Title: People of the Philippines vs. Felipe A.

Livara
G.R. No. L-6201, Apr 20, 1954

Decision: BENGZON, J.

Facts:
Livara was the provincial disbursing officer of the Constabulary, accountable paying the salaries and
subsistence of officers and enlisted men of Romblon. In a surprise inspection of accounts, he was found
short of P9,597 pesos. As a result, he was investigated by a board of officers, who then recommended
his prosecution for Malversation of Public Funds before the Civil courts. Case was eventually filed in the
Court of First Instance of Romblon in Sept 10, 1949.

In defense, Livara stated that he lost the amount of P8,000 pesos encashed from the Finance Building at
Taft, plus 1000 pesos and public documents while in transit to the North Harbor to board the boat to
Romblon. Cash and documents were never recovered despite diligent effort to locate the same.

Counsel for Livara contends that Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction because the crime of
malversation was committed during the incumbency of Livara as an officer of the PC. Hence, asserting
that the military court is the proper venue for this particular case.

Livara and counsel also assailed constitutionality of Article 217 of Revised Penal Code, contending that it
is against the constitutional provision that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Issue:
1. Whether or not civil courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed by a member of the AFP in
violations considerable as military and civil in nature;

2. Whether or not Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code violates the constitutional right of accused
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of First Instance which provides for a penalty of
imprisonment from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day prision correctional to ten (10) years
prision mayor, with pertpetual special disqualification with costs.

To clarify issue on jurisdiction, S.C declared that civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction over offenses
committed by members of the Armed Forces in violation of military and public law. Since the first court
that took cognizance of the case was a civil court, military courts jurisdiction was excluded immediately.
This clarification was reinforced by the fact that it was the board of officers formed by the Adjutant
General of the PC that recommended for filing of the case against accused in a civil court.
As to the constitutionality of Art 217 of RPC, its validity has been previously discussed and upheld in
People vs. Mingoa, 92 Phil., 856 where the Supreme Court ruled: “there is no constitutional objection to
the passage of law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary
presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be
sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence.”