SB-08-A/R-OOO 1 - Sandiganbayan Home Pagesb.judiciary.gov.ph/DECISIONS/2009/B_SB-08-AR-0001_Taytayon_02_… · SB-08-A/R-OOO 1 Peoplevs.P03ManuelC ... Exhibit"E" Complaint Affidavit

Republic of the PhilippinesSandiganbayan

Quezon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee,

SB;.08-AjR-OOOlFor: Violation of

Section 3(e) Of R.A. 3019

VILLARUZ, JR., J., ChairmanDE LA CRUZ, J.GERALDEZ, J.

P03 MANUEL C. TAYTAYON,Accused-Appellant.

x X

Promulgated: .

RbqJ2tQl'~'74

DECISION

"WHEREFORE,all the foregoing considered, the Courtfinds the accused P03 MANUEL TAYTAYON GUILTYbeyondreasonable doubt of Violation of Section 3 paragraph [e) ofRepublic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graftand Corrupt Practices Act. He is hereby sentenced,applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and there beingno mitigating circumstances, to suffer the penalty ofimprisonment of six (6) years, as minimum, to eight (8) years,as maximum,. Further, he is hereby ordered to indemnify theherein private complainant the amount of Seventy SixThousand Pesos [p7 6,000.00).

referred fa as Appellant) was charged initially befare the RegionalV!//

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1Peoplevs.P03 ManuelC. TaytayonDecisionPage2x x

"That on or about the 29th day of May 2003 at PasayCity, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this HonorableCourt, the above-named accused, a public officer, being amember of the Philippine National Police, at that time, aDeputized Agent of the Land Transportation (LTO),committing the offense in relation to hisfunctions and takingadvantage of his official functions, with evident bad faith orgross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully,unlawfully, and criminally, without any legal basis, detachand confiscate the license/registration plate (No. PYA-809)of a 1995Toyota Crown service car owned by BEL-AIRTransitService Corporation (Philippine Licensee of the Dollar Rent-A-Car, USA),as a consequence of which said firm was notable to utilize said service vehicle, in its daily operations fornineteen (19) days, depriving it of the car's usual earnings ofP4,000a day, thereby causing undue injury to said firm in thetotal sum of SEVENTYSIXTHOUSANDPESOS(P76,000.oo).

CONTRARYTOLAW."

When this case was called for the continuation of thepre-trial conference, private prosecution requested formarking of additional documentary exhibits, to wit:Exhibit "0" Hotel contractExhibit "E" Complaint Affidavit filed with

the Office of theOmbudsman

Exhibit "F" Reply to the Counter Affidavitof the accused

Exhibit "G" Resolutionof the Tanodbayan

Atty. Antonio Mabaza, counsel for the accused,marked the following:

!

~/2 Ibid., p. 8.3 Rollo, p. 55.4 Ibid .. p. 64.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1PeopleYS. P03 ManuelC.TaytayonDecision.Page3x x

Counter-Affidavit of P03Manuel TaytayonSecond pageSignature of the accused

Exhibit" 1-A"Exhibit "1-A-1 "Exhibit "2" Temporary Operator Permit

No. 533-1956-0Signature of accusedDorsalportion·

Exhibit "2-A"Exhibit "2-B"

The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accusedstipulated on the following, to wit:

1. the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court;2. identity of accused P03 Manuel taytayon,

member of the PNPdeputized at LTO-NCR;3. that Manolo Jarabata was driving the service

vehicle of the private complainant Toyota Crownwith Plate No. PYA809,a rent a car vehicle alongNAIA Road, Pasay City on 29 May 2003 in theafternoon;

4. that the accused stopped the car, apprehendedJarabata, confiscated the latter's driver's license,detached the license Plate and brought it to LTOPasig;

5. that complainant through its staff Denis Dumlaopresented documents such as LTFRBfranchiseand the registration papers at the LTOOffice inPasig at about past 5 ih the afternoon of May 29,2003;

6. that accused did not appear in the hearing atLTO;

7. that in a Resolutiondated June 17, 2003 HearingOfficer Delia Hernandez ordered that theconfiscated license plate be released withoutfine;

8. that it took 19days from the time the confiscationof the license plate before it was released;

9. that accused issued a Temporary Operator'sPermit (TOP) after he confiscated the driver'slicense of Jarabata and detached the licenseplate;

10. that the signature above the words :Signature ofDriver" in the TOP No.. .533-1956-0belongs toManolo Jarabata.

