Criminal Case:

Perez vs People G.R. No. 164763, February 12, 2008

ZENON R. PEREZ VS'PEOPLE OF THE
Automotive Industry Workers vs Romulo GR No 157509 18 January 2005

POSTED BY RACHEL CHAN IN CASE DIGESTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Facts: 

Executive Order No. 292 was issued whereby the National Labor Relations Commission
became an agency attached to the Department of Labor and Employment for policy and
program coordination and for administrative supervision. On 02 March 1989, Article 213 of the
Labor Code was expressly amended by Republic Act No. 6715 declaring that the NLRC was to
be attached to the DOLE for program and policy coordination only while the administrative
supervision was turned over to the NLRC Chairman. Executive Order No. 185 dated 10 March
2003 supervision of NLRC reverted to the Sec. of Labor and Employment. Petitioners,
composed of ten labor unions assailed the constitutionality of EO 185 for allegedly revert the
set-up prior to RA 6715 which only Congress can do. Solicitor General contend that petitioners
have no locus standi to assail the validity of E.O. No. 185, not even in their capacity as
taxpayers, considering that labor unions are exempt from paying taxes, citing Sec. 30 of the Tax
Reform Act of 1997. Even assuming that their individual members are taxpayers, respondents
maintain that a taxpayer suit will not prosper as E.O. No. 185 does not require additional
appropriation for its implementation.

Issue: Whether or not the ten labour unions have legal standing to assail the constitutionality of
EO 185?

Decision: 

Petition dismissed for lack of merit. For a citizen to have standing, he must establish that he has
suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the
government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be
redressed by a favorable action. Petitioners have not shown that they have sustained or are in
danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the enactment of E.O. No. 185. As labor
unions it cannot be said that E.O. No. 185 will prejudice their rights and interests considering
that the scope of the authority conferred upon the Secretary of Labor does not extend to the
power to review, reverse, revise or modify the decisions of the NLRC in the exercise of its quasi-
judicial functions.

Malversation of Public Funds

Facts:
An audit teamconducted a cash examination on the account of petitioner, who was then the
acting municipal treasurer of Tubigon, Bohol. In the course of the audit, the amount of
P21,331.79 was found in the safe of petitioner. The audit team embodied their findings in the
Report of Cash Examination,which also contained an inventory of cash items. Based on the
said audit, petitioner was supposed to have on hand the total amount of P94,116.36, instead
of the P21,331.79, incurring a shortage of P72,784.57.When asked by the auditing team as to
the location of the missing funds, petitioner verbally explained that part of the money was
used to pay for the loan of his late brother, another portion was spent for the food of his
family, and the rest for his medicine.
As a result of the audit, Arlene R. Mandin prepared a memorandumdated
January 13,
1989 addressed to the Provincial Auditor of Bohol recommending the filing of the appropriate
criminal case against petitioner.
Petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with malversation of
public funds,
defined and penalized by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code
Issue:
Is petitioner guilty of malversation?
''Ruling:
YES. Malversation is defined and penalized under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal
Code. The acts punished as malversation are: (1)appropriatingpublic funds or property,
(2)takingormisappropriatingthe same, (3)consenting, or
throughabandonmentornegligence, permittingany other person to take such public funds or
property, and (4) beingotherwiseguilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such
funds or property.
There are four elements that must concur in order that one may be found guilty of the
crime. They are: (a) That the offender be a public officer; (b) That he had
thecustodyorcontrolof funds or propertyby reason of the duties of his office;(c) That
those funds or property involved were public funds or propertyfor which he is accountable;
and (d) That he has appropriated, took or misappropriated or consented or, through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
Evidently, the first three elements are present in the case at bar. At the time of the
commission of the crime charged, pet