You are on page 1of 154

Criminal Procedure a2010 page 1 Prof.

Rowena Daroy Morales

ABBARIAO v BELTRAN Ratio A court can only take cognizance of a case warrant of arrest. The spouses then filed a motion to
that falls within its jurisdiction. quash and sought the nullification of “subsequent
468 SCRA 421
Reasoning orders”. They alleged that the MTCC had no
PANGANIBAN; August 31, 2005 - April 15, 1994 is the date of effectivity of RA 7691. jurisdiction and authority to conduct a
RA 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the first-level preliminary investigation of a complaint filed
NATURE courts by providing that first-level courts shall have by an offended party directly with the court.
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court jurisdiction over criminal cases in which the offense The authority to conduct a preliminary
is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 investigation was vested solely on the Office of
FACTS years, regardless of the amount of the fine. the City Prosecutor.
- This stemmed from an administrative case filed by - January 30, 1995 was the date the information was - While waiting for the resolution of their motion to
Abbariao against Judge Beltran. Beltran was charged filed. The case had to do with the violation of BP 22 quash, the spouses did not post bail. On April 10,
with gross ignorance of the law and knowingly which is penalized by an imprisonment of not less 2002 Corazon Ribaya was apprehended by arresting
rendering unjust judgment. than 30 days but not more than one year. Thus officers in the public market by virtue of a warrant of
- Abarriao was the former branch manager of when the information was filed, RA 7691 was already arrest issued by respondent judge.
Country Banker’s Assurance Corporation. In October in effect. - The complainant filed this administrative case
1992, Joseph Abraham procured 2 insurance policies - During the tenure of the former presiding judge, the against Judge Parcia. The motions basically
from him and issued a post-dated check to serve as issue of jurisdiction over the case was already questioned respondent’s authority to conduct a
pasyment. But the cheque was subsequently pending resolution. He also displayed indecisiveness preliminary investigation.
dishonored. by relying on the public prosecutor’s assurance that - In her answer, respondent judge claimed that
- Informations were filed before before Judge Beltran his court had acquired jurisdiction. complainant was not a party in Criminal Case No.
for estafa and violation of BP 22. - Aside from this instance, there were two other 8617. Respondent explained that she
Petitioners’ Claim occasions when Beltran was charged and found conducted the preliminary investigation of the
- Petitioner claims that Beltran’s ruling that there was guilty of gross ignorance of the law (in De Austria v. criminal complaint against the spouses
no valid insurance contract with Abraham was Beltran and Andres v. Beltran). because the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the
erroneous and that he had no jurisdiction over the DISPOSITION Judge Beltran was found guilty of Office of the City Prosecutor was too busy to
case in the first place. gross ignorance of the law for which he is fined do so.
Respondents’ Comments P20,000 as recommended by the OCA and is warned - To support her claim, respondent attached the
- Beltran claims that there was no valid insurance that a repetition of the same act would merit a affidavit of OIC City Prosecutor Vasquez of the then
contract between Abbariao and Abraham because graver penalty. newly-created Ligao City. Vasquez stated that the
the insurance policy form of Abraham was City Prosecutor’s Office was still undergoing
disapproved.
RIBAYA v JUDGE BINAMIRA-PARCIA reorganization when the subject criminal complaint
- He also claims he has jurisdiction over the case was filed. It had neither enough manpower nor office
because the accused was arraigned in his court and AM No. MTJ-04-1547
space in the Hall of Justice. Positions had not yet
the prosecutor failed to withdraw the case. CORNEJO; April 15, 2005 been filled. His workload as Asst Provincial
Prosecutor and OIC City Prosecutor was so heavy
ISSUE NATURE that time constraints did not permit him to conduct
1. WON the judge is guilty of rendering unjust Administrative case against Judge Aurora Binamira- preliminary investigations. Thus, it was the
judgment Parcia of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), respondent judge who conducted the preliminary
2. WON Beltran’s ruling showed gross ignorance of Ligao City, Albay relative to Criminal Case No. 8617 investigation.
the law in terms of assuming jurisdiction over the (People v. Sps. Ribaya) - the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found
case that respondent erred when she conducted the
FACTS preliminary investigation of the subject criminal
HELD - Asst Provincial Prosecutor Pedro Vega, in his complaint even after the Municipality of Ligao, Albay
1. NO, the judge must be absolved from this charge. personal capacity, filed before the MTCC, Ligao City a had been converted into a city. The OCA
Ratio The acts of judges pertaining to their judicial criminal complaint for estafa against the Spes Ribaya recommended that: (1) the complaint be re-docketed
functions are not subject to disciplinary power, on November 29, 2001. The spouses, after receiving as a regular administrative matter; and (2) the
unless such acts are commited with fraud, P12,000 from Vega, allegedly misappropriated the respondent be reprimanded, directed to concentrate
dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. In the absence of amount to the latter’s prejudice. The preliminary her time and effort on performing her judicial tasks
proof to the contrary, an erroneous decision or order investigation was then conducted by respondent and warned that a repetition of the same or similar
is presumed to have been issued in good faith. judge. offense would be dealt with more severely.
2. YES. Beltran had no authority to rule over the - Complainant, the daughter of the accused spouses, - A motion for reconsideration was filed by
case. observed several irregularities in the conduct of the respondent on October 1, 2003. This time,
preliminary investigation and the issuance of the respondent claimed that what she conducted
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 2 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