(1) Whether or not the accused is authorized· by lawto detach and confiscate· the license plate of theservice vehicle;

(2) Whether or not the accused violated Sec. 3(e) ofR.A.3019;

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People VS. P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecisionPage 4x x

(3) Whether or not the private complainant sufferedby way of unrealized income for the 19 days thatthe service of vehicle could not serve the hotel.

x x x x x x"

companion stilldetached the license plates ot the car and issueda1ri)5 TSN.,December 7, 2004. \ ~6 TSN., February 8,2005. /

7 Exhibit" A". r''"8 From 12:00 o'clock noon to 9:00 o'clock in the evening.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People vs. P03 Manuele. TaytayonDecisionPage 5x x

P4,000/day, it was not able to ply businessfor nineteen (19) days; in

3(e) of R.A. 3019 hence this instant case; further, a corresponding

and his companion still detached the car's license plates invoking

9 Exhibits"0 to "0-6" - Memorandum of Agreement between BATCOand Manila DiamondHotel.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People vs. P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecisionPage 6x x

A~judication Section advising them that their subject c~r was being

streetswithout its registered license plates; the citation ticket issuedto

the driver was only personal to him in hiscapacity as driver by reaso1.. .of the violation he committed and that has nothing to do with the~

\

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1Peoplevs.P03 ManuelC.TaytayonDecisionPage7x x

Board resolution of Bel-AirTransit ServiceCorporation

Signature of IsidroLaforteza

Company I.D.Dennis Dumlao

Affidavit complaintconsisting of two (2)'pages by witness DennisDumlao, inclusive ofAnnexes "A" to "G"which were marked asExhibits"B-3" - "B-12"

and"B-2"

"B-2" -"B-5"

Decision dated 25October 2002 by theLTFRBgranting extensionof the certificate ofPublic Convenience(CPC) to Bel-Air TransitServices Corp. foranother five (5) yearsfrom 29 June 2000 to2005.

Period of validity of theCPC

To prove the authorityand identification of thewitness Dennis Dumlao totestify and prosecute thecriminal action againstthe accused in hiscapacity as the HotelTransportSupervisor.

To prove that a criminalcomplaint was filed byprivate complainant withthe Office of theOmbudsman which ledto the filing of thecriminal Informationagainst the accused forviolation of Sec. 3(e) ofR.A. 3019.

To prove' that privatecomplainant has a validand subsisting Certificateof Public Convenience(CPC) which was shownto the accused at theLTO Pasay Officeimmediately after theapprehension which washowever ignored by theaccused who stillproceeded to detachthe registration plates ofthe subject vehicle;

To prove that the CPC isvalid for another five (5)years from June 29 2002to 2005.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1PeopleYS. P03 ManuelC.TaytayonDecisionPage8x x

Traffic Citation Ticket No.533-1956-0

LTO First· Notice ofHearing issued to theaccused.

.Second Notice ofHearing issued by theLTOto the accused.

Letter dated June 16,2003 by the LTO to theLTFRB requesting forverification of status ofthe Certificate of PublicConvenience (CPe).

Resolution dated 17June2003 by the LTO TrafficAdjudication Sectionon the contestedapprehension and con-fiscation of the Regis-tration plates by theaccused.

Reply Affidavit in.

To prove that a citationticket was issued by theaccused to the driver ofthe vehicle indicating thealleged violations.

To prove that privatecomplainant contestedthe apprehension andillegal confiscation of theregistration plates at theLTO,and that a notice ofhearing was issued by theLTO Adjudication Boardto the accused and thatit was ignored by him.

To prove that a secondNotice of Hearing wasissued by. the LTOAdjudication Boardwhich was also ignoredby the accused.

