Case Summary (G.R. No. 221505)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
– Treasury Warrant dated April 30, 2004 (within the March 26–May 10, 2004 election ban).
– Information filed May 30, 2011.
– RTC Order granting demurrer to evidence and acquitting respondents: December 16, 2013.
– Court of Appeals Decision affirming acquittal: June 16, 2015.
– Supreme Court resolution on petition for review under Rule 45: December 5, 2018.
Applicable Law: 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 21 – Double Jeopardy); Omnibus Election Code Sec. 261(w)(b); Negotiable Instruments Law; Rules on Notarial Practice; Revised Rules on Evidence.
Facts of the Case
In 2004, the City Government of Tuguegarao, represented by Mayor Ting, entered into a contract to purchase two parcels of land (Lots 5860 and 5861, total 24,816 m²) from the Almazans for ₱8,486,027. As payment, Treasurer Garcia issued Landbank Treasury Warrant No. 0001534514 dated April 30, 2004. On May 5, 2004, titles were registered in the City Government’s name. A COMELEC complaint for violation of Sec. 261(v) and (w) was dismissed, but the Supreme Court in Guzman v. COMELEC ordered the filing of a criminal information under Sec. 261(w)(b).
Procedural History
– Respondents arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
– Prosecution rested without presenting witnesses; respondents filed a demurrer to evidence.
– RTC granted the demurrer, ruling the date on the check did not prove issuance within the ban.
– CA denied the People’s certiorari under Rule 65, affirming acquittal.
– OSG filed a petition for review under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the CA.
Legal Issue
Whether issuing, using or availing of a treasury warrant dated within the forbidden forty-five-day period constitutes an election offense under Sec. 261(w)(b) of the Omnibus Election Code regardless of the actual date of delivery or encashment.
RTC’s Rationale on Demurrer to Evidence
Interpreting “issue” under the Negotiable Instruments Law as first delivery, the RTC held that prosecution failed to prove delivery to payees during the ban. The dorsal bank annotation “May 18, 2004” (outside the ban) showed actual payment; title registration on May 5 did not establish delivery or payment.
Court of Appeals’ Findings
Affirmed that “issue” requires delivery for negotiability. The April 30 date only reflects drawing. Notarization of the deed did not equate to issuance. Encashment on May 18 demonstrated payment outside the prohibited period; thus, no liability under Sec. 261(w)(b).
Solicitor General’s Argument
Prosecution established that the warrant was dated and therefore drawn on April 30 (ban period). Under Sec. 11, Negotiable Instruments Law, a dated instrument is prima facie drawn on that date, giving rise to a presumption of delivery and acceptance. Notarization on May 5 evidenced formal execution and acknowledgment of payment. Respondents offered no evidence to rebut these presumptions.
Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Sec. 261(w)(b)
Three elements:
- Issuance, use or availment of treasury warrants or similar devices.
- Undertaking future delivery of money, goods or other things of value.
- Chargeable against public funds.
The Court held that “issue” in this context must be given its ordinary meaning (“to give” or “to deliver”), not the restricted negotiability sense.
Assessment of Evidence and Notarial Acknowledgment
– Prima facie presumption: a dated warrant is drawn and issued on its date.
– Notarized deed of sale (May 5) constitutes public document evidence of execution on or before that date, including acknowledgment of the treasury warrant as payment.
– Title registration corroborates, though not essential to establish offense.
Application of the Negotiable Instruments Law
While Secti
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 221505)
Facts
- In 2004, Respondents Randolph S. Ting (City Mayor) and Salvacion I. Garcia (City Treasurer) of Tuguegarao City entered into a Contract of Sale for two parcels of land (Lot Nos. 5860 and 5861; TCT Nos. T-36942 and T-36943) to be used as a public cemetery.
- As payment, Garcia issued and released Treasury Warrant No. 0001534514 dated April 30, 2004 in the amount of ₱8,486,027.00, during the 45-day election ban period preceding the May 10, 2004 elections.
- On May 5, 2004, the City Government registered the sale and obtained new Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT Nos. T-144428 and T-144429) in its name.
- A complaint was lodged for violation of Sections 261(v) and 261(w)(b) of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC dismissed the complaint under Section 261(v), finding no public works involved.
- In Guzman v. Commission on Elections (614 Phil. 143, 2009), the Supreme Court set aside the COMELEC’s dismissal and ordered criminal information to be filed, holding probable cause for violation of Section 261(w).
Procedural History
- Respondents pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
- At pre-trial, the contract of sale and issuance of the treasury warrant were stipulated and admitted.
- Prosecution formally offered evidence on October 23, 2013.
- Respondents filed a Motion for Leave to File a Demurrer to Evidence and subsequently their Demurrer to Evidence.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 5, Tuguegarao City, granted the demurrer in an Order dated December 16, 2013, acquitting the respondents.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought certiorari relief under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a Decision dated June 16, 2015 (and a Resolution dated November 5, 2015), affirmed the RTC’s Order.
- The OSG filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court on January 7, 2016.
Issues
- Whether the RTC erred in granting the demurrer to evidence despite purported sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to prove a viol