on November 29, 2001 was a preliminary instituted by filing the complaint only with the judge rendering it must at all times maintain the
examination to determine probable cause for City Prosecutor. The rule implies that the task of appearance of fairness and impartiality.
the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the conducting preliminary investigation in these cities is - Considering all this, respondent judge committed
spouses. Respondent also claimed that the now lodged with the Office of the City Prosecutor. simple misconduct in office. Misconduct in office has
criminal complaint was governed by Sec. 9, Consequently, inferior court judges of cities a well-defined meaning. It refers to misconduct that
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal whose charters authorize only the fiscal to affects the judge’s performance of her duties and not
Procedure, the rule governing cases that did conduct preliminary investigation are no just her character as a private individual. To
not require preliminary investigation. Since the longer allowed to perform this function. constitute an administrative offense, misconduct
amount involved in the estafa case was P12,000, no - The Municipality of Ligao was converted into a should relate to or be connected with the
preliminary investigation was required. city by RA 9008 which took effect on Feb 21, 2001. performance of the official functions and duties of a
This law, also known as the charter of the City of public officer.
ISSUES Ligao, provides in Sec. 50 that: 3. YES
1. WON respondent judge had the authority to (a) There shall be established in the city a - Respondent correctly observed that it was not
conduct preliminary investigation prosecution service to be headed by a city needed in the estafa case. The maximum penalty for
2. WON respondent judge is guilty of misconduct in prosecutor and such number of assistant prosecutors the crime allegedly committed there (6 months and 1
office as may be necessary, who shall be organizationally day to 4 years and 2 months) did not meet the
3. WON preliminary investigation was not required part of the DOJ… minimum penalty (at least 4 years, 2 months and 1
for the estafa case (b) The City Prosecutor shall handle the criminal day) required to make a preliminary investigation
4. WON warrant of arrest was valid prosecution in the MTC in the city as well as in the part of the spouses’ right to due process.
RTC for criminal cases originating in the territory of 4. YES
HELD the city, and shall render to or for the city such - As long as the constitutional mandate was complied
1. NO services as are required by law, ordinance or with, that is, the warrant of arrest was issued upon a
- Although judges of inferior courts are authorized to regulation of the DOJ… finding of probable cause personally by the judge
conduct preliminary investigation of all crimes within - Clearly, respondent judge had no more authority to after an examination under oath or affirmation of the
their jurisdiction, the task is essentially an executive conduct a preliminary investigation of the subject complainant and the witnesses he may produce, the
function. As far back as Collector of Customs v. criminal complaint. The officer authorized to conduct warrant of arrest was valid.
Villaluz, we already held that: preliminary investigations in the then newly-created - Respondent judge examined the complainant Pedro
[w]hile we sustain the power of the x x x courts to City of Ligao was its City Prosecutor. At that time, Vega on the day the complaint was filed and she was
conduct preliminary examination, pursuant to Our the duty devolved upon OIC City Prosecutor Vasquez, satisfied that probable cause existed. The warrant of
Constitutional power of administrative supervision despite the administrative difficulties he was arrest she issued against the spouses Ribaya was,
over all courts, as a matter of policy, we enjoin encountering. therefore, justified and no violation of their
x x x judge[s] x x x to concentrate on hearing 2. YES constitutional rights occurred. DISPOSITION
and deciding before their courts. x x x - We noticed the contradiction between her answer Respondent Judge Aurora Binamira-Parcia is hereby
[Judges] should not encumber themselves and her motion for reconsideration as to what she found guilty of simple misconduct and a fine of
with the preliminary examination and actually conducted on November 29, 2001. In her P11,000 is imposed on her. She is hereby directed to
investigation of criminal complaints, which answer, she justified her authority to conduct a devote her time and effort exclusively to discharging
they should refer to the municipal judge or preliminary investigation. In her motion for her judicial functions. She is furthermore warned
provincial or city fiscal, who in turn can reconsideration of the OCA’s resolution, however, that a repetition of the same or similar act will merit
utilize the assistance of the state prosecutor she declared that she conducted a preliminary a more severe penalty.
to conduct such preliminary examination and examination to justify the issuance of a warrant of
investigation. arrest TUMANG v BAUTISTA
- City judges then were clearly authorized to conduct -There appear just too many intriguing uncertainties
136 SCRA 682
preliminary investigation and examination. But surrounding the filing of the estafa case. We
even then, we also held that the provisions of therefore direct our attention to respondent judge’s ABAD-SANTOS; May 31 1985
Rule 112 granting city judges the authority to failure to erase our doubts over how she administers
conduct preliminary investigation did not apply justice in her jurisdiction. NATURE
to judges of cities the charters of which - Respondent judge must be reminded that she Petition to review and annul orders of RTC Laguna
authorized the city fiscal only to conduct should do honor to her position not only by rendering
preliminary investigation of criminal just, correct and impartial decisions but doing so in a FACTS
complaints. manner free from any suspicion as to their fairness - Emilio Javier filed a sakdal against Enrique Tumang
- This ruling was, in fact, integrated into the Revised and impartiality, and as to her integrity. A spotless and his daughter Georgia Tumang.
Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under Sec. 1, Rule dispensation of justice requires not only that the - The sakdal was written in Tagalog and was
110, criminal actions in chartered cities are decision rendered be intrinsically fair but that the unaccompanied by an English translation.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 3 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The Tumangs prayed that Javier be ordered to file a 383 SCRA 449 orders should be set aside and that the Feb. 1
copy of the complaint as translated in English, and a Decision should be reinstated.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; June 26, 2002
copy of the criminal complaint and Decision of
acquittal in the unjust vexation case mentioned in ISSUES
NATURE
Javier’s complaint. 1. WON the trial court, upon motion by a private
Review on certiorari on a decision of RTC of
- TC ruled on Oct. 21 1982 that the complaint written complainant, can set aside a previous judgment of
Catarman, Northern Samar
in Pilipino, which is an official language, is proper and conviction and remand the records of a case to the
is admitted. TC also ruled that it is not absolutely Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for re-evaluation of
FACTS
necessary that copies of the complaint and criminal the evidence and the filing of the corresponding
- Dec.12,1999: Potot was charged with homicide
case be attached as annexes. Javier should have, charge
before the RTC for assaulting and stabbing a certain
however, at least stated the docket number as well 2. WON the manifestation by the accused that he is
Rodolfo Dapulag with a knife, thereby causing his
as name of the court and branch number. not appealing from the trial court’s Decision render
death.
- The Tumangs failed to answer the sakdal and were the judgment final
- Feb.1, 2000: Upon arraignment, Potot pleaded
declared in default. They sought to reconsider, not 3. WON the trial court err in granting private
guilty and invoked the mitigating circumstances of
only the order of default but also the order admitting complainant’s motion for reconsideration/retrial
plea of guilty and voluntary surrender. He was later
the complaint in Pilipino. 4. WON the assailed orders violate petitioner’s
convicted of homicide w/ the above stated mitigating
- TC set aside its order of default that refused to constitutional right against double jeopardy
circumstances.
reconsider its order of October 21, 1982.
- Feb.3, 2000: Potot filed a manifestation with motion
- The Tumangs filed a motion to dismiss, alleging HELD
informing the TC that he is not appealing from the
that the complaint did not state a cause of action and 1. NO
Decision and praying that a commitment order be
that the venue was improperly laid. TC denied the Ratio Only the accused may ask for a modification or
issued so he could immediately serve his sentence.
motion on both grounds. setting aside of a judgment of conviction which he
- Feb.11, 2000: Private complainant Rosalie Dapulag
must do before the said judgment becomes final or
(wife of the victim), with the conformity of the public
ISSUE before he perfects his appeal.
prosecutor, filed a motion for reconsideration/retrial
WON the sakdal should have been in English and not Reasoning
praying that the decision be set aside and that the
Tagalog - Sec. 7 Rule 120 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
case be heard again because of certain irregularities
Procedure, as amended, provides:
committed before and during the trial. She alleged
HELD Sec. 7. Modification of judgment - A judgment of
that there were 2 other men involved in the
YES conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be
commission of the crime and that the eyewitness
- In the ponente’s lecture, “Writing Decisions”, he modified or set aside before it becomes final or
deliberately withheld the information upon
said in part: before appeal is perfected. Except where the
solicitation by a certain Mayor Dapulag and upon the
“What language should the judge use? The death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes
eyewitnesses’ own belief that such inclusion would
constitution says that until otherwise provided final after the lapse of the period for perfecting
complicate the case and make it more difficult.
by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official an appeal, or when the sentence has been
- Petitioner opposed this motion, asserting that the
languages! (Art. XV, Sec. 3, Par 3.) If we are to partially or totally satisfied or served, or when
decision can no longer be modified or set aside
be guided by this provision then either English of the accused has waived in writing his right to
because it became final when he formally waived his
Pilipino can be used. But in fact English is almost appeal, or has applied for probation.
right to appeal.
exclusively used and with good reason. For - It is thus clear that only the accused may ask for a
- May 3, 2000: The trial court granted Rosalie
Pilipino is still a gestating language. The modification or setting aside of a judgment of
Dapulag’s motion, set aside its previous Decision as
constitution says so. It directs that “the conviction. And this he must do before the said
well as ordered that the records of the case be
Batasang Pambansa shall take steps towards the judgment becomes final or before he perfects his
remanded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
development and formal adoption of a common appeal. Such judgment becomes final in any of the
for re-evaluation of the evidence and filing of the
national language to be known as Pilipino.” following ways: (a) when no appeal is seasonably
corresponding charge.
- However, petitioner cannot now raise this question filed by the accused, except in case of automatic
- Petitioner filed a MFR, contending that the trial
before the Supreme Court, As they have tacitly review of the decision imposing the capital penalty;
court has no jurisdiction to issue the Feb.1 order as
submitted to the TC’s ruling that the sakdal did not (b) when he has partially or totally served his
the Decision had become final, and that the said
have to be translated in English; they analyzed the sentence; (c) when he expressly waives his right to
order would place him in double jeopardy.
sakdal in arguing that it stated no cause of action. appeal the judgment, except when the death penalty
- May 26, 2000: The trial court denied the MFR for
Such analysis demonstrated that they understood its is imposed; or (d) when he applies for probation.
the reason that the State is not bound by the error or
contents. When a judgment becomes final, the trial court which
negligence of its prosecuting officers, hence,
DISPOSITION Denied for lack of merit. rendered the judgment of conviction loses
jeopardy does not attach.
jurisdiction to alter, modify, or revoke it.
- Petitioner now assails the May 3rd and May 26
POTOT v PEOPLE orders with the Sol.Gen. agreeing that the challenged
2. YES
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 4 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Ratio The waiver by the accused of his right to pleaded guilty to the charge. On the basis of his plea, institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
appeal from a judgment of conviction has the effect petitioner was convicted and meted the Considering that the offended party had paid the
of causing the judgment to become final and corresponding penalty. As petitioner has been placed corresponding filing fee for the estafa cases prior to
unalterable. in jeopardy for the crime of homicide, he cannot be the filing of the BP 22 cases with the Metropolitan
Reasoning prosecuted anew for the same offense, or any Trial Court (MeTC), the RTC allowed the private
- It is an undisputed fact that after the promulgation offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily prosecutor to appear and intervene in the
of the judgment of conviction, petitioner filed a included in the first offense charged. proceedings.
manifestation expressly waiving his right to appeal DISPOSITION The petition is granted. The assailed
therefrom. His intention not to appeal is further orders dated May 3, 2000 and May 26, 2000 issued ISSUE
indicated by his prayer in the same manifestation for by the trial court are set aside. Its decision dated WON a private prosecutor can be allowed to
the immediate issuance of a commitment order so he Feb. 1, 2000 is reinstated. intervene and participate in the proceedings of the
could serve his sentence. Such waiver has the effect above-entitled estafa cases for the purpose of
of causing the judgment to become final and RODRIGUEZ v PONFERRADA prosecuting the attached civil liability arising from
unalterable. Thus, it was beyond the authority of the the issuance of the checks involved which is also
465 SCRA 338
trial court to issue the order of May 3, 2000 setting subject mater of the pending B.P. 22 cases
aside its Feb.3, 2000 Decision which had attained PANGANIBAN; July 29, 2005
finality. HELD
3. YES NATURE YES. Settled is the rule that the single act of issuing a
Ratio When the MFR of the judgment of conviction is Petition for Certiorari seeking to reverse the July 27, bouncing check may give rise to two distinct criminal
not initiated by the accused or at the instance of the 2002 Order of the RTC of Quezon City: offenses: estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa
trial court with the consent of the accused, the same “WHEREFORE, the appearance of a private Bilang 22 (BP 22). The Rules of Court allow the
should be denied outright. prosecutor shall be allowed upon payment of the offended party to intervene via a private prosecutor
Reasoning legal fees for these estafa cases pending before this in each of these two penal proceedings. However,
- Sec. 1 Rule 121 of the same Rules provides: Court.” the recovery of the single civil liability arising from
Sec.1. New trial or reconsideration – At any time FACTS the single act of issuing a bouncing check in either
before a judgment of conviction becomes final, - Honorable Assistant City Prosecutor Rossana S. criminal case bars the recovery of the same civil
the court may, on motion of the accused or at its Morales-Montojo of Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office liability in the other criminal action. While the law
own instance but with the consent of the issued her Resolution: “there being PROBABLE allows two simultaneous civil remedies for the
accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration. CAUSE to charge respondent for ESTAFA under offended party, it authorizes recovery in only one. In
- Since the MFR of the judgment of conviction was Article 315 paragraph 2(d) as amended by PD 818 short, while two crimes arise from a single set of
not initiated by the accused or at the instance of the and for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, it is facts, only one civil liability attaches to it.
trial court with his consent, the same should have respectfully recommended that the attached Reasoning
been denied outright as being violative of the above Information be approved and filed in Court.’ - Petitioner theorizes that the civil action necessarily
provision. At any rate, the records do not show any - As a consequence thereof, separate informations arising from the criminal case pending before the
irregularity in the preliminary investigation of the were separately filed against herein [p]etitioner MTC for violation of BP 22 precludes the institution of
case before the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. before proper [c]ourts, for Estafa and [v]iolation of the corresponding civil action in the criminal case for
4. YES Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 estafa now pending before the RTC. She hinges her
Ratio The right against double jeopardy prohibits - petitioner through counsel filed in open court before theory on the following provisions of Rules 110 and
any subsequent prosecution of any person for a the [p]ublic [r]espondent an ‘Opposition to the 111 of Rules of Court.
crime of which he has previously been acquitted or Formal Entry of Appearance of the Private - Based on the foregoing rules, an offended party
convicted. Prosecutor’ may intervene in the prosecution of a crime, except
Reasoning - “The [p]ublic [r]espondent court during the said in the following instances: (1) when, from the nature
- To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the hearing noted the Formal Entry of Appearance of of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no
following requisites must be present: (1) a valid Atty. Felix R. Solomon as [p]rivate [p]rosecutor as civil liability arises in favor of a private offended
complaint or information; (2) the court has well as the Opposition filed thereto by herein party; and (2) when, from the nature of the offense,
jurisdiction to try the case; (3) the accused has [p]etitioner. the offended parties are entitled to civil indemnity,
pleaded to the charge; and (4) he has been convicted - Ruling of the Trial Court but (a) they waive the right to institute a civil action,
or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or Noting petitioner’s opposition to the private (b) expressly reserve the right to do so or (c) the suit
otherwise terminated without his express consent. prosecutor’s entry of appearance, the RTC held that has already been instituted. In any of these
- These requisites have been established. Records the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising instances, the private complainant’s interest in the
show that petitioner was charged with homicide from the offense charged is deemed instituted, case disappears and criminal prosecution becomes
under a valid information before the trial court which unless the offended party (1) waives the civil action, the sole function of the public prosecutor. None of
has jurisdiction over it. He was arraigned and (2) reserves the right to institute it separately, or (3) these exceptions apply to the instant case. Hence,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 5 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the private prosecutor cannot be barred from DISPOSITION Petition is DISMISSED and the 1979, a restraining order was issued by the CA
intervening in the estafa suit. assailed order AFFIRMED against the threatened act of arraignment of the
True, each of the overt acts in these instances may accused. However, in a decision of October 25 1979,
give rise to two criminal liabilities -- one for estafa CRESPO v MOGUL the CA dismissed the petition and lifted the
and another for violation of BP 22. But every such restraining order of Jan 23,1979. The motion for
151 SCRA 462
act of issuing a bouncing check involves only one reconsideration of the accused was denied in a
civil liability for the offended party, who has GANCAYCO; June 30, 1987 resolution.
sustained only a single injury.
- criminal liability will give rise to civil liability only if NATURE ISSUE
the same felonious act or omission results in damage Petition to review the decision of the Circuit Criminal WON the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a
or injury to another and is the direct and proximate Court of Lucena City (petitioner prays that criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon
cause thereof. Damage or injury to another is respondent judge be perpetually enjoined from instructions of the Secretary of Justice to whom the
evidently the foundation of the civil action. enforcing his threat to proceed with the arraignment case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant
- Thus, the possible single civil liability arising from and trail of petitioner, ordering respondent Judge to the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on
the act issuing a bouncing check can be the subject dismiss the said case, and declaring the obligation of the merits
of both civil actions deemed instituted with the petitioner as purely civil.)
estafa case and the BP 22 violation prosecution. HELD
On Election of Remedies FACTS YES
- “In its broad sense, election of remedies refers to - Assistant Fiscal Proceso de Gala filed an information Ratio Once an information is filed in court, the
the choice by a party to an action of one of two or for estafa against Mario Crespo in Circuit Criminal court’s prior permission must be secured if fiscal
more coexisting remedial rights, where several such Court of Lucena City. When the case was set for wants to reinvestigate the case. While it is true that
rights arise out of the same facts, but the term has arraignment, the accused filed a motion to defer the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to
been generally limited to a choice by a party arraignment on the ground that there was a pending determine whether or not a criminal case should be
between inconsistent remedial rights, the assertion petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice filed in court or not, once the case had already been
of one being necessarily repugnant to, or a of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal brought to Court, whatever disposition the fiscal may
repudiation of, the other.” In its more restricted and for the filing of the information. The presiding judge feel should be proper in the case thereafter should
technical sense, the election of remedies is the (leodegario Mogul) denied the motion through his be addressed for the consideration of the Court.
adoption of one of two or more coexisting ones, with order. DISPOSITION Petition dismissed
the effect of precluding a resort to the others. - The accused filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of
- no binding election occurs before a decision on the STA. ROSA MINING v ZABALA
merits is had or a detriment to the other party injunction. In an order (Aug 17 1977), the CA
restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the 153 SCRA 367
supervenes
- it was not the intent of the special rule to preclude arraignment of the accused until further orders from BIDIN; August 31, 1987
the prosecution of the civil action that corresponds to the Court
the estafa case, should the latter also be filed. The - On May 15 1978, a decision was made by the CA NATURE
crimes of estafa and violation of BP 22 are different granting the writ and perpetually restraining the Mandamus to compel respondent Fiscal to prosecute
and distinct from each other. There is no identity of judge from enforcing his threat to compel the Criminal Case No. 821 of the then Court of First
offenses involved, for which legal jeopardy in one arraignment of the accused in the case until the Dept Instance of Camarines Norte until the same is
case may be invoked in the other. The offenses of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for terminated.
charged in the informations are perfectly distinct review.
from each other in point of law, however nearly they - On March 22, 1978, The Undersecretary of Justice FACTS
may be connected in point of fact Hon Catalino Macaraig Jr, resolving the petition for - On March 21, 1974, petitioner filed a complaint for
- In promulgating the Rules, this Court did not intend review, reversed the resolution of the Office of the attempted theft of materials (scrap iron) forming part
to leave the offended parties without any remedy to Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for of the installations on its mining property at Jose
protect their interests in estafa cases. Its power to immediate dismissal of the information filed against Panganiban, Camarines Norte against private
promulgate the Rules of Court is limited in the sense the accused. The Provincial Fiscal filed a motion to respondents Romeo Garrido and Gil Alapan with the
that rules “shall not diminish, increase or modify dismiss for insufficiency of evidence on April 10, Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Norte,
substantive rights.” Private complainant’s 1978. On November 24 1978, The Judge denied the then headed by Provincial Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre.
intervention in the prosecution of estafa is justified motion and set the arraignment - The case was assigned to third Assistant Fiscal
not only for the prosecution of her interests, but also - The accused filed a petition for certiorari, Esteban P. Panotes for preliminary investigation who,
for the speedy and inexpensive administration of prohibition, and mandamus with petition for the after conducting said investigation, issued a
justice as mandated by the Constitution. issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or resolution dated August 26, 1974 recommending
temporary restraining order in the CA. On January 23 that an information for Attempted Theft be filed
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 6 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