To prove that averification was made bythe LTO to LTFRBof thestatus of the CPC.

To prove that a priorverification of the SUbjectvehicle was conductedby the LTFRB.

To prove that the CPCthat was presented tothe accused after theapprehension is authen-tic, and consequentlyordered the release of ~the confiscated plates,and also to prove thatthe confiscation of theplates by the accusedwas unauthorized andillegal, in violation of Sec.3(e) of R.A.3019.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1Peoplevs.P03 ManuelC.TaytayonDecisionPage 9x x

MemorandumAgreementBATCO andDiamond Hotel.

ofbetween

Manila

Complaint affidavit filedat the Office of the'Ombudsman by privatecomplainant thru Dennis.Dumlao (same as Exhibit"B" - "B_2")

Reply to the Counter-'Affidavit by the accused.

Resolution dated 30January 2004 by theOffice of theOmbudsman in Case No.OMB-03-0827-G.

To prove the existence ofa service contract andthe damage suffered bythe private complainantwhen its service carcould not serve its hotelclient by way ofunrealized incomeestimated at P4,000/daydue to the illegalconfiscation of its licenseplates by the accused.

To prove the fact that acriminal complaint wasinitiated by the privatecomplainant against theaccused for violation ofSec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 atthe Ombudsman.

To prove the fact that areply was filed by theprivate complainant tothe counter-affidavit bythe accused at theOffice of theOmbudsman.

To prove that a probablecause for violation of Sec.3(e) of R.A. 3019 wasfound by the Office ofthe Ombudsman(Tanodbayan) againstthe accused which led toand paved .the way forthe filing of the criminalinformation against theaccused, and that thefiling of a separateadministrative action atthe Napolcom was also t

ordered by the Office ofthe Ombudsman.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People vSo P03 Manuel Co TaytayonDecisionPage 10x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , ' 0 , 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• oX

as part of their standard operating procedures, they asked Mr.

one of hismen to remove the license plates of the car; he justified his'\"

order of detaching the registered license plates of the car by saying \

that, "since it is considered that his (Jarabata) violation was serious it

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People vSo P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecisionPage 11Xo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000.00 •• 0 •• 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• oX

two (2) affidavits that he executed regarding this case and that he is

surprised that the one that is shown to him (at witness stand) does not \

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People VSo P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecisionPage 12x 0 0 ••••• 0 •• 0 ; 0 0 0 •••• 0 •• 0 ••••••••••• 0 •• 0 0 • 0 •• oX

apprehend however, they are also cautioned to give consideration if

they want too; during re-direct, he admitted that in the administrativ~\

eXPlained:; "theYl

.SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People YS. P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecisionPagel3x x

(of R.A. 4136, [sic]) for not wearing the prescribed proper uniform. \

\\During cross-examination, he admitted that during the time


the particular law or provision of the R.A. 4136 authorizing LTO Law

Enforcers to detach the plates of apprehended vehicles, he failed to··

P3,OOOand confiscation of plates or suspension of the plates for three

(3) months; if a TOP is issued against a driver, the vehicle he has \",)

driven can still be operated for a period of seventy two (72) hours


16 at June 26, 2003, subalit ito po ay hindi ko naibigay sa kanya sa!

kadahilanan na siya P03 Manuel Taytayon ay pansamantalanq~.

natanggaf dito so LTGnoong June 4, 2003 at napabalik famang poL ,'"siya noon July 21, 2004" I he confirmed it to be true. ...~ \. )

\

\\\13 TSN.,November 8,2005.

14 TSN.,November 5, 2005. v

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1Peoplevs.P03 ManuelC.TaytayonDecisionPage 16x x

Counter-Affidavit ofAccused P03 Taytayon.

Second page of thecounter-affidavit andthe signature of P03Taytayon respectively.

and "l-A-1 "

Order dated February13, 2003 designatingP03 Manuel Taytayonas a Deputized LATOAgent.

Temporary Operator'sPermit issued by P03Manuel Taytayon, hissignature and the dorsalportion of the said TOP,respectively.

