PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS FERNANDO COLLADO, ET AL.

GR. NO 88631 APRIL 30, 1991

ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age and sex is present:
RULING: No. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of age and sex may be taken into
account only in crimes against persons or honor and not against property. Robbery with
homicide is primarily a crime against property, the latter being a mere incident of the
former. The aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and taking advantage of superior
strength attended the commission of the crime.
ANALYSIS: After an evaluation of the evidentiary records, the Court finds beyond reasonable
doubt, that the accused, Crisanto Lara, has committed the crime of Robbery with Homicide
(sic). The prosecution has sufficiently established by strong and persuasive evidence that the
accused was one of four persons who conspired to commit robbery against the victim during
the perpetration of which the latter was killed. The evidence shows that the accused is a
principal by direct participation. No less than his nephew, Mario Marasigan, testified that he saw
him struck the victim on the face with a piece of wood which appeared to him to be a branch of a
guava tree. This was corroborated by the findings of the medico-legal officer who testified that the
victim also suffered a fracture on the head due to some hard object, like a piece of wood.

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code provides, inter alia, that any person guilty of robbery with
the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall
have been committed. Correlating this provision with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code,
paragraph 2, subparagraph 1 which provides that when in the commission of the deed there is
present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied, the proper
imposable penalty is death. Reclusion perpetua, being a single indivisible penalty under Article
294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, is imposed regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances.
The decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that the civil
indemnity is increased to P50,000.00.
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. Hon. Civil Service Commission and Maria
Asuncion Salazar
G.R. No. 87146 December 11, 1991
FACTS: According to Asuncion Salazar’s service record filed with the CSC, she was employed by
the GSIS as a casual laborer. She became permanent with a designation of stenographer.
Thereafter, she was promoted to Confidential Technical Assistant Aide.
Salazar’s GSIS Service Record however, revealed that she was appointed to the position of
Confidential Executive Assistant in the office of then GSIS President and General Manager
Roman A. Cruz, Jr. on a permanent status. She was then promoted to Technical Assistant III, the
position she held when her services were terminated by the newly appointed President and
General Manager of the GSIS for the reason that her position was co-terminous with the term
of the appointing authority. Salazar filed a petition for reconsideration with the GSIS Board of
Trustees, but reconsideration was denied. Thereafter, she filed a petition for reconsideration of
the denial with the Review Committee, which referred the same to the Merit System Promotion
and the CSC. In a resolution, the CSC directed the immediate reinstatement of Salazar with back
salaries. The Board however affirmed her termination. Salazar filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Board’s order and manifested that the Commission’s prior resolution of
the case. The GSIS filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Board and stated
that the CSC is higher administrative appellate body on matters concerning the removal of
officers and employees from the service. Hence the Board cannot in any manner modify of alter
the determinations and actions of the CSC. The GSIS appealed but the CSC denied the motion
for consideration. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON the CSC has jurisdiction over the case.
RULING: No. P.D. No. 1409, creating the Merit Systems Board provides that the Merit Systems
Board (Board) has the function to “Hear and decide cases brought before it by officers and
employees who feel aggrieved by the determination of appointing authorities involving
appointment, promotion, transfer, detail, reassignment and other personnel actions, as well as
complaints against any officers in the government arising from abuses arising from personnel
actions of the these officers or from violations of the merit system.”
When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be
proved that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both
bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. Presidential Decree No. 1409 clearly
provides that the Merit Systems Board shall take cognizance of appeals from parties aggrieved
by decisions of appointing officers involving personnel action. The Commission therefore
cannot take original cognizance of the cases specified under Section 5 of P.D. 1409, except in
the case specified under Section 9 (j) of the Civil Service Decree which directly gives it such
power, to wit:
SECTION 9. Powers and Functions of the Commission. The Commission shall administer the Civil
Service Commission and shall have the following powers and functions:
j) Hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted directly with it in accordance with
Section 37 or brought to it on appeal;
In the case at bar, the appeal of Salazar was endorsed by the Review Committee to both the
Merit Systems Board and the Civil Service Commission. In the absence of a decision from the
Merit System Board, the Commission cannot legally assume jurisdiction over the appeal. Hence,
its decision in favor of Salazar and all subsequent resolutions of the Commission in the case are
void. Likewise, the Order of the Board setting aside its previous order upholding the
termination of Salazar in deference to the Commission’s final appellate jurisdiction over the
matter, is null and void. Jurisdictions vested by law and is not lost nor legally transferred by
voluntary surrender in favor of a body not vested by law with such jurisdiction.
ANALYSIS: There is a disparity between the service record of private respondent on file with the
GSIS and that on file with the CSC. In the latter, her last two promotional appointments in the
GSIS were not reflected. The fact remains however, and this is admitted by both the petitioner
and private respondent Salazar, that before her termination in May 1986, she was occupying
the last higher position of Technical Assistant III and not of Technical Assistant Aide as appears
in the Commission's records.
The records with the court are not sufficient for a substantial determination of the matter.
There is no copy of the job description of the position nor any showing by the parties as regards
the nature of the position. The Board initially ruled that the position is primarily confidential
and upheld the legality of Salazar's termination. Its decision however, is only a conclusion not
supported by evidence. The respondent Civil Service Commission, on the other hand, did not
make any finding on this matter after concluding that based on its records, Salazar's last
position is only that of a Technical Aide, a permanent position and very much lower than that of
Technical Assistant III. For his part, the Solicitor General admits that the position is confidential
in nature but did not bother to explain why. The GSIS, on the other hand states that the
position is confidential but inconsistently contends also that Salazar had no first grade civil
service eligibility required of the position.
The petition is then granted. The questioned Resolution of the Civil Service Commission is
annulled. The Order of the Merit Systems Board dated March 9, 1988 is reinstated subject to
the right of Salazar to appeal to the Civil Service Commission.