against private respondents on a finding of prima disauthorized any private prosecutor to appear compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and
facie case which resolution was approved by therein. Hence, this petition for mandamus. whose interest, therefore, in criminal prosecution is
Provincial Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre. Private respondents - In this action, petitioner prays for the issuance of not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
sought reconsideration of the resolution but the the writ of mandamus "commanding respondent done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite
same was denied by Fiscal Ilustre in a resolution fiscal or any other person who may be assigned or sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of
dated October 14, 1974. appointed to act in his place or stead to prosecute which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence
- On October 29, 1974, Fiscal Ilustre filed with the Criminal Case No. 821 of the Court of First Instance suffer" (Suarez vs. Platon, 69 Phil. 556).
Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte an of Camarines Norte" There is no question that the - Accordingly, if the fiscal is not at all convinced that
Information dated October 17, 1987 docketed as institution of a criminal action is addressed to the a prima facie case exists, he simply cannot move for
Criminal Case No. 821, charging private respondents sound discretion of the investigating fiscal. He may the dismissal of the case and, when denied, refuse to
with the crime of Attempted Theft. or he may not file the information according to prosecute the same. He is obliged by law to proceed
- In a letter dated October 22, 1974, the private whether the evidence is in his opinion sufficient to and prosecute the criminal action. He cannot impose
respondents requested the Secretary of Justice for a establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable his opinion on the trial court. At least what he can do
review of the Resolutions of the Office of the doubt. (Gonzales vs. Court of First Instance, 63 Phil. is to continue appearing for the prosecution and then
Provincial Fiscal dated August 26, 1974 and October 846) and when he decides not to file the information, turn over the presentation of evidence to another
14, 1974. in the exercise of his discretion, he may not be fiscal or a private prosecutor subject to his direction
- On November 6, 1974, the Chief State Prosecutor compelled to do so (People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748). and control (U.S. vs. Despabiladeras, 32 Phil. 442;
ordered the Provincial Fiscal to elevate entire records However, after the case had already been filed in U.S. vs. Gallegos, 37 Phil. 289). Where there is no
PFO Case 577 against Garrido et al.The letter-request court, "fiscals are not clothed with power, without the other prosecutor available, he should proceed to
for review was opposed by petitioner in a letter to consent of the court, to dismiss or nolle prosequi discharge his duty and present the evidence to the
the Secretary of Justice dated November 23, 1974 criminal actions actually instituted and pending best of his ability and let the court decide the merits
alleging, among other things, that an information for further proceedings. The power to dismiss criminal of the case on the basis of the evidence adduced by
Attempted Theft had already been filed against actions is vested solely in the court" (U.S. vs. both parties.
private respondents for which reason the request for Barredo, 32 Phil. 444, 450; Gonzales vs. Court of First - The mere fact that the Secretary of Justice had,
review has become a moot question as the Provincial Instance, supra). after reviewing the records of the case, directed the
Fiscal has lost jurisdiction to dismiss the charge for prosecuting fiscal to move for the dismissal of the
attempted theft. ISSUE case and the motion to dismiss filed pursuant to said
- On March 6, 1975, the Secretary of Justice, after WON the fiscal can be compelled to prosecute the directive is denied by the trial court, is no
reviewing the records, reversed the findings of prima case after his motion to dismiss has been denied justification for the refusal of the fiscal to prosecute
facie case of the Provincial Fiscal and directed said the case. It is the court where the case is filed and
prosecuting officer to immediately move for the HELD not the fiscal that has full control of it.
dismissal of the criminal case. Petitioner sought YES - In order therefore to avoid such a situation whereby
reconsideration of the directive of the Secretary of - This court is of the view that the writ prayed for the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed
Justice but the latter denied the same in a letter should issue. Notwithstanding his personal the action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the
dated June 11, 1975. convictions or opinions, the fiscal must proceed with trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as
- A motion to dismiss dated September 16, 1975 was his duty of presenting evidence to the court to practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for
then filed by the Provincial Fiscal but the court enable the court to arrive at its own independent review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when
denied the motion on the ground that there was a judgment as to the culpability of the accused. The the complaint or information has already been filed
prima facie evidence against private respondents fiscal should not shirk from his responsibility much in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the
and set the case for trial on February 25, 1976. less leave the prosecution of the case at the hands of determination of the Court."
- Private respondents sought reconsideration of the a private prosecutor. At all times, the criminal action DISPOSITION petition is hereby Granted Public
court's ruling but in an Order dated February 13, shall be prosecuted under his direction and control respondent or any other person who may be
1976, the motion filed for said purpose was likewise (Sec. 4, Rule 110, Rules of Court). Otherwise, the assigned or appointed to act in his place or stead, is
denied. Trial of the case was reset to April 23, 1976. entire proceedings will be null and void (People vs. hereby ordered to continue prosecuting Criminal
- Thereafter, Fiscal Ilustre was appointed a judge in Beriales, 70 SCRA 361). Case No. 821 until the same is terminated.
the Court of First Instance of Albay and respondent - "In the trial of criminal cases, it is the duty of the
Fiscal Zabala became officer-in-charge of the public prosecutor to appear for the government since PEREZ v HAGONOY
Provincial Fiscal's Office of Camarines Norte. an offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the
327 SCRA 588
- On April 19, 1976, respondent Fiscal filed a Second State." (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol.
Motion to Dismiss the case. This second motion to IV, 1980 Ed., p. 10). This is so because "the DE LEON; March 9, 2000
dismiss was denied by the trial court in an order prosecuting officer is the representative not of an
dated April 23, 1976. Whereupon, respondent fiscal ordinary party to a controversy but of a sovereignty NATURE:
manifested that he would not prosecute the case and where obligation to govern impartially is as Review on Certiorari
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 7 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

on the ground of insufficient evidence. The private retains the right to bring a special civil action for
FACTS respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings
- Private respondent Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. owns order of the Secretary of Justice, which motion, before the courts of law.
the Hagonoy Money Shop which employed petitioner however, was denied with finality by the Reasoning
Cristina O. Perez as Officer-In-Charge, Cashier and latter.Pursuant to the said resolution, the prosecutor - In the case of Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals,we held
Teller, Alberto S. Fabian as Bookkeeper, and Cristina filed a motion in the RTC praying for the dismissal of that:
Medina and Milagros Martin as Solicitors/Field the case against herein petitioner and the admission "In a special civil action for certiorari filed under
Managers. of an amended information excluding petitioner as Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is
- For the period starting August 3, 1992 up to one of the accused which motion was granted by the alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of
December 5, 1993, the Laya, Manabat, Salgado and RTC. Private respondent assailed the dismissal of the discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on
Company, an independent management, consultancy case against the petitioner in a motion for other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the
and accounting firm, conducted an audit of the reconsideration filed in the RTC which motion was petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In
financial affairs of the Hagonoy Money Shop and denied by the RTC after finding that the private such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and
found anomalies in more or less twenty-eight (28) respondent, as private complainant, had no legal the private offended party or complainant. The
savings accounts consisting of withdrawals which personality to question the dismissal of the criminal complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the
were recorded in the subsidiary ledgers of the money charges against the petitioner. case so he may file such special civil action
shop but not in the passbooks which were in the questioning the decision or action of the respondent
possession of the depositors. The audit also revealed ISSUES court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, the
that to cover-up the anomalous withdrawals, fake 1. WON Judge Masadao, presiding judge of RTC complainant should not bring the action in the name
deposits were recorded in the money shop's Branch 9, Malolos, Bulacan, committed grave abuse of the People of the Philippines. The action may be
subsidiary ledgers whenever the remaining balance of discretion in granting the prosecutor's motion to prosecuted in (the) name of the said complainant."
in a particular savings account went below the dismiss the criminal case against petitioner without - Furthermore, our ruling in the case of Dee v. Court
amount of legitimate withdrawals made by a an independent assessment of the sufficiency or of Appeals allowing the private offended party to file
depositor.This prompted the private respondent to insufficiency of the evidence against the latter a special civil action for certiorari to assail the order
file an affidavit-complaint for estafa against the 2. WON the private respondent, as private of the trial judge granting the motion to dismiss upon
aforementioned employees of the money shop and complainant, in a criminal case has the legal the directive of the Secretary of Justice is apropos. It
two outsiders, Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas. personality to question the dismissal by the trial follows, therefore, that if the private respondent in
Acting Provincial Prosecutor, Jesus Y. Manarang judge of the criminal charges against herein this case may file a special civil action for certiorari,
(hereinafter "prosecutor"), issued a resolution finding petitioner upon the motion filed by the prosecutor then with more reason does it have legal personality
prima facie evidence that the petitioner and her co- to move for a reconsideration of the order of the trial
employees had committed the crime of estafa thru HELD court dismissing the criminal charges against the
falsification of commercial documents, and 1. YES, Judge Masadao acted with grave abuse of petitioner. In fact, as a general rule, a special civil
recommending the filing of the corresponding discretion in granting the prosecutor's motion to action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration
information against them with the Regional Trial dismiss the criminal charges against the petitioner is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it
Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The charges against on the basis solely of the recommendation of the an opportunity to correct its assigned errors.
Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas were, however, Secretary of Justice.
dismissed. Reasoning PEOPLE v BUBAN
- Perez filed a petition for review with the Secretary - As aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor
GR No. 166895
of Justice praying for the dismissal of the charges General, in failing to make an independent finding of
against her. On the other hand, private respondent the merits of the case and merely anchoring the VELASCO, JR; January 24, 2007
moved for a reconsideration of the portion of the dismissal on the revised position of the prosecution,
same resolution dismissing the complaint against the trial judge relinquished the discretion he was NATURE
Susan Jordan. duty bound to exercise. In effect, it was the Petition for review decision of CA
- The prosecutor granted private respondent's motion prosecution, through the Department of Justice which
for reconsideration.8 Hence, on April 27, 1994, an decided what to do and not the court which was FACTS
information for estafa thru falsification of commercial reduced to a mere rubber stamp in violation of the - Romeo Buban is accused of raping his then 12 year
documents was filed against herein petitioner, ruling in Crespo v. Mogul.. old daughter 5 times, on separate occasions. The
Alberto Fabian, Milagros Martin, Cristina Medina and 2. YES medical examination of the girl reveals that she was
Susan Jordan, Ratio While it is only the Solicitor General that may indeed raped.
- On September 23, 1994, then Secretary of Justice, bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of - Although the girl’s sworn statement mentioned five
Franklin M. Drilon, issued Resolution No. 696, series the Philippines, or represent the People or State in occasions of rape, the Complaint mentioned only the
of 1994 ordering the prosecutor to cause the criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court 5th incident. The charges of rape committed on other
dismissal of the information against herein petitioner and the Court of Appeals, the private offended party occasions were not supported with the required
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 8 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