Order issued by Mr.Reynaldo Berroya,Assistant Secretary forSpecial Concerns,DOTe/Acting RegionalDirector. .

"5" and"5-A"

Sinumpaang Salaysayof defense witnessMario Adolfo and hissignature respectively.

To prove the legality ofthe actions made bythe accused and toform part of histestimony.

To prove thataccused P03Taytayon is aDeputized LTO Agentand to form part of histestimony.

To prove the legalityand regularity of theactions taken byaccused P03 ManuelTaytayon in theperformance of hisdutles andresponsibilities and toform part of histestimony.

To form part of thetestimony of defensewitness DommyEspiscope III.

To form part of the:\testimony of defense \\'~witness Mario Adalia. ~

\\

\

SB-08-A/R-OOO IPeople vs. P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecisionPagel?x x

In his Brief, the accused-appellant assigned the followingerrors:

I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDINGTHAT THERE WAS NO INITIAL VIOLATION COMITTEDBY JARABATA THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S ORDER TO DETACH' ANDCONFISCATE THE LICENSE PLATES OF THE CAR.

II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDINGTHE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THEPROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE BEYONDREASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE ACTED WITHEVIDENT BAD FAITH OR INEXCUSABLENEGLIGENCE IN SUBSEQUENTLY ORDERING THECONFISCATION OF THE LICENSE PLATES OF THECAR.

III. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED INAWARDING IN FAVOR OF THE PRIVATECOMPLAINANT ACTUAL DAMAGES IN THE

. AMOUNT OF P76,OOO.OO DESPITE THE ;PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE SAME \WITH REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY.

15 Record, p. 460.16 Ibid., p. 463.17 An Act Further Defining The Jurisdiction Of The Sandiganbayan, Amending For The PurposePresidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor.18 Ibid., p. 465. . /

V


Jarabata and P03 Taytayon were already at that time.20 He"

(Dumlao) presented the original copy of the CPC21to P03 Taytayon

19 TSN.,11 May 2005, page 5.20 TSN.,7 December 2004, pages 9-11.21 Exhibits "B-3 to B-6" - Decision dated 25 Ocrober 2002 by the LTFRBgranting extension ofthe CPC to BATCO for another 5 years from June 29,2000 to 2005.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People YS. P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecisionPage 19x x

"Spurious Documents Subject forVerification Note epe Represented as TouristBUS (Atta) Exp. epe Atta (presented) No epeas Tourist Car.

Hernandez issued an Order26 dismissing the apprehE1nsi'.. and\

22 TSN.,7 December 2004, pages 9 to 11;page 15.23 Pre-TrialConference Order dated 5 October 2004.24 TSN.,11 May 2005, pages 9-18.25 TSN.,8 February 2005, pages 7-8.26 Exhibit "8-10"26 Exhibit "8-12"

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1Peoplevs.P03ManuelC.TaytayonDecisionPage20x x

"Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - Inaddition to acts or omissions of public officers alreadypenalized by existing law, the following shall constitutecorrupt practices of any public officer and are herebydeclared to be unlawful:

. x x x x x x

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including theGovernment, or giving any private party anyunwarranted benefits, advantage or preference inthe discharge of his official administrative or judicialfunctions through manifest partiality, evident badfaith or gross inexcusable negligence. Thisprovisionshall apply to officers and employees of offices orgovernment corporations charged with the grant oflicensesor permitsor other concessions."

1. The accused must be a public officer dischargingadministrative, judicial or official functions;

2. He must have acted with manifest partiality,evident bad faith or gross inexcusablenegligence; and

3. . That his action caused any undue injury to anyparty, including the government, or gave anyprivate party unwarranted benefits, advantageor preference in the discharge of his functions.

