Title
Supreme Court
Moll vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 145425
Decision Date
Dec 9, 2002
Vice-mayor Moll convicted for usurpation of authority; appeals denied, warrant upheld as judgment became final and executory.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145425)

Applicable Law

The case primarily revolves around the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 177 regarding usurpation of authority, and pertinent provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019).

Background of the Case

Salvador K. Moll was elected vice-mayor of Malinao, Albay, in 1989. He entered into a memorandum of agreement with Ysmael Zepeda for the local government, authorizing Zepeda to handle the catching and sale of bangus. The duly elected Mayor, Misericordia Clavecilla, challenged Moll’s authority to enter this agreement, asserting that it was beyond his jurisdiction, leading to the mayor filing criminal charges against him.

Criminal Charges and Initial Conviction

Moll was initially charged with violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 by the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco. He was subsequently convicted for usurpation of authority under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 4088 by Judge Samuel Buendia on March 29, 1999. Several delays occurred in the promulgation of the judgment due to the absence of Moll and his counsel from scheduled court dates.

Procedural History and Motions Filed

After failed promulgation attempts on April 21 and May 5, 1999, Moll filed a motion to quash based on double jeopardy, which was set for hearing on May 11. The motion was denied, and judgement was promulgated despite Moll's absence and objections. Moll subsequently filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court, which was dismissed for insufficient form and substance. His appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR No. 44511) was similarly denied for lack of merit.

Response from the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals found that Moll had not been denied due process, emphasizing that it was his repeated failure to attend scheduled court dates that led to the proceedings moving forward. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decisions and noted that Moll's arguments did not demonstrate any denial of the right to be heard.

Further Appeals and Final Resolutions

Moll filed petitions for review at the Supreme Court, contesting the validity of the judgment's promulgation and claiming that his period for appeal had not commenced. These petitions were denied on procedural grounds, stating his failure to meet necessary requirements like timely filing and payment of fe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.