complaints in accordance with Section 5, Rule 110 of 2. WON respondent Judge should be disqualified
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. NATURE from further proceeding with the criminal cases
- RTC found the accused guilty (sentence: death Original action for certiorari and prohibition
penalty plus moral damages, civil indemnity, HELD
exemplary damages) but only with regard the 5th FACTS 1. NO
incident only. The other 4 charges were dismissed for - Solicitor General Estilito P. Mendoza, Assistant Ratio Private prosecutors cannot intervene
lack of legal basis to convict. The dispositive portion Solicitor General Alicia Simpio-Diy and Solicitor independently of and take a position inconsistent
of the RTC’s decision was not specific as to which Eduardo L. Kilayko for respondents. with that of the Solicitor General.
charge it found the accused guilty, but the body of Estanisloo A. Fernandez and Dakila F. Castro & Reasoning
the decision implies the dismissal of the other 4 Associate as private prosecutors. - Participation of the private prosecution in the
charges, thus it can be deduced that the conviction - petitioners seek the annulment of respondent instant case was delimited by this Court in its
pertains to the 5th incident only. CA affirmed. Judge's Orders in the Criminal Case People of the Resolution of October 1, 1975, thus: "to collaborate
Philippines v Jorge Tan, Jr, Cesar Tan, Teofanis with the Solicitor General in the preparation of the
ISSUES Bondoc, Osmundo Tolentino, Mariano Bartido and Answer and pleadings that may be required by this
1. WON CA erred in finding the accused guilty Librado Sode for frustrated murder and Double Court." To collaborate means to cooperate with and
despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence Murder of the son and uncle of Mayor Inigo to assist the Solicitor General. It was never intended
2. WON the accused may be convicted for the other Larazzabal. that the private prosecutors could adopt a stand
counts of rape, where the complaint mentions only - Judge Pedro Gallardo made the two life sentences independent of or in contravention of the position
one instance of rape to death penalty allegedly after meeting with Mayor taken by the Solicitor General.
Larazzabal and receipt of other paraphernalia such - Since a criminal offense is an outrage to the
HELD as whisky and wine according to the court sovereignty of the State, it is but natural that the
1. NO stenographer. representatives of the State should direct and control
Ratio there is no error in the appreciation of - Jan 14, 1976 - SolGen, on behalf of the People of the prosecution.
evidence by the court. the Philippines, submitted his Comment to the > Suarez v Platon: the prosecuting officer "'is the
Reasoning petition. They are "persuaded that there are bases representative not of, an ordinary party to a
- the argument of the accused that the testimony of for stating that the rendition of respondent Judge's controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation
the girl is not reliable for inconsistencies is decision and his resolution on the motion for new to govern impartially is as compelling as its
untenable. trial were not free from suspicion of bias and obligation to govern at all; and whose interest,
People v. Antonio: Discrepancies and inconsistencies prejudice… therefore, they interpose no objection to therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it
in the testimony of a witness referring to minor the remand of the aforementioned criminal cases shall win a case, but that justice shall he done. As
details, and not in actuality touching upon the central "for the rendition of a new decision by another trial such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the
fact of the crime, do not impair her credibility. If at judge." servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that
all, they serve as proof that the witness is not - Jan 30, 1976 - private prosecutors submitted their guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may
coached or rehearsed. Comment in justification of the challenged Orders of prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he
2. As can be gleamed from the case, the complaint the respondent Judge and objected to the remand of should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows,
should contain all instances of the crime charged. this case. he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much
The other 4 counts of rape were dismissed because - Feb 12, 1976, the petitioners moved to strike out his duty to refrain from improper methods
the complaint did not specify the same, and only the "Motion to Admit Attacked Comment" and the calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is
mentioned the last instance of rape, despite the "Comment" of the private prosecutor on the ground to use every legitimate means to bring about a just
inclusion of the other 4 in the sworn statement of the that the latter has "absolutely no standing in the one."
girl. The prosecution did not question anymore the instant proceedings before this Honorable Court and, > People v Esquivel: that there is an absolute
dismissal of the other 4 counts, so the court did not hence, without any personality to have any paper of necessity for prosecuting attorneys to lay "before
discuss it further. his entertained by this Tribunal” the court the pertinent facts at their disposal with
DISPOSITION judgment affirmed with modification. - private prosecutors now contend that they are methodical and meticulous attention, clarifying
Sentence changed to reclusion perpatua (pursuant to entitled to appear before this Court, to take part in contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in
RA 9346, abolishing the death penalty) and higher the proceedings, and to adapt a position in their evidence, to the end that the court's mind
damages. contravention to that of the Solicitor General. may not be tortured by doubts, that the innocent
may not suffer and the guilty not escape
ISSUES unpunished. Obvious to all, this is the
TAN, JR v GALLARDO 1. WON private prosecutors have the right to prosecution's prime duty to the court, to the
intervene independently of the Solicitor General and accused, and to the state."
73 SCRA 308
to adopt a stand inconsistent with that of the latter - It is for the purpose of realizing the aforementioned
ANTONIO; October 5, 1976 objectives that the prosecution of offenses is placed
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 9 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

under the direction, control, and responsibility of the Islands in the prosecution of a public offense, or to It is evident, therefore, that since the Solicitor
prosecuting officer. control the proceeding once it is commenced, and as General alone is authorized to represent the State
- Role of the private prosecutors is to represent his right to intervene therein is subject to the or the People of the Philippines the interest of the
the offended party with respect to the civil action for promotor fiscal's right of control, it cannot be stated private prosecutors is subordinate to that of the
the recovery of the civil liability arising from the that an order of dismissal decreed upon petition of State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand
offense. This civil action is deemed instituted with the promoter fiscal himself deprives the offended inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General, for
the criminal action, unless the offended party either party of his right to appeal from an order overrruling that would be tantamount to giving the latter the
expressly waives the civil action or reserves to a complaint or information, which right belongs direction and control of the criminal proceedings,
institute it separately. Thus, "an offended party may exclusively to the promotor fiscal by virtue of the contrary to the provisions of law and the settled
intervene in the proceedings, personally or by provisions of section 44 of General Orders, No. rules on the matter.
attorney, specially in case of offenses which can not 58. To permit a person injured by the commission of 2. It is already moot because the judge is no longer
be prosecuted except at the instance of the offended an offense to appeal from an order dismissing a in the judicial service
party The only exception to this is when the offended criminal case issued by a Court of First Instance upon DISPOSITION SC grants the petition and hereby
party waives his right to civil action or expressly petition of the promoter fiscal, would be tantamount remands the case to the trial court in order that
reserves his right to institute it after the termination to giving said offended party of the direction and another Judge may hear anew petitioners' motion for
of the case, in which case he lost his right to control of a criminal proceeding in violation of the new trial and to resolve the issue accordingly on the
intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to have provisions of the above-cited section 107 of General basis of the evidence
lost his interest in its prosecution. in any event, Orders, No. 58.
whether an offended party intervenes in the - from the nature of the offense, or where the law PEOPLE v DELA CERNA
prosecution of a criminal action, his intervention defining and punishing the offense charged does not
390 SCRA 538
must always be subject to the direction and control provide for an indemnity, the offended party may not
of the prosecuting official." intervene in the prosecution of the offense. CORONA ; October 9, 2002
> Herrero v Diaz: "intervention of the offended - Solicitor General represents the People of the
party or his attorney is authorized by section 15 of Philippines or the State in criminal proceedings NATURE
Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, subject to the pending either in the Court of Appeals or in this Automatic review of decision of Cebu City RTC
provisions of section 4 of the same Rule that all Court. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 478,
criminal actions either commenced by complaint or "Defining the Powers and Functions of the Office of FACTS
by information shall be prosecuted under the the Solicitor General", provides: - Ernesto dela Cuesta was charged on May 16, 1997
direction and control of the Fiscal." SECTION 1. Function and Organization, (1) The with raping his minor daughter, Irene, seven times
- the position occupied by the offended party is Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the over a period of eight years beginning 1989 when
subordinate to that of the promotor fiscal because, Government of the Philippines, its agencies and the victim was seven years old.
as the promotor fiscal alone is authorized to instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any - The victim testified in open court about the
represent the public prosecution, or the People of the litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter incidents of rape. However, prior to the rendering of
Philippine Islands, in the prosecution of offenders, requiring the services of a lawyer. * * * The office judgment, the victim, on July 3, 1998, filed an
and to control the proceeding, and as it is of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law affidavit of desistance stating among others that she
discretionary with him to institute and prosecute a office of the Government, and as such, shall was no longer interested in pursuing the case and
criminal proceeding, being at liberty to commence it discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer. that she had already forgiven her father.
or not or to refrain from prosecuting it or not, It shall have the following specific powers and - The SC noted that the rape incidents in this case
depending upon whether or not there is, in his functions: occurred prior to the effectivity of RA 8353, The
opinion, sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of (a) Represent the Government in the Supreme Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which took effect on October
the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, except Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal 22, 1997. Under this statute, the crime of rape was
when the case is pending in the Court of First proceedings; represent the Government and its classified as a crime against person. It should be
Instance, the continuation of the offended party's officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of further noted that the law at the time the crimes
intervention depends upon the continuation of the Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil were committed treated rape as a private crime
proceeding. Consequently, if the promotor fiscal actions and special proceedings in which the covered by Article 344 of the RPC. As provided for in
desists from pressing the charge or asks the Government or any officer thereof in his official the said article, offenses of seduction, abduction,
competent Court of First Instance in which the case is capacity is the party. rape, or acts of lasciviousness shall not be
pending for the dismissal thereof, and said court (k) Act and represent the Republic and/or the prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
grants the petition, the intervention of the person people before any court, tribunal, body or offended party or her parents, grandparents, or
injured by the commission of the offense ceases by commission in any matter, action or proceeding guardian, nor in any case, the offender has been
virtue of the principle that the accessory follows the which, in his opinion, affects the welfare of the expressly pardoned by the above named persons.
principal. Consequently, as the offended party is not people as the ends of justice may require. - The trial court found the defendant guilty and
entitled to represent the People of the Philippine sentenced him to the supreme penalty of death.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 10 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- In his appeal, the offender claimed that he should JONALYN had difficulty in expressing herself, the trial parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case,
no have been found guilty considering that the court decided to suspend the proceedings to give the if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the
affidavit of desistance created a reasonable doubt as prosecution sufficient time to confer with her. above-named persons, as the case may be.
to his guilt. - Trial court allowed the prosecution to put on the - Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
witness stand a Medical Officer of the National Procedure states: The offenses of seduction,
Center for Mental Health. Dr. Tuazon testified that abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness shall not be
ISSUE
she found that JONALYN was suffering from a prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
WON the trial court erred in convicting the defendant
moderate level of mental retardation and that offended party or her parents, grandparents, or
although chronologically the latter was already 20 guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been
HELD
years of age, she had the mental age of an 8½-year- expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, as
NO
old child under the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. the case may be. In case the offended party dies or
- The affidavit did not in fact contain any retraction
- The trial court issued an order allowing leading becomes incapacitated before she could file the
on the claim of rape. Hence the guilty verdict was
questions to be propounded to JONALYN. Thus, complaint and has no known parents, grandparents,
proper considering that the testimony of the victim
JONALYN took the witness stand. She declared in or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal
was considered by the trial court as credible and
open court that BIENVENIDO raped her twice. She action in her behalf. The offended party, even if she
believable. There was as such no reasonable doubt
stated that BIENVENIDO placed himself on top of her were a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution
to speak of.
and inserted his private part into her womanhood. for the above offenses, independently of her parents,
- Even using the old statute which considered rape as
- The defense filed a demurrer to evidence, which grandparents or guardian, unless she is incompetent
a private crime and the forgiveness of the victim or
was granted. It admitted that it could have moved to or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her
the parents, grandparents, or guardian as
quash the information but it did not because the minority. Where the offended party who is a minor
extinguishing the crime, the Supreme court held that
complaint on which the information was based was fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents
the pardon or forgiveness must be prior to the
on its face valid, it having been signed by JONALYN or guardian may file the same.
institution of the criminal action. After the case has
as the offended party. However, the undeniable - A complaint of the offended party or her relatives is
been filed the control of the prosecution is removed
truth is that JONALYN had no capacity to sign the required in crimes against chastity out of
from the offended party’s hand and any change of
same considering her mental deficiency or consideration for the offended woman and her
heart by the victim will not affect the state’s right to
abnormality. The defense also insisted on assailing family, who might prefer to suffer the outrage in
vindicate the atrocities committed against itself.
the competency of JONALYN as a witness. It claimed silence rather than go through with the scandal of a
- The Court also ruled that the death penalty is not
that JONALYN’s testimony, considering her mental public trial. The law deems it the wiser policy to let
applicable in this case as the prosecution was not
state, was coached and rehearsed. the aggrieved woman and her family decide whether
able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
- The trial court denied the Demurrer to Evidence and to expose to public view or to heated controversies in
alleged minority of the victim. It cited its previous
set the dates for the presentation of the evidence for court the vices, fault, and disgraceful acts occurring
rulings to this effect.
the defense. Trial court convicted BIENVENIDO of in the family.
the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 1275-M-96, - The complaint in the instant case has complied with
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ but acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 1274-M-96 for the requirement under the Revised Penal Code and
384 SCRA 375 insufficiency of evidence. the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which vest upon
DAVIDE; July 11, 2002 JONALYN, as the offended party, the right to institute
ISSUES the criminal action. As signed by JONALYN, the
FACTS 1. WON the complaint for rape filed was valid complaint started the prosecutory proceeding. The
- Upon a complaint signed by JONALYN with the 2. WON Jonalyn was competent to testify assistance of JONALYN’s aunt, or even of her mother,
assistance of her aunt Carmelita Borja, two 3. WON Jonalyn was credible as a witness was a superfluity. JONALYN’s signature alone
informations were filed by the Office of the Provincial 4. WON leading questions should have been allowed suffices to validate the complaint.
Prosecutor before the RTC of Malolos charging to be asked to Jonalyn - If a minor under the Rules of Court can file a
Bienvenido Dela Cruz with rape. BIENVENIDO complaint for rape independently of her parents,
entered a plea of not guilty. HELD JONALYN, then 20 years of age who was found to
- When JONALYN was presented as its first witness, 1. YES have the mentality of an 8-year-old girl, could
the prosecution sought to obtain from the trial court - The pertinent laws existing at the time the crimes likewise file the complaint independently of her
an order for the conduct of a psychiatric examination were committed were Article 344 of the Revised relatives. Her complaint can be rightfully considered
to determine her mental and psychological capability Penal Code (prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 8353 filed by a minor.
to testify in court. Trial court allowed the prosecutor which took effect on 22 October 1997) and Section 5 2. YES
to conduct direct examination on JONALYN so that if of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. - The determination of the competence of witnesses
in its perception she would appear to be suffering - The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts to testify rests primarily with the trial judge who sees
from mental deficiency, the prosecutor could be of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except them in the witness stand and observes their
permitted to ask leading questions. Noticing that upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her behavior or their possession or lack of intelligence,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 11 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