27 TSN.,8 November 2005, pages 15-16, direct testimony of Hernandez.28 G.R. No. 162314-17, October 25. 2004.29 G.R. No. 160991. February 28,2005.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People VS. P03 Manuel C. TaytbyonDecisionPage 21x x

31 X X x [T]he Court takes note of Taytayon's testimony that they apprehended Jarabatainitially for violation of Section 59 of the LTO, which prohibits the wearing of shorts, sandoand slippers while driving. According to him, Jarabata was then wearing a sando. It Isnoteworthy that this alleged violation of Jarabata does not appear in the TOP. Hence atthat time, Taytayon has no reason at all in confiscating the license plates of the car.(Emphasis supplied)

32 Violation of Section 59 of the LTO- prohibits taxi drivers in wearing shorts, sandos andslippers while plying business.

license plates of apprehended vehicles is not mentioned as one Of\ ;

the penalties in any ot the enumerated violations. However, We find \ ..

that benefit of the doubt should have been accorded to the J('jII!


33 Republic Act No. 4136 - An Act to Compile the Laws Relative to Land Transportation andTraffic Rules, to Create a Land Transportation Commission and for Other Purposes35 Enumeration of Violations of R.A. 4136 and their corresponding penalties .

. 34 Enumeration of Violations of R.A. 4136 and their corresponding penalties.

/r

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1PeopleV5. P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecision'Page 23x x

"Q. Mr. witness, you are aware of the fact that the reasonwhy you detached the plate is for the vehicle not torun on the street to operate, you were aware of theconsequence or not?

A. Well,' even though we detached the plate sirespecially taxis they could still travel without beingapprehended by any traffic enforcers or the MMDAsir.

Q. What is your legal basis in concluding that it just canrun on the road or street without their registered plate,do you know of any law?

What isthe law, please tell the Honorable Court for hisguidance?

\~the \<

Operations Division, LTO NCR as an Assistant Chief and at the same


A. Well I do not know of any particular law but that isourpractice among traffic enforcers."36

Q. Mr. Witness,as a traffic enforcer for about a year didyou take any seminar or special courses, lessonsorlectures on traffic enforcement?

Q. And in that seminar you were told and instructed thatyou can detach the plate, were you?

A. In the seminar sir, we were taught to remove theplates but were also cautioned to give considerationif we want too.

Q. And were you taught in the seminar by lecturer of thelegal basisfor confiscating the plate?

Q. So you are aware that there is a legal· basis fordetaching the plate?

Q. Asa police officer did you ever encounter a SupremeCourt decision that prohibits the detachment andconfiscation of license plate?

A. None sir, because the order of the LTO to us was todetach the plate or impound the vehicle if ever thereare violations.

Q. In those seminarsand lectures that you took were younot ever told by the lecturer that there is a case of"Solicitor General vs. MMDA and Metro TrafficCommand vs. Gonon? Were you not apprised aboutthose deCisions or were you not lectured that it isprohibited to detach plates?

A. Well no sirbecause as far as I know only those·at LTOare authorized to remove or detach plates."37

. 1./\/

36 TSN., May 11,2005, pages 19-20.37 TSN., May 11, 2005, pages 22-23.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1Peoplevs.P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecisionPage 25x x

"Q. So, if the driver is apprehended for expired epc thepenalties would be the following just to clarifyMadam witness, one there isa fine to be imposed forfirst offenders in the amount of P3,OOO,am I correct?

A. Confiscation of plates for three (3) months.

Q. Do you know what a TOPisMadam witness?

Q. If a TOP is issued to a driver can the vehicle beingdriven by that driver stillbe operated?

A. It can' be used for a period of seventy two (2) hoursonly."38

Q. You said Madam Witnessthat there are certain casesauthorizing an apprehending officer to detach carplate or vehicle and you mentioned that one ofthose cases was in possessionof an expired CPC, am Icorrect? '

Q. We understand that you are not a lawyer what wasyour basis in saying so?

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1PeopleYS. P03 ManuelC.TaytayonDecisionPage26x x

Q. Under that Department Order No. 03-693 there arecases allowing an apprehending officer to "actuallydetach under certain circumstances, am I correct?

Q. Now" you testified earlier that under certain"circumstances traffic enforcers can detach licenseplates like when an operator is operating a c%rumvehicle isthat correct?

