Name: Trizia Nicole M.

Lammatao

Section and Time: 2MA-1N03 / 1400H-1700H

FILADAMS PHARMA, INC. Vs. COURT OF APPPEALS

426 SCRA 460
March 30, 3004

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Distributors bought medications from Filadams Pharma, Inc.
Antonio Feria, its November 3, 1993–March 9, 1994 salesman, was
sacked. From March 10 to 26, 1994, Feria was audited and found liable
for ₱41,733.01 in unsold items, unremitted collections, and unliquidated
cash advances. Filadams alleged that respondent admitted these
deficiencies and accountabilities through his wife and counsel at a
conference at its office, but despite repeated demands, respondent failed
to resolve them to its loss and damage.
The defendant denied guilt. He claimed to be a corporate representative
but not product trustee. As intended, the financial advances promoted the
company's products, and only the remaining cash was liquidated.
Customer cash reimbursements were correctly given despite being asked
in kind. His stock overages were segregated and returned to the
corporation in January and February 1994 after a spot inspection, but he
received no returned goods slip. He returned ₱19,615.49 in goods or
medications on March 14, 1994, but the inventory report only showed
₱8,185.30. He denied stealing or profiting from the money. A civil issue
involved the corporation receiving a partial payment of ₱3,000 from his
wife during a discussion at the petitioner's office on September 13, 1994.
Filadams' internal auditor said respondent was reliable in a reply-affidavit.
A revolving fund replenishment, not a cash advance. Customers reported
never receiving cash rebates. Signing physical inventory report prevented
him from seeking unrecorded refunds. Refunding ₱3,000 to the
corporation admits stock shortages and damages trust and confidence,
generating prejudice.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not appeal and not certiorari is the proper remedy in
assailing the two resolutions of the chief state prosecutor finding the
absence of probable cause.

RULING:
NO, Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is proper.
• Rule 43, Sec 1. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or
final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final
orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.
GAOD.
 PEOPLE Vs. PERALTA
426 SCRA 472
March 30, 2004

FACTS OF THE CASE:

That between 1990 and November 4, 1992, in Manila, Philippines, the
accused conspired and confederated with others whose true names,
identities, and present whereabouts are unknown and helped each other
to take, steal, and carry away punctured currency notes due for shredding
in the total P194,190.00 Philippine currency

“That said accused Santiago Peralta y Polidario, Armando Datuin, Jr. y

Granados, Ulysses Garcia y Tupas, Miguelito de Leon y Luciano, and
Antonio Loyola y Salisi committed said offense with grave abuse of
confidence because they were employed as Currency Reviewers, Driver,
Currency Assistant I, and Money Counter of the offended party and had
free access to the stolen

Garcia and his co-accused were detained on November 4 and 9, 1992,

respectively. Appellants received two Release Orders from RTC Vice
Executive Judge Corona Ibay-Somera on November 9 and 10, 1992, after
posting a cash bail to appear in court as needed. On May 4, 1993,
appellants and their attorneys pleaded not guilty. Datuin Jr. and Peralta
were proclaimed at large by the trial court on September 30, 1998, for
failing to appear despite notice.
They were all convicted of qualifying theft in the appealed Decision after
trial.

ISSUE/S:
1. The trial court erred in admitting in evidence the alleged three
Sworn Statements of Accused-appellant Garcia and the alleged
three pieces of P100 perforated notes.
RULING:
NO, The trial court convicted appellants mainly on the strength of the
three confessions given by Garcia and the three perforated P100
currency notes confiscated from him upon his arrest. Appellants,
however, contend that these pieces of evidence are inadmissible.

Extrajudicial Confessions

Appellants aver that the alleged three Sworn Statements of Garcia

were obtained without the assistance of counsel in violation of his
rights under Article III, Section 12 (1) and (2) of the 1987 Constitution,
which provides thus:
“Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his
own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel.
“(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incomunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.”