as well as their understanding of the obligation of an NATURE superiority in strength, enough proof was adduced,
oath. Appeal from the decision of the RTC however, to show that the attackers had cooperated
- The prosecution has proved JONALYN’s competency in such a way as to secure advantage of their
by the testimony of Dr. Tuazon. The finding of the FACTS superiority in strength certainly out of proportion to
trial court, as supported by the testimony of Dr. - Calpito was a student from Baguio city. One time, the means of defense available to the person
Tuazon that JONALYN had the understanding of an 8- he wanted some fishballs so he and Gosil bought attacked.
year-old child, does not obviate the fact of her some fishballs worth P15. When Calpito counted his - Article III, Section 14, of the 1987 Constitution, in
competency. Its only effect was to consider her change, he found out that he only received P35 for particular, mandates that no person shall be held
testimony from the point of view of an 8-year-old his P100. Confronted by Calpito and Gosil, the answerable for a criminal offense without due
minor. fishball vendor would not admit that he had short- process of law and that in all criminal prosecutions
changed Calpito. The 3 men kept arguing. Moments the accused shall first be informed of the nature and
3. YES later, Soriano saw eight men rushing towards Gosil cause of the accusation against him. The right to be
- The foregoing narrative has established not only and Calpito. Calpito got stabbed and fell to the informed of any such indictment is likewise explicit in
JONALYN’s competency but also her credibility. ground. procedural rules.
Considering her feeble mind, she could not have - The RTC found Ronnie Quitlong, Salvador Quitlong - object of informing an accused in writing of the
fabricated or concocted her charge against and Emilio Senoto guilty of murder for the killing of charges against him: First. To furnish the accused
BIENVENIDO. Also, no improper motive was shown Jonathan Calpito. Accused-appellants, shortly after with such a description of the charge against him as
by the defense as to why JONALYN would file a case the filing of the information, submitted a motion for will enable him to make his defense; and second, to
or falsely testify against BIENVENIDO. reinvestigation alleging that “it was a certain Jesus avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
- Complainant has made herself clear about the Mendoza who stabbed the victim. The trial court protection against a further prosecution for the same
sexual molestation she suffered in the hands of the acted favorably on the motion. The City Prosecutor cause; and third, to inform the court of the facts
accused. Plain and simple her testimony may have filed a motion to admit an amended information on alleged, so that it may decide whether they are
been, unembellished, as it is, with details, yet, it is in the basis of affidavits. The information, as amended, sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should
its simplicity that its credence is enhanced. included Jesus Mendoza among the named accused. be had. (United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S., 542).
4. YES But unlike accused-appellants who were immediately In order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts
- It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading arrested after the commission of the crime, Jesus must be stated, not conclusions of law. Every crime
questions in conducting the examination of a witness Mendoza remained at large. At their arraignment, is made up of certain acts and intent; these must be
who is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical the detained accused pleaded not guilty to the crime set forth in the complaint with reasonable
condition; uneducated; ignorant of, or unaccustomed charged. particularity of time, place, names (plaintiff and
to, court proceedings; inexperienced; feeble-minded; - On 21 April 1995, the trial court, following his defendant), and circumstances. In short, the
confused and agitated; terrified; timid or evaluation of the respective submissions of the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every
embarrassed while on the stand; lacking in prosecution and the defense, including their rebuttal fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the
comprehension of questions asked; deaf and dumb; and sur-rebuttal evidence, rendered its now assailed crime charged
or unable to speak or understand the English or decision. DISPOSITION appellant Ronnie Quitlong is found
imperfectly familiar therewith. guilty of the crime of murder for the killing of
- The leading questions were neither conclusions of ISSUES Jonathan Calpito. Appellants Salvador Quitlong and
facts merely put into the mouth of JONALYN nor 1. WON the RTC abused its discretion and/or Emilio Senoto, Jr., are found guilty as accomplices in
prepared statements which she merely confirmed as the commission of the crime.
acted in excess of or without jurisdiction in
true.
finding that there was conspiracy between
DISPOSITION RTC decision finding accused-
and among the accused-appellants ROCO v CONTRERAS
appellant BIENVENIDO DELA CRUZ guilty of the crime
2. WON the RTC gravely abused its discretion
461 SCRA 505
of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED, with the and/or acted in excess of or without GARCIA; June 28, 2005
modification that accused-appellant is ordered to pay jurisdiction in finding the accused-appellants
the victim JONALYN YUMANG civil indemnity in the guilty of the crime of Murder instead of NATURE
reduced amount of P50,000 and moral damages in Homicide Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
the amount of P50,000. Rules of Court the decision dismissing appeal and
HELD resolution denying motion for reconsideration of the
1. YES, Quitlong is guilty of murder while the other 2 Court of Appeals
PEOPLE v QUITLONG
are only accomplices.
292 SCRA 360 2. NO, the crime was qualified The crime committed
VITUG ; July 10, 1998 was qualified by abuse of superiority. While FACTS
superiority in number would not per se mean
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 12 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Domingo Roco, engaged in buying and selling of books of accounts were already burned, they did not case. However, in the matter of relevancy of those
dressed chicken, purchased his supply from private maintain the requested sales ledger and that other books and documents to the pending criminal cases
respondent Cal’s Poultry Supply Corporation (Cal’s) documents could not be produced because of the that petitioner miserably failed to discharge his
- As payment for his purchase, petitioner drew 5 recent computerization of records was still in the burden.
checks payable to Cal’s against his account with process of completion. They also maintained that the - Based on the records below and as correctly
PCIB. PCIB dishonored the checks for having been documents requested are immaterial and irrelevant pointed out by the CA, petitioner had been issued by
drawn from a closed account. Cal’s then filed a to the crimes for which the petitioner was being Cal’s with temporary receipts in the form of yellow
criminal complaint for violation of BP22 prosecuted. pad slips of paper evidencing his payments, which
- Before trial could commence, Roco filed with the - In a resolution, the MTCC, thru its Judge Edward B. pad slips had been validated by the corporation
BIR a denunciation letter against Cal’s in that it failed Contreras, denied petitioner’s request on the itself. It is clear that the production of the books and
to issue commercial invoices. BIR found no prima following grounds: (a) the requested documents, documents requested by petitioner are not
facie evidence of tax evasion. book ledgers and other records were immaterial in indispensable to prove his defense of payment.
- Trial for Roco’s violation of BP 22 commenced. After resolving the issues posed before the court; and (b) DISPOSITION the instant petition is DENIED and
the prosecution rested, the MTCC declared the cases the issuance of the subpoenas will only unduly delay the challenged decision and resolution of the Court of
submitted for decision on account of petitioner’s the hearing of the criminal cases. Appeals AFFIRMED.
failure to adduce evidence in his behalf. Later, - Judge Contreras similarly denied the MFR. RTC
MTCC rendered a judgment of conviction denied due course to petition for failure to prove ASTORGA v PEOPLE
against petitioner. grave abuse of discretion. Similarly, it denied MFR.
437 SCRA 152
- Petitioner went to appeal to the RTC contending Petitioner went to CA via certiorari. The petition was
that he was deprived of due process. RTC agreed and still dismissed. MFR was still dismissed. YNARES-SANTIAGO.; Aug 20, 2004
vacated the MTCC decision. Petitioner’s claim
- Pending the remanded cases, petitioner filed with The denial of the request for the issuance of FACTS
the MTCC a “Request for Issuance of Subpoena Ad subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces - Three (3) private offended parties who are
Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum”, tecum is violative of his constitutional rights members of the Regional Special Operations Group
requiring Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap, both of (RSOG) of the DENR Tacloban City, together with two
Cal’s Corporation or their duly authorized ISSUE (2) members of Philippine National Police Regional
representatives, to appear and testify in court and WON the lower courts erred in denying the subpoena Intelligence Group, were sent to the Island of Daram,
to bring with them certain documents, records and requested by Roco Western Samar to conduct intelligence operations on
books of accounts for the years 1993-19991. possible illegal logging activities. At around 4:30-
Prosecution did not object. HELD 5:00 p.m., the team found two boats measuring 18
- Acting Judge Geomer C. Delfin, issued an order Ratio NO. Before a subpoena duces tecum may meters in length and 5 meters in breadth being
granting petitioner’s request and accordingly issue, the court must first be satisfied that the constructed at Barangay Locob-Locob. There they
directed the issuance of the desired subpoenas. following requisites are present: (1) the met petitioner Benito Astorga, the Mayor of Daram,
-Cal’s counsel manifested that it was improper for books, documents or other things requested who turned out to be the owner of the boats. A
the trial court to have directed the issuance of the must appear prima facie relevant to the issue heated altercation ensued between petitioner and
requested subpoenas, to which the Roco countered subject of the controversy (test of the DENR team. Petitioner called for reinforcements
by saying that Judge Delfin’s had become final and relevancy); and (2) such books must be and, moments later, a boat bearing ten armed men,
hence, immutable. Nonetheless, the trial court reasonably described by the parties to be some wearing fatigues, arrived at the scene. The
issued an order allowing the prosecution to file its readily identified (test of definiteness). DENR team was then brought to petitioner’s house in
comment or opposition to petitioner’s request for the Reasoning Daram, where they had dinner and drinks. The team
issuance of subpoenas. They argued that Deocampo - A subpoena is a process directed to a person left at 2:00 a.m.
had earlier attested that the documents, records and requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing - On the basis of the foregoing facts, petitioner was
or trial of an action or at any investigation conducted charged with and convicted of Arbitrary Detention by
under the laws of the Philippines, or for the taking of the Sandiganbayan.
1
Sales Journal for the year 1993; his deposition. The first, subpoena ad testificandum, - SC affirmed the conconviction of Daram.
Accounts Receivable Journal for the year 1993;
is used to compel a person to testify, while the Defendant filed MFR – denied with finality
Sales Ledger for the year 1993;
Accounts Receivable Ledger for the year 1993 (in its absence, second, subpoena duces tecum, is used to compel Filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File 2nd MFR –
Accounts Receivable Ledger for the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, the production of books, records, things or granted
1998 or 1999);
Audited Income Statement for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996,
documents therein specified.
1997, 1998 and Income Statements as of February 1999; - The books and documents that petitioner requested ISSUES
Audited Balance Sheet for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, to be subpoenaed are designated and described in Procedural
1998 and pBalance Sheet as of February 1999; and
his request with definiteness and readily identifiable. WON filing of 2nd MFR is proper
Income Tax Returns for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997.
The test of definiteness, therefore, is satisfied in this Substantive
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 13 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

