Ong Vs People
Ong Vs People
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
105
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 19-36; penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.
(now Associate Justice of this Court) with Associate Justices Lucas P.
Bersamin (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Lucenito N. Tagle,
concurring.
2 Records, pp. 325-331.
3 Id., at p. 1.
107
_______________
4 Id., at p. 30.
5 Id., at pp. 28-30.
6 Id., at p. 38.
7 Id., at pp. 51-53.
8 TSN, November 14, 2001, pp. 3-9.
9 TSN, January 22, 2002, pp. 6-25.
10 TSN, October 10, 2001, pp. 3-13.
11 TSN, April 12, 2002, pp. 3-20.
108
109
_______________
12 Rollo, pp. 19-21.
110
_______________
13 Records, pp. 229-235.
14 Id., at p. 261.
15 Id., at p. 282.
16 TSN, May 26, 2003, pp. 36-37.
17 Id., at pp. 39-40.
111
_______________
18 TSN, June 9, 2003, pp. 13-15.
19 TSN, May 26, 2003, pp. 5-30.
20 Records, pp. 330-331.
112
She could have protested at the time of her arrest that they
were arresting the wrong person but this she did not do. She
proceeded to post a bond for her provisional liberty, hired a
lawyer to defend her but failed to divulge the very information
that could have led to an early dismissal of the case, if true.
Her pretensions of ignorance as to the proper stage of when to
explain (tsn, May 26, 2003), p. 13 can hardly be given credit. A
dentist by profession, it is utterly incredible that she remained
meek all through-out her arrest and the posting of her bail
bond.”21
I
THE LOWER COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN
CONVICTING DR. MARIA TERESA GEMMA CATACUTAN
GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS LAW DESPITE UTTER
LACK OF EVIDENCE.
II
THE LOWER COURT IN CONVICTING DR. MARIA TERESA
GEMMA CATACUTAN ON THE BASIS OF SURMISE (sic),
CONJECTURES AND GUESSWORK COMMITTED GRAVE
VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
III
THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHO
HAD NOT BEEN POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED AND
PINPOINTED AS MANUFACTURER NOR (sic) DISTRIBUTOR
OF FAKE MARLBORO PRODUCT.
_______________
21 Id., at pp. 329-330.
22 Id., at p. 330.
113
IV
THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN NOT GIVING THE SLIGHTEST CREDENCE TO
THE UNCONTRADICTED, UNREFUTED AND CANDID
TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT, BUT INSTEAD,
CONVICTED HER ON [T]HE BASIS OF EXTRAPOLATED
EVIDENCE NOT BORNE BY THE RECORDS.
V
THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE
THE UTTER AND PATHETIC LACK OF EVIDENCE TO
SUSTAIN THE PROSECUTION’S LAME, SHALLOW AND
UNCONFOUNDED THEORY OF GUILT.23
_______________
23 Rollo, pp. 29-30.
24 Id., at pp. 32-33.
114
A.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES
IDENTIFYING PETITIONER AS PRESENT AT THE TIME AND
PLACE WHEN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE TOOK PLACE.
B.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES THAT
THEY SAW PETITIONER SIGN HER NAME AS “GEMMA
ONG” AS OWNER/CLAIMANT/REPRESENTATIVE (OF THE
ARTICLES SEIZED) ON THE SEARCH WARRANT (EXH. “A”),
CERTIFICATION IN THE CONDUCT OF SEARCH (EXH. “B”)
AND INVENTORY OF THE S[E]IZED ARTICLES AT THE
TIME OF THE SEARCH (EXH. “D”).
C.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT
PETITIONER’S SIGNATURE IN EXHIBITS “A”, “B” AND “C”
ARE NOT HERS BUT WERE FORGED, BEING COMPLETELY
AND PATENTLY DISSIMILAR TO HER TRUE AND REAL
SIGNATURE AS SHOWN IN HER OFFICIAL I.D AS
PROFESSIONAL DENTIST.
_______________
25 Id., at pp. 34-35.
115
D.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES
WHICH DID NOT MENTION PETITIONER’S PRESENCE AT
THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE SEARCH CANNOT TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER THEIR CONTRARY TESTIMONIES IN
COURT THAT SHE WAS PRESENT AND IN FACT THE
OCCUPANT AND OWNER OF THE PREMISES FROM WHICH
SHE INITIALLY BLOCKED THEIR ENTRY INTO.
