piece.
- An operation was set up in coordination with the Tactical Operation Center of the Philippine National Police (PNP).
- The meeting was arranged at Savory Restaurant along Makati Avenue, where Romeo Rimando appeared accompanied by Edwina Rimando.
- During the meeting, Romeo handed over the counterfeit notes to the agent in exchange for “marked money.”
- A prearranged signal—MuAez placing his eyeglasses on his head—signaled the team to close in and arrest the accused.
- Forensic and Documentary Evidence
- Reynaldo Paday, a Senior Currency Specialist, confirmed the test-buy operation and participated in securing the perimeter during the entrapment.
- Sylvia Tamayo certified on September 17, 2012, that the 100 pieces of US dollar bills inspected were counterfeit, based on a detailed examination of serial numbers and denominations.
- Glenn Peterson, a Special Agent of the US Secret Service, corroborated that the counterfeit notes were printed using an inkjet printer, unlike the genuine notes produced with intaglio and typographic methods.
- Evidence Presented by the Accused
- Testimony of Edwina Rimando
- Claimed she was at Makati Tower Hotel on the day of the operation, having been invited for an old coins transaction meeting.
- Asserted that she and her husband, Romeo Rimando, were detained during a supposed lapse in communication with their non-participating acquaintances.
- Described being handcuffed, having her belongings taken, and an argument with the arresting agent over the handling of her bag containing the confiscated items.
- Testimony of Romeo Rimando
- Contended that he and his wife were invited to a meeting regarding an old coins transaction, initially held at Makati Tower Hotel and then moved to a nearby restaurant.
- Recounted that he and his wife were apprehended by a large group of agents while en route, with details indicating a coordinated arrest operation involving multiple vehicles.
- Provided an account of how their cellphones were confiscated and how a pistol and documented evidence (such as photographs and the marking of the counterfeit notes) were introduced during the process.
- Trial Court and Appellate Proceedings
- The RTC rendered a decision convicting both accused beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Article 168 of the RPC.
- The RTC sentenced each accused to an indeterminate period of prision mayor, with additional fines and orders to burn the counterfeit notes.
- The CA, in its Decision dated September 6, 2016, affirmed the RTC ruling in all respects.
- Romeo Rimando later withdrew his appeal, while Edwina Rimando proceeded with a Petition for Review on Certiorari questioning the sufficiency of evidence regarding her participation in a conspiracy.
- Specific Allegations on Conspiracy and Entrapment
- The prosecution argued that Edwina participated in a conspiracy with her husband, citing:
- Her presence at the scene alongside her husband.
- Her actions, such as accepting the marked money from him and not distancing herself from the confrontation.
- Appellants contended that mere presence was insufficient proof of active participation or a tacit agreement to commit the criminal offense.
- The CA and RTC maintained that the combination of circumstances and testimonies established a common intent, while later, the Supreme Court questioned whether such evidence met the high threshold of moral certainty required for a conviction.
Issues:
- Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction of Edwina Rimando on the basis that her presence at the scene constitutes participation in a conspiracy under Article 168 of the RPC.
- Is mere presence at the scene sufficient to infer participation in a criminal conspiracy?
- Must active and overt participation be proven beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction for conspiracy?
- Whether the entrapment operation conducted by the BSP in coordination with the PNP was valid, and if the evidentiary chain linking the counterfeit notes to the accused was properly established.
- Were the evidentiary items (exhibits “E” to “E-99” and “F” to “F-2”) properly admitted given the circumstances of the entrapment?
- Did the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, despite noted contradictions, suffice to support the findings against both accused?
- Whether the overall evidence presented meets the test of moral certainty required to find the accused guilty of conspiracy, particularly in light of the absence of an overt act showing her intentional participation.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)