WON the guilt of the accused was proven beyond DISPOSITION REVERSED. Petitioner Benito Astorga - Petitioner was arraigned on August 18, 1998, and
reasonable doubt is ACQUITTED of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on pleaded not guilty to both charges. Pre-trial ensued
the ground of reasonable doubt. and the cases were jointly tried. The prosecution
HELD PEOPLE v TULIN presented its witnesses, after which the Siguion
Procedural Reyna, Montecillio and Ongsiako Law Offices (SRMO)
YES as private prosecutor filed a Formal Offer of
RICARZE v CA (PEOPLE, CALTEX)
Ratio While a second motion for reconsideration is, Evidence.7 Petitioner opposed the pleading,
as a general rule, a prohibited pleading, it is within G.R. No. 160451 contending that the private complainant was
the sound discretion of the Court to admit the same, CALLEJO, SR; February 9, 2007 represented by the ACCRA Law Offices and the
provided it is filed with prior leave whenever Balgos and Perez Law Office during trial, and it was
substantive justice may be better served thereby. only after the prosecution had rested its case that
NATURE
Reasoning SRMO entered its appearance as private prosecutor
Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the
- The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to representing the PCIB. Since the ACCRA and Balgos
Court of Appeals
facilitate the attainment of justice. They were and Perez Law Offices had not withdrawn their
conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the appearance, SRMO had no personality to appear as
FACTS
court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not private prosecutor. Under the Informations, the
- Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was employed as a
slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial private complainant is Caltex and not PCIB; hence,
collector-messenger by City Service Corporation, a
discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always the Formal Offer of Evidence filed by SRMO should be
domestic corporation engaged in messengerial
been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by stricken from the records.
services. He was assigned to the main office of
the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a - Petitioner further averred that unless the
Caltex Philippines, Inc. (Caltex) in Makati City. His
backseat against substantive rights, and not the Informations were amended to change the private
primary task was to collect checks payable to Caltex
other way around. Thus, if the application of the complainant to PCIB, his right as accused would be
and deliver them to the cashier. He also delivered
Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote prejudiced. He pointed out, however, that the
invoices to Caltex’s customers.
justice, it is always within our power to suspend the Informations can no longer be amended because he
- On November 6, 1997, Caltex filed a criminal
rules, or except a particular case from its operation. had already been arraigned under the original
complaint against petitioner before the Office of the
Substantive Informations.8 He insisted that the amendments of
City Prosecutor of Makati City for estafa through
NO the Informations to substitute PCIB as the offended
falsification of commercial documents. Romano
Ratio When the guilt of the accused has not been party for Caltex would place him in double jeopardy.
alleged that, on October 16, 1997, while his
proven with moral certainty, the presumption of - PCIB, through SRMO, opposed the motion. It
department was conducting a daily electronic report
innocence of the accused must be sustained and his contended that the PCIB had re-credited the amount
from Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB)
exoneration be granted as a matter of right. For the to Caltex to the extent of the indemnity; hence, the
Dela Rosa, Makati Branch, one of its depositary
prosecution’s evidence must stand or fall on its own PCIB had been subrogated to the rights and interests
banks, it was discovered that unknown to the
merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from of Caltex as private complainant. Consequently, the
department, a company check, Check No. 74001
the weakness of the evidence for the defense. PCIB is entitled to receive any civil indemnity which
dated October 13, 1997 in the amount of
Furthermore, where the evidence for the prosecution the trial court would adjudge against the accused.
P5,790,570.25 payable to Dante R. Gutierrez, had
is concededly weak, even if the evidence for defense Moreover, the re-credited amount was brought out
been cleared through PCIB on October 15, 1997,
is also weak, the accused must be duly accorded the on cross-examination by Ramon Romano who
notwithstanding two missing checks and two other
benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional testified for the Prosecution. PCIB pointed out that
check forgeries, one of which amounted to
presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. petitioner had marked in evidence the letter of the
P1,790,757.25. All of these were never issued by
When the circumstances are capable of two or more ACCRA Law Office to PCIBank dated October 10,
Caltex.
inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent 1997 and the credit memo sent by PCIB to Caltex
- Further investigation revealed that said savings
with the presumption of innocence while the other is - On July 18, 2001, the RTC issued an Order granting
account had actually been opened by petitioner; the
compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence the motion of the private prosecutor for the
forged checks were deposited and endorsed by him
must prevail and the court must acquit. It is better substitution of PCIB as private complainant for
under Gutierrez’s name.
to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent Caltex. It however denied petitioner’s motion to have
- In the meantime, the PCIB credited the amount of
man. the formal offer of evidence of SRMO expunged from
P581,229.00 to Caltex on March 29, 1998. However,
Reasoning the record. Petitioner filed a motion for
the City Prosecutor of Makati City was not informed
- No sufficient evidence to show that petitioner reconsideration which the RTC denied on November
of this development. After the requisite preliminary
instilled fear in the minds of the private offended 14, 2001.
investigation, the City Prosecutor filed two (2)
parties. It appears that Darma merely extended his - Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
Informations for estafa through falsification of
hospitality and entertained the DENR team in his 65 of the Rules of Court with Urgent Application for
commercial documents on June 29, 1998 against
house. Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of
petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Makati City, Branch 63.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 14 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Appeals (CA,) praying for the annulment of the RTC’s the trial. Thus, he cannot claim any surprise by virtue designation by which it is known or by which it may
Orders of July 18, 2001 and November 14, 2001. of the substitution. be identified, without need of averring that it is a
- According to petitioner, damage or injury to the 2. YES juridical person or that it is organized in accordance
offended party is an essential element of estafa. The - The Court agrees with respondent PCIB’s comment with law.
amendment of the Informations substituting the that petitioner failed to make a distinction between Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
PCIBank for Caltex as the offended party would legal and conventional subrogation. Subrogation is The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of
prejudice his rights since he is deprived of a defense the transfer of all the rights of the creditor to a third Appeals are AFFIRMED. This case is REMANDED to
available before the amendment, and which would person, who substitutes him in all his rights. It may the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 63, for
be unavailable if the Informations are amended. either be legal or conventional. Legal subrogation is further proceedings.
Petitioner further insisted that the ruling in the that which takes place without agreement but by
Sayson case did not apply to this case. operation of law because of certain acts. Instances of PEOPLE v GUEVARRA
- The appellate court declared that when PCIB legal subrogation are those provided in Article
179 SCRA 740
restored the amount of the checks to Caltex, it was 1302of the Civil Code. Conventional subrogation, on
subrogated to the latter’s right against petitioner. It the other hand, is that which takes place by PADILLA: December 4, 1989
further declared that in offenses against property, agreement of the parties. Thus, petitioner’s
the designation of the name of the offended party is acquiescence is not necessary for subrogation to NATURE
not absolutely indispensable for as long as the take place because the instant case is one of legal Automatic Review
criminal act charged in the complaint or information subrogation that occurs by operation of law, and
can be properly identified. The appellate court cited without need of the debtor’s knowledge. FACTS
the rulings of this Court in People v. Ho and People v. 3. NO -On or about April 8, 1980, in Gapan, Nueva Ecija,
Reyes. - The rules on criminal procedure require the several armed men namely Jaime Guevarra y Arcega,
complaint or information to state the name and Poncing Abergas, Dan Tolentino, Baldo de Jesus,
ISSUE surname of the person against whom or against Roming Longhair, Boy Tae, Boy Pogi, Chotse Doe
1. WON petitioner’s rights are prejudiced with whose property the offense was committed or any alias Bernabe Sulaybar y Hernandez, and Vergel
the substitution of the complainant appellation or nickname by which such person has Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak", entered the house of
2. WON there was a valid subrogation of rights been or is known and if there is no better way of the sps Cruz and robbed them of P3000 and jewelry.
by Caltex to PCIB Identifying him, he must be described under a Thereafter, Luisito Cruz was threatened by the men
3. WON charges against him should be fictitious name (Rule 110, Section 11, Revised Rules and forced to give the keys to his car by Vergel
dismissed because the allegations in both of Court; now Rule 110, Section 12 of the 1985 Rules Bustamante. The members of the household were
Informations failed to name PCIB as true on Criminal Procedure.] In case of offenses against then made to enter a room and were tied. After the
offended party property, the designation of the name of the robbery, Priscilla Cruz was forcibly boarded in her
offended party is not absolutely indispensable for as own car by 5 of her kidnappers where she was held
HELD long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or at knife and gunpoint. She was then told she was
1. NO information can be properly identified. being held for ransom of P50k but they had to stop in
- The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by - Legal Basis: Section. 12. Name of the offended San Rafael Bulucan to hire a truck because the car
the amendment is whether a defense under the party. –The complaint or information must state the broke down. However, she was left at Valenzuela
information as it originally stood would be available name and surname of the person against whom or Bulacan as the men said the kidnapping “did not
after the amendment is made, and whether any against whose property the offense was committed, materialize”. The five men then boarded a taxi and
evidence defendant might have would be equally or any appellation or nickname by which such person the truck driver later took her home. On the same
applicable to the information in the one form as in has been or is known. If there is no better way of night, Luisito reported the incident which led to the
the other. An amendment to an information which identifying him, he must be described under a detention of Vergel Bustamante who was positively
does not change the nature of the crime alleged fictitious name. identified by Priscilla.
therein does not affect the essence of the offense or (a) In offenses against property, if the name of the -Bustamante denied the allegations and interposed
cause surprise or deprive the accused of an offended party is unknown, the property must be the defense of alibi, claiming to be in Caloocan at the
opportunity to meet the new averment had each described with such particularity as to properly time of the crime. His defense was rejected
been held to be one of form and not of substance. identify the offense charged. considering the proximity of Gapan and Caloocan
- In the case at bar, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB (b) If the true name of the person against whom or and since witnesses had positively identified him.
as private complaint is not a substantial amendment. against whose property the offense was committed is -After a separate trial for Poncing Abergas and Vergel
The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak," inasmuch as Dan
in both Informations, nor did it result in any prejudice cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint Tolentino, who had previously entered of plea of "not
to petitioner. The documentary evidence in the form or information and the record guilty" could not be served with subpoenas, and the
of the forged checks remained the same, and all (c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is other accused were reported to have died, judgment
such evidence was available to petitioner well before sufficient to state its name, or any name or was rendered finding the accused Vergel Bustamante
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 15 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