Q. Now, in this particular case when the traffic enforcer,the accused Taytayon, said that the epe is spuriouswas he correct pursuant to LTO traffic rules andregulations in detaching the license plate?

A. If Mr. Jarabata presented to P03 Taytayon a spuriousand expired document and expired epe then it isjustright to detach the plate.

Q. At that time could Mr. Taytayon intervene whetherthe document was spurious or not? Was he in aposition to determine whether" the document at thattime was" spurious or not so he could detach thelicense plate?

liTaytayon should have desisted or otherwise havenot proceeded in detaching and confiscating the licenseplates of the car because Dumlao had already presented tohim the documents that he was earlier looking for, obviously,Taytayon acted with evident bad faith or inexcusablenegligence and this action has caused undue injury toBATeb for which he should be held liable."

39 Ibid., pp. 22-23.40 Ibid., pp. 26-27.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1Peoplevs.P03 ManuelC.TaytayonDecisionPage27x x

"The second element enumerates the different modesby which means the offense penalized in section 3(e) may becommitted. "Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which"excites" a disposition to see and report matters as they arewished for rather than as they are. "Bad Faith" does not simplyconnote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonestpurpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of awrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intentor ill will; it partakes of the nature of a fraud. "Grossnegligence" has been so defined as negligencecharacterized by the want of even slight care, acting oromitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, notinadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a consciousindifference to consequences in so far as other persons maybe affected. It is the omission of that care which eveninattentive and thoughtless men· never fail to take on theirown property. These definitions prove all too well that thethree modes are distinct and different from each other. Proofof the existence of any of these modes in connection with theprohibited acts under Section 3(e) should suffice to warrantconviction."

. "Neither did the information embody words whichwould have characterized the elements, such as "partiality"or bias which excites a disposition to see and report mattersas they are wished for rather than as they are' "bad faith"which connotes not only bad judgment or negligence butalso a dishonest purpose or conscious wrongdoing; or "grossnegligence" which is negligence characterized by the wantof even slight care, or acting or omitting to act in a situationwhere there is a duty to act willfully and intentionally, with a

41238 SeRA 655.42 38 seRA 325.

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People YS. P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecisionPage 28x x

conscious indifference to consequences as for as otherpersonsore concerned."

.accused-appellant's reason in confiscating the, license. plates of the

\

him the documents that he was earlier asking from the driver ds\

h~U\part - does not persuade.

Cj;'

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1People YSo P03 Manuel C. TaytayonDecisionPage 29x .. 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0 •• 00 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 •• 0 0 •• oX

SB-08-A/R-OOO 1PeopleYS. P03 ManuelC.TaytayonDecisionPage30x · x

A. Well Your Honor, the purpose in detaching the plate isto prevent further damage or sufferingsthat would beincurred by the driver because for example inspurious documents he would pay P2,500 but I do notknow how much he will pay for the expired epe andmore since the epe is inte·nded for bus used only andhe was using it and he was then using a car he wouldincur suspension including the vehicle Your Honor willalso be suspended for three (3) months so the driverwould suffer a lot. So it is better to detach the plateand let the owners just removed (sic) the driver.

Q. So, yOl) concluded that the documents, the.registration of the car was spurious that is the reasonwhy you confiscated the license plate?

A. Well Your Honor, the car has really no documentsbecause the document belongs to a bus.


Q You said a while ago there was no document. Therewas no OR and also a CR?

findings of the Court a quo are not supported by evidence and are

contradicted by the evidence on record. It therefore becomes th~

44 TSN, May 11, 200 ,~p. 30-31.45 People V5. Timtim , 215 SCRA 364.46302 SCRA 137.


,/)1; ,../02"I t' (

FRANCI.d% H.VILL RUZ,JR.fh'"airperson

EFRENAssoci

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision werereached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion of the Court's Division.

g'")/}1)( - /

FRANCIS· /0 H. VILLARUZ, JR.As~ date Justice

I,

'Chairperson


Pursuant to Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that theconclusions in the above decision were reached in consultationbefore the· case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourt's Division.

~~~b~Eb)LBERTO~etSANActing Presidrng Justic