E.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
[PETITIONER] WAS THE VERY SAME PERSON WHO WAS
CAUGHT IN POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE
PREMISES WHERE THE COUNTERFEIT ARTICLES WERE
SEIZED BECAUSE SHE ALLEGEDLY NEVER PROTESTED
BEING WRONGFULLY ACCUSED AT THE TIME OF HER
ARREST ON 4 AUGUST 2000, WHEN SHE POSTED HER
CASH BOND AND WHEN SHE EVEN SIGNED HER NAME AS
MA. TERESA GEMMA CATACUTAN IN THE WAIVER,
UNDERTAKING AND CERTIFICATE OR ARRAIGNMENT,
ALL IN THE NAME OF THE ACCUSED AS “GEMMA ONG,
a.k.a. MA. THERESA CATACUTAN.”
F.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING
[PETITIONER] FOR FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.26
Gemma argues that if it were true that she was in the
subject premises when it was raided on September 25,
1998, then her name and presence would have been
mentioned in the respective affidavits of Slagle and Atty.
Ancheta; and the EIIB agents who conducted the search
would have confronted, investigated, or arrested her.
Gemma insists that the fact that her name was only
mentioned for the first time in the amended affidavits
yields to the conclusion that she was not in the subject
premises when it was searched and that the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses were perjured.27
_______________
26 Id., at pp. 47-48.
27 Id., at pp. 49-50.
116
_______________
28 Id., at p. 57.
29 Id., at pp. 119-139.
30 Id., at pp. 126-127.
31 Id., at pp. 127-128.
32 Id., at pp. 127-132.
117
Issues
A study of the pleadings filed before this Court shows
that the only issues to be resolved are the following:
1. Whether or not accused-appellant’s petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court is fatally defective as it raises questions of fact;
and
2. Whether or not Gemma’s guilt was proven beyond
reasonable doubt in light of her alleged mistaken
identity.
Procedural Issue
As this case reached this Court via Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, the basic rule is that factual questions are beyond
the province of this Court, because only questions of law
may be raised in a petition for review.33 However, in
exceptional cases, this Court has taken cognizance of
questions of fact in order to resolve legal issues, such as
when there was palpable error or a grave misapprehension
of facts by the lower court.34 In Armed Forces of the
Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals,35 we said that although submission of issues of
fact in an appeal by certiorari taken to this Court is
ordinarily proscribed, this Court nonetheless retains the
option in the exercise of its sound discretion, taking into
account the attendant circumstances, either to decide the
case or refer it to the proper court for determination.36
Since the determination of the identity of Gemma is the
very issue affecting her guilt or innocence, this Court
chooses to take cognizance of this case in the interest of
proper administration of justice.
_______________
33 Hko Ah Pao v. Ting, G.R. No. 153476, September 27, 2006, 503
SCRA 551, 559.
34 Santos v. Sandiganbayan, 400 Phil. 1175, 1201; 347 SCRA 386, 409
(2000).
35 370 Phil. 150; 311 SCRA 143 (1999).
36 Id., at p. 165; p. 157.
118
119
_______________
37 Section 121.1, Republic Act No. 8293.
38 480 Phil. 402; 437 SCRA 10 (2004).
39 Id., at pp. 424-425; pp. 24-25.
40 Records (thin folder), pp. 13-54.
41 TSN, November 27, 2001, pp. 3-14.
120
_______________
42 People v. Minangga and Agando, 388 Phil. 353, 362; 332 SCRA 558,
565-566 (2000).
43 Records, pp. 158-169.
121
Gemma Ong; not only during her arrest, but also during
the posting of the cash bond for her bail, and more
importantly, during her arraignment, when she was
asked if she understood the charges against her.
Gemma also knew that the Information was filed against
her on the basis of the amended affidavits, thus, she could
have filed a motion to quash the information before she
entered her plea, or asked that a reinvestigation be
conducted. However, all these Gemma failed to do. We
agree with the RTC that it is highly unlikely that a person
of her stature and educational attainment would be so
meek and timid that she failed to protest against her being
wrongly identified, accused, arrested, and potentially
imprisoned. If what she says were true, she would not have
agreed to post bail or to be arraigned without at the very
least, bringing up the fact that she was not the Gemma
Ong the police officers were looking for. In addition, her
own lawyer, Atty. Maglinao, brought up the fact that she
was not Gemma Ong, only for the purpose of correcting the
Information, and not to contest it, to wit:
_______________
44 TSN, November 26, 2001, pp. 3-4.
122
_______________
45 515 Phil. 799; 478 SCRA 639 (2005).
46 Id., at p. 811; p. 650.
123
_______________
124
_______________
125
WITNESS
Yes, Sir.50
_______________
50 TSN, January 22, 2002, pp. 24-25.
51 People v. Bihag, Jr. and Hilot, 396 Phil. 289, 296; 342 SCRA 128,
135 (2000).
52 People v. Pangilinan and Hamton, 443 Phil. 198, 235-236; 395 SCRA
156, 185 (2003).
53 People v. Quimzon, 471 Phil. 182, 203; 427 SCRA 261, 280 (2004).
54 Records, p. 298.
126
——o0o——