alias "Dan Saksak" guilty of the crime of Kidnapping issue of the credibility of the witnesses cannot be - Subsection 5 of section 6 of General Orders No. 58
and Serious Illegal Detention and sentenced to suffer raised. Also, the evidence presented by the declares that a complaint or information shall show,
the death penalty, and to indemnify the offended prosecution was sufficient to support a finding of among others things, the names of the persons
party, Mrs. Priscilla Cruz, in the amount of P5,000.00. guilt even without the said extra-judicial confession. against whom, or against whose property, the
The accused Poncing Abergas, upon the other hand, 4. NO offense was committed, if known. The complaint in
was acquitted of the charge. Hence, this appeal. -No element of ransom exists as no ransom note was this case therefore properly contained an averment
presented in court. Neither was there a demand for as to the ownership of the property; and upon
ISSUES money in exchange for Priscilla’s safe return. principle, in charging the crime of robbery committed
1. WON TC erred in ordering the amendment of the Besides, the Amended Information failed to allege upon the person, the allegation of the owner's name
information to include Vergel Bustamante alias “Dan that the kidnapping was for the purpose of extorting is essential. But of course if his name cannot be
Saksak” despite lack of proof that the 2 are 1 and the a ransom. The rule is that an accused cannot be ascertained, it may be alleged that it is unknown.
same person. convicted of a higher offense than that charged in - From the fact that the name of the injured person
2. WON there was no reinvestigation conducted to the complaint or information. may, in case of necessity, be alleged as unknown it
justify the filing of the amended information -Hence, Bustamante can only be convicted of should NOT be inferred that the naming of such
3. WON the TC erred in convicting Bustamante upon kidnapping of a female under Article 267 with the person, when known, is of no importance. Where the
the prosecution witnesses’ contradictory and aggravating circumstances of (a) the use of a motor name of the injured party is necessary as matter of
improbable testimonies and the appellant’s extra- vehicle and (b) the aid of armed men bringing the essential description of the crime charged, the
judicial confession penalty up to the maximum. However, due to Article complaint must invest such person with individuality
4. WON the accused can be convicted of kidnapping 3 Sec. 19 of the Constitution, the death penalty is by either naming him or alleging that his name is
for ransom reduced to reclusion perpetua. unknown. It is elementary that in crimes against
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed property, ownership must be alleged as matter
HELD from is hereby AFFIRMED essential to the proper description of the offense. To
1. NO. constitute robbery, the property obtained must be
- The ff circumstances led the RTC judge of Nueva US v LAHOYLAHOY and MADANLOG that of another, and indictments for such offenses
Ecija to believe that Vergel Bustamante and “Dan must name the owner; and a variance in this respect
38 Phil. 330
Saksak” are one and the same person as the accused between the indictment and the proof will be fatal. It
is mentioned in each as Vergel Bustamante alias STREET; July 15, 1918 is also necessary in order to identify the offense.
“Dan Saksak”: A subpoena issued by the MTC of - A complaint charging the commission of the
Gapan; a Return of Service of one subpoena; an NATURE complex offense of robbery with homicide must
order issued by the Municipal Court of Gapan finding Review of a decision of the CFI of Province of Iloilo, necessarily charge each of the component offenses
a prima facie case against the accused; and the sentencing the defendants Pedro Lahoylahoy and with the same precision that would be necessary if
letter of transmittal of the records of the cases to the Marcos Madanlog to death upon a complaint they were made the subject of separate complaints.
RTC of Nueva Ecija stating Bustamante aka Dan charging the crime of robbery with multiple It is well recognized in this jurisdiction that where a
Saksak was detained in the Manila City Jail. homicide. complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to
-In, any case, the issue cannot be raised for the first support the charge as to one of the component
time on appeal as it is one affecting jurisdiction over FACTS offenses the defendant can be convicted of the
the person and should have been raised before the - The information in a prosecution for robbery with other. The mere circumstance that the two crimes
trial court in a motion to quash the information. As quadruple homicide charged that the accused are so related as to constitute one transaction in no
the accused failed to do so, he is deemed to have criminally and by force appropriated certain articles way affects the principles of pleading involved in the
waived his objection to the information and is of value, the property of one Roman Estriba, and on case. To permit a defendant to be convicted upon a
assumed to be satisfied with its legality. occasion thereof killed the said Roman Estriba and charge of robbing one person when the proof shows
2. NO three others. However, the proof showed that the that he robbed an entirely different person, when the
- The reinvestigation is evidenced by the certification money which was the subject of the robbery was first was not present, is violative of the rudimentary
of the Fiscal stating that there was reasonable taken from one Juana Seran who was robbed and principles of pleading; and in addition, is subject to
ground to believe a crime had been committed and killed separately from the other three victims. the criticism that the defendant is thereby placed in
that the accused were informed of the complaint and a position where he could not be protected from a
given an opportunity to submit controverting ISSUE future prosecution by a plea of former conviction or
evidence. WON the conviction for robbery with quadruple acquittal. If we should convict or acquit these
3. NO homicide can be sustained defendants today of the robbery which is alleged to
- The said discrepancies in the testimonies were have been committed upon the property of Roman
minor details which could not destroy the substance HELD Estriba, it is perfectly clear that they could be
of said testimonies. As the highest degree of respect NO prosecuted tomorrow for robbery committed upon
is accorded to the factual findings of the TC, the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 16 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the property of Juana; and the plea of former under arrest, the three Judges ordered their - It is a constitutional right of any person who stands
jeopardy would be of no avail. immediate release unless held on other charges. charged in a criminal prosecution to be informed of
- In the light of what has been said it is evident that, -ON PD 9:THIS CASE INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
by reason of the lack of conformity between the AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE INTENT OF THIS P.D. Reasoning. The offense carries two elements: first,
allegation and the proof respecting the ownership of The pertinent paragraphs of the said PD is its the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed,
the property, it is impossible to convict the two “Whereas” clause ("WHEREAS, subversion, rebellion, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used as a
accused of the offense of robbery committed by insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos and necessary tool or implement for a livelihood; and
them in this case; and therefore they cannot be public disorder mentioned in the aforesaid second that the act of carrying the weapon was
convicted of the complex offense of robbery with Proclamation No. 1081 are committed and abetted either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection
homicide. HOWEVER, the accused were sentenced by by the use of firearms, explosives and other deadly with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless
the Supreme Court for four separate homicides. weapons”) and par3 (It is unlawful to carry outside of violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder. There
residence any bladed, pointed or blunt weapon such are other statutes (SECTION 26 OF ACT NO. 1780,
as 'fan knife,' 'spear,' 'dagger,' 'bolo,' 'balisong,' ORDINANCE NO. 3820 OF THE CITY OF MANILA) which may be
'barong,' 'kris,' or club, except where such articles charged against the accused for their acts to
are being used as necessary tools or implements to constitute a crime. It is the second element which
PEOPLE v PURISIMA earn a livelihood and while being used in connection removes the act of carrying a deadly weapon, if
therewith; and any person found guilty thereof shall concealed, outside of the scope of the statute or the
86 SCRA 542
suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from five city ordinance mentioned above. In other words, a
MUNOZ-PALMA; November 20, 1978 to ten years as a Military Court/Tribunal/Commission simple act of carrying any of the weapons described
may direct.) in the presidential decree is not a criminal offense in
NATURE -Petitioner’s Contention: (1) Par 3, PD 9 shows that itself. What makes the act criminal or punishable
Petitions for review (26 petitions consolidated) of the the prohibited acts need not be related to the under the decree is the motivation behind it. Without
decisions of the Courts of First of Manila and Samar. subversive activities; that the act proscribed is that motivation, the act fans within the purview of
essentially malum prohibitum penalized for reasons the city ordinance or some statute when the
FACTS of public policy; (3) that since it is malum prohibitum, circumstances so warrant.
-The private respondents were all charged with the intention of the accused who commits it is -ON SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION: for a complaint or
illegal possession of deadly weapons (one (1) carving immaterial; (4) that PD was enacted to eradicate information to be sufficient it must, inter alia, state
knife with a blade 1/2 inches and a wooden handle of lawless violence which characterized pre-martial law the designation of the offense by the statute, and the
5-1/4 inches, or an overall length of 11-3/4 inches in days; and (5) that the real nature of the criminal acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
the Information filed with J.Purisima; ice pick with an charge is determined not from the caption or offense. This is essential to avoid surprise on the
overall length of about 8 1/2 inches in the preamble of the information nor from the accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare
Information filed with J. Maceren; socyatan in the specification of the provision of law alleged to have his defense accordingly. It is necessary that the
Information filed with J. Polo) in violation of PD 9, Par. been violated but by the actual recital of facts in the particular law violated be specified as there
3. Informations were filed with respondent judges in complaint or information. exists a substantial difference between the
their respective courts (2 Branches of CFI, then CFI statute and city ordinance on the one hand
Samar) but upon motion to quash filed by the several and P.D. 9 (3) on the other regarding the
accused, the said judges dismissed the Informations ISSUE circumstances of the commission of the crime
on the common ground that the said Informations did WON the Informations filed by the People sufficient in and the penalty imposed for the offense.(PD 9
not allege facts which constitute the offense form and substance to constitute the offense of punishes the offender with 5-10 yrs imprisonment;
penalized by PD 90 – failed to state 1 of the 2 “Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon” penalized Sec26, Act 1780 with a fine of P500 or by
essential elements of the crime punished (the under PD 9 imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or both;
carrying outside of the accused's residence of a Ordinance 3820 with a fine of not more than P200 or
bladed, pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance or HELD imprisonment for not more than 1 month or both).
on the occasion of, connected with or related to NO. But since it was specified in the Informations that the
subversion, insurrection, or rebellion, organized The two elements of the offense covered by P.D. 9(3) accused were charged with violation of Par3, PD 9, it
lawlessness or public disorder.) must be alleged in the information in order that the was necessary for the Court to elucidate the
- In the 2 cases filed before the different branches of latter may constitute a sufficiently valid charged. elements of the said PD to differentiate it from other
CFI Manila, the orders of dismissal were given Ratio. The sufficiency of an Information is statutes (see above) – the rest of the discussion was
before arraignment of the accused. In the determined solely by the facts alleged therein. on the intent of the PD: to justify their decision that
criminal case before the CFI Samar the accused was Where the facts are incomplete and do not convey Par3 should be interpreted with the Whereas clause.
arraigned but at the same time moved to quash the the elements of the crime, the quashing of the - there exists a valid presumption that undesirable
Information. In all the cases where the accused were accusation is in order. consequences were never intended by a legislative
measure, and that a construction of which the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 17 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

statute is fairly susceptable is favored, which will the house to report the tragic incident to Amelita, defendant a necessary knowledge of the charge so
avoid all objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, Teofilo’s daughter. that he may not be confused in his defense.
wrongful, evil, and injurious consequences. It is to be - TEOFILO stated that upon being informed that his (a) BUT it is likewise the rule that if ever duplicity of
presumed that when P.D. 9 was promulgated by the housemaid Rebecca was raped by the accused, they offenses is committed, the same constitutes a
President of the Republic there was no intent to work all proceeded to the office of the INP Police Station of ground for a motion to quash the complaint; failure
a hardship or an oppressive result, a possible abuse Malasiqui to report the crime and had Rebecca of the accused to interpose the objection constitutes
of authority or act of oppression, arming one person physically examined in that same afternoon. waiver. Neither can he claim that he was denied
with a weapon to impose hardship on another, and so - In defense, the 2 denied any involvement in the information that he was to be tried for two crimes.
on. Penal statutes are to be construed strictly offense, both claiming they were nowhere at the The acts complained of were stated in ordinary and
against the state and liberally in favor of an scene of the crime when it was committed. concise language that any person of common
accused. - CFI decision: Each of the accused MELQUIADES intelligence would be able to understand and thereby
-ON OTHER REMEDIES OF THE PEOPLE: Under Rule 117, Sec 7 FERNANDEZ and FEDERICO CONRADO is guilty know what acts he was to defend himself against.
and Rule 110, Sec 13, Information may be amended beyond reasonable doubt of two crimes of rape, (b) As clearly found by the trial court: “Both accused
or ordered by the court to be amended. Or, the aggravated by cruelty or ignominy. Court sentences have, obviously, conspired and confederated to
People could have filed a complaint either under Sec each of them to suffer 2 penalties of death. commit the crime, considering that they entered the
26 of Act 1780 or under Manila City Ordinance 3820 - Appeal before SC: The accused filed this appeal to bathroom where Rebecca was, together and at the
since most of the cases were dismissed prior to reduce penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. same time. Accused Fernandez then tied her with a
arraignment of the accused and on a motion to However, in light of the 1987 Consti specifically Sec piece of cloth tightly around her neck, while accused
quash. 19(1), Art III, under which a death penalty already Conrado held her hands placing them behind her
Dispositive. WHEREFORE, We DENY these 26 imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua, Fernandez body. Then after Fernandez had raped Rebecca,
Petitions for Review and We AFFIRM the Orders of withdrew his appeal. The lone appellant therefore is Conrado raped her. Both fled from the scene of the
respondent Judges dismissing or quashing the Conrado who insists on his appeal, notwithstanding crime together and at the same time.”
Information concerned, subject however to Our the advice of his counsel de officio to discontinue. 2. NO
observations made in the preceding pages 23 to 25 - Appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
of this Decision regarding the right of the State or ISSUES ignominy is correct because of the greater perversity
Petitioner herein to file either an amended 1. WON CFI erred in convicting them for 2 crimes of displayed by the offenders. The act of "plastering"
Information under Presidential Decree No. 9, rape mud on the victim's vagina right after she was raped
paragraph 3, or a new one under other existing 2. WON CFI erred in holding that the rape was is adequately described as "ignominy" (rather than
statute or city ordinance as the facts may warrant. attended by the aggravating circumstance of cruelty “cruelty or ignominy”)
Without costs. SO ORDERED. or ignominy 3. NO
3. WON CFI erred in sentencing each to suffer 2 - The original death sentence was correctly imposed:
PEOPLE v FERNANDEZ penalties of death Art 335 RPC states that when the crime of rape is
committed by 2 or more persons, the penalty shall
183 SCRA 511
HELD be reclusion perpetua to death; Art 63 RPC states
PADILLA; March 22, 1990 1. NO that when the penalty prescribed is composed of 2
Ratio The imposition on each of the accused of the indivisible penalties and the offense is attended by
NATURE penalty corresponding to 2 crimes of rape is proper, an aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty
Appeal from CFI Pangasinan decision because of the existence of conspiracy. In multiple shall be applied.
rape, each defendant is responsible not only for the - However, since the original death penalties
FACTS rape personally committed by him, but also for the imposed by the trial court are no longer imposable
- Criminal complaint filed before the CFI alleged that rape committed by the others, because each of them under the present Constitution and are reduced to
the accused, conspiring and mutually helping one cooperated in the commission of the rape reclusion perpetua, the sentence on appellant
another, had sexual intercourse with the 15-yr old perpetrated by the others, by acts without which it Conrado has to be reduced to 2 penalties of reclusion
Rebecca SORIANO, by means of force and would not have been accomplished. perpetua. But the indemnity he has to pay to the
intimidation. Assisted by counsel, the accused Reasoning CFI is accused of violating the rule victim must be increased to P20T in line with
FERNANDEZ and CONRADO pleaded not guilty on against duplicity of offenses in that, the accused prevailing jurisprudence.
arraignment and underwent trial. were convicted for 2 crimes of rape even when under Dispositive Appeal has no merit. Decision affirmed.
- REBECCA is Teofilo Malong’s househelper. Ater she the criminal complaint against them, there is only 1
had just taken a bath and still naked, the two crime of rape alleged. The rule invoked is Sec 13, PEOPLE v LUMILAN
accused, both in short pants, surreptitiously entered Rule 110 of the ROC which states that there should
the bathroom and sexually abused her. Fernandez 323 SCRA 170
be only 1 offense charged in a criminal complaint or
then got a handful of mud near the bathroom and information, the purpose of which is to afford the DE LEON; June 25, 2000
placed it on her vagina. She ran to the upper floor of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 18 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

