327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination
Can an appellate court convict a public officer of a
different crime, such as direct bribery, when the Information charged robbery,
without violating the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation?
Silverio Remolano y Caluscusan, Petitioner vs. People of
the Philippines, Respondent
G.R. No. 248682 | October 6, 2021
Facts of the Case:
On September 20, 2013, Silverio Remolano, a Metro Manila
Aide, along with Rolando Tamor, was charged with robbery (extortion) after
demanding ₱200 from SPO1 Nomer V. Cardines, who had intentionally committed a
traffic violation during an entrapment operation. Remolano flagged down
Cardines for swerving, took his driver's license, and demanded a bribe in
exchange for not issuing a traffic violation ticket. When Cardines handed over
the marked money, Remolano was arrested, and the ultraviolet powder from the marked
bills was found on his hands.
During the trial, Remolano maintained his innocence, arguing
that he did not demand money and that Cardines forced the bribe on him. The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Remolano of robbery and sentenced him to
imprisonment. However, it acquitted Tamor due to reasonable doubt.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the conviction
from robbery to direct bribery. The appellate court ruled that Remolano’s act
of accepting ₱200 in exchange for not issuing a ticket constituted direct
bribery, as the elements of intimidation required for robbery were absent.
Remolano filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
Primary Issue:
Did the modification of the verdict from robbery to
direct bribery violate Remolano's constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him?
Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Remolano, holding that
his constitutional rights were violated. The Court emphasized that an accused
can only be convicted of the crime explicitly charged in the Information, or an
offense necessarily included in it. Robbery and direct bribery are distinct
crimes, and one does not necessarily include the other. The Information filed
against Remolano charged him with robbery, which involves intimidation, while
bribery involves voluntary acceptance of a bribe. The absence of intimidation
meant that robbery could not be proven, and the factual allegations in the
Information did not sufficiently charge direct bribery.
Therefore, the appellate court's decision to convict
Remolano of direct bribery deprived him of his constitutional rights, as he was
not properly informed of the charge against him. The Supreme Court acquitted
Remolano, without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate charge against him
after a preliminary investigation.
Dispositive Portion:
"ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision
dated December 12, 2018, and Resolution dated July 30, 2019, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40185 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Silverio
Remolano y Caluscusan is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-03453 without
prejudice to the filing of the appropriate charge against him after the conduct
of preliminary investigation."
Is it just for courts to modify the conviction to a
different crime when it is not expressly charged, even if the facts of the case
suggest guilt of another offense?
Important Doctrines:
- Right
to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation (Article III, Section
14 of the Constitution)
- The
accused must be explicitly informed of the charge against them, and they
cannot be convicted of a crime different from what was alleged in the
Information unless it is necessarily included in the original charge.
- Distinction
Between Robbery and Direct Bribery (Article 293 vs. Article 210, Revised
Penal Code)
- Robbery
requires the element of intimidation, while bribery involves a mutual and
voluntary transaction. One offense does not necessarily include the
other.
- Rule
on Variance Between Allegation and Proof (Section 4, Rule 120, Rules of
Criminal Procedure)
- An
accused can only be convicted of a lesser offense if the elements of the
charged crime necessarily include the lesser offense. Otherwise,
convicting them of a different crime violates their right to due process.
Classification:
This case falls under Criminal Law.
🎓 Welcome, future lawyers and bar examinees. In this educational content, we’ll explore the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Silverio Remolano y Caluscusan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248682, promulgated on October 6, 2021. This criminal case revolves around the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, which was allegedly violated when the Court of Appeals modified Remolano’s conviction from robbery to direct bribery.
This jurisprudence is essential for bar takers and law
students in mastering criminal law, particularly the doctrines on variance
between charge and conviction.
📌 Nature of the Case:
Criminal Law – Violation of constitutional rights in criminal procedure
📌 Case Title: Silverio
Remolano y Caluscusan vs. People of the Philippines
📌 Date of
Promulgation: October 6, 2021
💡 Brief Summary:
Remolano, an MMDA enforcer, was charged with robbery for
extorting ₱200 from a motorist (actually an undercover cop). He was convicted
by the RTC, but the Court of Appeals modified the crime to direct bribery. The
Supreme Court acquitted him, ruling that changing the charge violated
his right to be informed of the accusation against him.
🔍 Should appellate courts be allowed to convict for a crime not charged in the information if the facts seem to support it?
🧠 10 CRITICAL
DOCTRINES FROM THE CASE (for Bar and Law School Recitation)
- Right
to be Informed (Art. III, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution)
An accused must be informed of the crime he is charged with at arraignment. Conviction must be based strictly on the offense charged. [Remolano, G.R. No. 248682, Oct. 6, 2021] - Variance
Doctrine (Sec. 4, Rule 120, Rules of Court)
A person may only be convicted of a crime included in or that necessarily includes the one charged. Bribery is not included in robbery. [Ibid.] - Robbery
Requires Intimidation or Violence (Art. 293, RPC)
Essential elements include unlawful taking with intent to gain by means of force or intimidation. [Ibid.] - Direct
Bribery Requires Voluntary Transaction (Art. 210, RPC)
Unlike robbery, bribery involves mutual consent between the giver and public officer. Intimidation contradicts this. [Ibid.] - Surplusage
in Information
Unnecessary allegations (e.g., intimidation) can defeat a bribery charge even if facts partially fit. [Ibid.] - Entrapment
is Not Coercion
Entrapment does not prove intimidation in robbery; it negates the fear necessary for robbery. [Ibid.] - Function
of the Information
It informs the accused of the charge, enabling them to prepare a proper defense. [Ibid.] - Designation
vs. Allegations
The crime's designation is less important than the factual allegations in the information. [Ibid.] - U.S.
