Discharge of Accused as State Witness

The conditions for the discharge of an accused as a state witness are as follows:

1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
2. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;
3. The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
5. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. (People v. Estacio, G.R. No. 171655, July 22, 2009)

Litis Pendentia

The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. (Villarica v. Gernale, G.R. No. 163344, March 20, 2009)

Extra-Judicial Confession

Thus, we have held that an extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence if the following requisites have been satisfied: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing. (People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009)

Malversation

The essential elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are the following:

1. That the offender be a public officer.
2. That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office.
3. That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable.
4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. (People vs. Pantaleon, Jr., G.R. No. 158694-96. March 13, 2009)

Falsification under par. 1, Art. 172

The elements of falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC are:

1. that the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position;
2. that he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and
3. that the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document. (Panuncio v. People, G.R. No. 165678, July 17, 2009)

Substituted Service

For substituted service to be justified, the following circumstances must be clearly established: (a) personal service of summons within a reasonable time was impossible; (b) efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the party’s residence or upon a competent person in charge of the party’s office or place of business. (Sansio v. Mogol, G.R. No. 177007, July 14, 2009)

In Sandoval II v. HRET, the Court enumerated the requisites of a valid substituted service: (1) service of summons within a reasonable time is impossible; (2) the person serving the summons exerted efforts to locate the defendant; (3) the person to whom the summons is served is of sufficient age and discretion; (4) the person to whom the summons is served resides at the defendant’s place of residence; and (5) pertinent facts showing the enumerated circumstances are stated in the return of service. In Sandoval, the Court held that “statutory restrictions for substituted service must be strictly, faithfully and fully observed.” (Galura v. Math-Agro Corporation, G.R. No. 167230. August 14, 2009)

Qualified Theft

In précis, the elements of qualified theft punishable under Article 310 in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are as follows:

1. There was a taking of personal property.
2. The said property belongs to another.
3. The taking was done without the consent of the owner.
4. The taking was done with intent to gain.
5. The taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against person, or force upon things.
6. The taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence. (Matrido v. People, G.R. No. 179061. July 13, 2009)