v. Flores Doctrine
Bribery and robbery are mutually exclusive—one involves force, the other consent. [Cited in Remolano] - Doctrine
in People v. Francisco (1924)
The principal difference between robbery and bribery lies in voluntariness; intimidation negates mutual consent. [Cited in Remolano]
⚖️ DISCLAIMER:
This is an educational video created to assist law students
and bar examinees. While efforts are made to ensure accuracy, we do not
guarantee that the content is infallible. Content generated using premium
artificial intelligence.
💬 FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS (FAQs)
1. Can a court convict a person of a different crime not
charged in the Information?
No. The accused can only be convicted of a crime that is
either charged or necessarily included in the charge. [Remolano]
2. What is the difference between robbery and bribery?
Robbery involves intimidation or force; bribery involves a
voluntary exchange of money for the performance or non-performance of a public
duty. [RPC, Art. 293 & 210]
3. Was the entrapment operation enough to prove robbery?
No. The Court held that entrapment negated the presence of
intimidation, which is an essential element of robbery. [Remolano]
4. Why was Remolano acquitted?
He was acquitted because he was convicted of a crime
(bribery) not charged in the Information, violating his constitutional right to
be informed. [Remolano]
5. Can the same facts be used to charge bribery later?
Yes. The Supreme Court allowed for the filing of a proper
charge (e.g., bribery) after preliminary investigation. [Remolano]
📚 SAVE this post, COMMENT
your thoughts, and SUBSCRIBE for more legal case digests.
🎓 Welcome, future lawyers! This HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills) quizzer is based on a significant Supreme Court ruling in the field of Criminal Law. We will test your understanding of the legal doctrines and principles in the case:
Silverio Remolano y Caluscusan vs. People of the
Philippines
G.R. No. 248682, Promulgated October 6, 2021
🧑⚖️ Nature of the
Case: Criminal Law – Procedural Due Process / Right to be Informed of the
Nature of the Accusation
📌 Parties:
Silverio Remolano (Petitioner) vs. People of the Philippines (Respondent)
📖 Brief Summary:
Remolano, an MMDA traffic aide, was originally charged with
robbery for allegedly extorting ₱200 from a motorist during an entrapment
operation. The RTC convicted him of robbery. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
modified the verdict and convicted him of direct bribery instead. The Supreme
Court acquitted him, ruling that this shift in the offense violated his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
📝 The answer key
will be revealed at the end of this video, so stay tuned and test your
legal mastery!
🔍 QUIZZER: 10 HOTS
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
(Easy Difficulty – Criminal Law: Right to be Informed,
Variance Doctrine, Robbery vs. Bribery)
1. What was the primary reason the Supreme Court
acquitted Remolano?
A. Lack of evidence of guilt
B. Improper conduct of entrapment
C. Conviction for an offense not charged
D. Prescription of the offense
2. Which element was found lacking in the crime of
robbery, leading to the reversal of the conviction?
A. Intent to gain
B. Taking of property
C. Use of intimidation
D. Ownership of property
3. Why was Remolano’s conviction for direct bribery
held to be improper by the Supreme Court?
A. Bribery is not a serious offense
B. He was not a public officer
C. The Information did not contain all essential elements of
bribery
D. The bribe money was returned
4. The case emphasized that a person accused in a
criminal case has the right to:
A. Remain silent
B. Confront his accuser
C. Be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
D. Appeal to the President
5. What key doctrine did the Supreme Court apply in
acquitting Remolano?
A. Presumption of regularity
B. Equal protection
C. Variance doctrine
D. Corpus delicti doctrine
6. What procedural misstep did the Court of Appeals
commit in this case?
A. Dismissal without trial
B. Increasing the penalty without basis
C. Modifying the offense without proper basis in the
Information
D. Failure to appreciate mitigating circumstances
7. In distinguishing robbery from bribery, what key
factor did the Supreme Court identify?
A. Use of weapons
B. Consent of the victim
C. Number of participants
D. Amount of money involved
8. What role did the entrapment operation play in the
Court’s analysis?
A. It proved conspiracy
B. It validated intimidation
C. It negated the element of intimidation
D. It proved intent to gain
9. The Supreme Court ruled that modifying a
conviction to an uncharged offense violated which constitutional safeguard?
A. Right to speedy trial
B. Right against double jeopardy
C. Right to due compensation
D. Right to due process
10. Under the ruling, what must the Information
clearly allege to justify a conviction?
A. The accused’s previous offenses
B. The legal citation of the crime
C. The facts constituting the crime charged
D. The character witnesses of the accused
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
No comments:
Post a Comment