NATURE firearm or ammunition, whether or not homicide or Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in
Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of murder resulted from its use, on one hand, and Murder, is defective, and their conviction for Murder,
Ilagan, Isabela murder or homicide, on the other, are offenses Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder, is
different and separate from and independent of, irregular.
FACTS each other. While the former is punished under a - However, such defect in the Information and the
- Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilagan, Isabela, found special law, the latter is penalized under the Revised irregular conviction of appellants, does not invalidate
accused-appellants Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia Penal Code. Consequently, the prosecution for one the criminal proceedings had in the trial court
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of will not bar prosecution for the other, and double because the appellants waived their right to quash
murder, two (2) counts of frustrated murder, and jeopardy will not lie. the Information, and they effectively defended
three (3) counts of attempted murder, under an - Sec. 4. Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court themselves against the charges for murder,
Information charging them and accused Fred Orbiso provides that an accused may not be convicted of an frustrated murder and attempted murder.
with the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of offense other than that with which he is charged in - While the Information specifically states that
Firearms Used in Murder, in violation of Presidential the Information, unless such other offense was both appellants are being accused of the crime of
Decree (P.D.) No. 1866. established by evidence and is included in the Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in
- The evidence of the prosecution reveals that in the offense charged in the Information. Since murder or Murder in violation of P.D. No. 1866, its text is so
early evening of October 12, 1987, Meliton Asuncion, homicide neither includes or is necessarily included worded that it describes at least three (3) crimes:
Modesto Roque, Eliong dela Cruz, Jerry Palomo, in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in illegal possession of firearms, murder, and
Simeon Pacano, Benito Alonzo, Nolasco Estrada, murder or homicide, the trial court may not validly attempted/frustrated murder.
Mario Palomo and Romeo Pacho were drinking liquor convict an accused for the former crime under an - The Information is undeniably duplicitous.
inside the house of Policarpio Palomo when it was Information charging the latter offense. Conversely, Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court
sprayed with bullets. The successive gunshots an accused charged in the Information with homicide provides that a complaint or information must
emanated from the fence about six (6) meters away or murder may not be convicted of qualified illegal charge but one offense, except only in cases
from where they were drinking, killing Meliton possession of firearms used in murder or homicide, where the law prescribes a single punishment
Asuncion, Modesto Rogue, and Eliong dela Cruz and for the latter is not included in the former. for various offenses. Duplicity or multiplicity of
seriously wounding Jerry Palomo, Simeon Pacano, -Further, a significant change was introduced to Sec. charges is a ground for a motion to quash
Nolasco Estrada, Mario Palomo and Romeo Pacho. 1 of P.D. No. 1866 by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8294, under Sec. 2 (e), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules
- Upon being arraigned, both Lumilan and Garcia such that now, where an accused uses an unlicensed of Court. The accused, however, may choose
entered the plea of not guilty, and during trial, they firearm in committing homicide or murder, he may not to file a motion to quash and be convicted
interposed the defense of alibi. no longer be charged with what used to be the two of as many distinct charges as are alleged in
- After an assessment of the evidence, the trial court separate offenses of homicide or murder under the the information and proved during the trial. In
declared that no proof beyond reasonable doubt was Revised Penal Code and qualified illegal possession the same vein, failure to interpose any
adduced by the prosecution to justify the conviction of firearms used in homicide or murder under P.D. objection to the defect in the information
of appellants for Qualified Illegal Possession of No. 1866. constitutes waiver.
Firearms Used in Murder. However, the trial court -As amended by R.A. No. 8294, P.D. No. 1866 now - In the instant case, appellant did not file any motion
convicted the appellants for Murder, Frustrated mandates that the accused will be prosecuted only to quash the Information. More significantly, the bulk
Murder and Attempted Murder. for the crime of homicide or murder with the fact of of the evidence that they presented during the trial
- Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration which illegal possession of firearms being relegated to a was intended to disprove their complicity in the
was, however, denied - Hence, the instant appeal. mere special aggravating circumstance. murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder of
- The Information charging appellants with Qualified the victims.
ISSUE Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder, -As such, appellants cannot pretend that the
WON the appellants may be properly convicted of violates Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. Information did not fully apprise them of the charges
murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder No. 8294, which obliterated the now obsolete against them as to cause them surprise in the event
under an Information that charges them with concept of qualified illegal possession of firearms or of conviction. The appellation of the crime charged
qualified illegal possession of firearms used in illegal possession of firearms in its aggravated form, as determined by the provincial fiscal may not
murder in violation of Section 1 of presidential i.e., where the penalty for illegal possession is exactly correspond to the actual crimes constituted
Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended. increased to reclusion perpetua or death by the by the criminal acts described in the Information to
attendance of homicide or murder. In fact, qualified have been committed by the accused, but what
HELD illegal possession of firearms, which used to be a controls in the description of the said criminal acts
YES distinct offense, no longer exists in our statute books. and not the technical name of the crime supplied by
- At the time the trial court promulgated its judgment - Whether considered in the light of our ruling in Tac- the provincial fiscal. Since appellants defended
of conviction in September 1990, it had already been an and its progeny of cases or in the context of the themselves not only against the offense of Qualified
six (6) months since the Court held in People v. Tac- amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 to P.D. No. Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder as
an that the unlawful possession of an unlicensed 1866, the Information charging appellants with specified in the Information, but also, and more
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 19 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

seriously against the crimes of Murder, Frustrated mutually aided one another, with intent of gain and objective of Presidential Decree No. 133 is to place a
Murder and Attempted Murder as described in the without knowledge and consent of their employer, in strong deterrent on workers from sabotaging the
body of the Information, it cannot be said that their stealing the articles mentioned therein belonging to productive efforts of the industry where they are
conviction for the latter crimes is infirm and invalid their employer. Although the preamble of said employed, it is essential, to qualify the offense and to
***Appellants in this case were nonetheless informations stated that petitioner was charged with justify the imposition of the heavier penalty
acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. The the crime of simple theft "in relation to Presidential prescribed by said Decree, that the information
constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of Decree No. 133," nowhere was it alleged in the body should aver that the articles stolen were materials or
the appellants was not over-turned by the evidence of said information that the articles stolen were products which the accused was "working on or using
adduced by the prosecution. The Court entertained materials or products which petitioner was "working or producing," and that a statement in the preamble
doubts as to the prosecution’s witnesses’ testimony on, or using or producing" as employee or laborer of of the information that the accused is charged with
that they were able to identify the appellants as the the complainant, as provided for in Presidential the crime of simple theft "in relation to Presidential
authors of the crime considering that it was dark Decree No. 133. Except for the dates of commission Decree No. 133," does not suffice for the purpose
outside, and the only source of light were two and the amounts involved, the aforesaid three (3) envisioned by the constitutional guarantee that the
kerosene lamps inside the house. They also took informations uniformly stated that said accused were accused should be informed of the nature and cause
note of the fact that Pacano, one of the witnesses, charged with the crime of qualified theft, in relation of the accusation against him. The Supreme Court
only executed his sworn statement more than five to Presidential Decree No. 133, committed as follows: said that the appropriate penalty is that under Article
months atfer the incident. "That on or about the 14th day of November, 1973 309 (3) of the RPC-prision correccional in its
Disposition The decision of the Regional Trial Court in the Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal, minimum and medium periods if value of property
of Ilagan, Isabela is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed
accused-appellants, Leon Lumilan and Antonio Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being 6,000 pesos. But with the mitigating plea of guilty,
Garcia, are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that then laborers working at the Markes Agro-Chemical penalty is in its minimum period.
their alleged guilt was not proven beyond reasonable Enterprises, conspiring and confederating together
doubt. with one Renato Matuto y Ann, who is still at large,
all of them mutually helping and aiding one
MATILDE v JABSON another, with intent of gain, grave abuse of
confidence, and without the knowledge and
68 SCRA 456
consent of the said firm, its President and General
ANTONIO; December 29, 1975. Manager, Marciano K. Espiritu, did then and there BALITAAN v CFI (DE LOS REYES)
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and
NATURE 115 SCRA 729.
carry away the following, to wit: . . ."
Certiorari to nullify the judgment of respondent Court - When the informations were amended from GUERRERO; July 30, 1982
of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXVI, in Criminal Qualified Theft to Simple theft and deleting from the
Cases Nos. 9552, 9553 and 9554, imposing upon the body of Information the phrase “Grave abuse of
accused Crisanto Matilde, Jr. y Cruz, for the crime of confidence”, Matilde pleaded GUILTY but the Court FACTS
simple theft, the penalty prescribed in Presidential imposed the penalty under PD 133 and not those by - Luz Balitaan owns a baby dresses mending shop.
Decree No. 133 (which imposes a heavier penalty) Article 309 (3) of the RPC. From this decision, Matilde Rita de los Reyes is the manager of her business.
instead of that imposed by Article 309, paragraph 3, sought from the Court a quo a reconsideration - Luz, thru Special Counsel Aguila, filed with the MTC
of the Revised Penal Code. contending that in the absence of any allegation in of Bauan, Batangas an Information charging Rita of
the body of information alleging specifically all the the crime of estafa. The information contains that
FACTS elements of the offense defined and penalized under Rita misappropriated P127.58, through grave abuse
- An Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed three PD. 133, he cannot be conviceted and penalized of confidence, despite of repeated demands of Luz.
informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 9552, 9553 and under the aforesaid decree. (See original for exact wording of Information.)
9554 against Crisanto Matilde, Jr. y Cruz, Patricio - During trial at the MTC, Luz testified that Rita
Guiruela y Luna, Ricardo Abener y San Pascual, ISSUE delivered the baby dresses to Uniware, and for this
Edgardo Cape y Atienza, Servando Calpo y Caballero, WON the information that the accused is charged she (Rita) obtained 3 checks totaling P1,632.97. A
and Ireneo Belver y Bale. with the crime of simple theft “in relation to PD 133” cash voucher evidencing the receipt of said amount
In three criminal cases, respondent court imposed suffices was entered into evidence. The lawyer for the
upon petitioner, for the crime of simple theft, the defense moved:
penalty prescribed in Presidential Decree No. 133, HELD (1) to strike the testimonies with regard to the
instead of that imposed by Article 309, paragraph 3, NO voucher evidence on the ground that said
of the Revised Penal Code. The information charged - The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari testimonies are at variance with the allegations in
that petitioner and his co-accused, being then and set aside the judgment, and directed that the information, that there is no allegation in the
laborers, conspired and confederated with, and another one be rendered. It held that since the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 20 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

information whatsoever regarding these checks and or to return the same, even though the obligation is Court of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental on January 9,
this cash voucher; and guaranteed by a bond; 1995. MCTC Judge Alfredo Cain found sufficient
(2) in the nature of an objection to any other (b) that there is conversion or diversion of such ground to prosecute the appellant for the crime of
question or questions regarding these checks that property by the person who has so received it; rape. This was the same finding of the Office of the
were allegedly received by the herein accused from (c) that such conversion, diversion or denial is to the Provincial Prosecutor of Misamis Oriental upon
the Uniware Incorporated because there is no injury of another and examination of the records of the preliminary
allegation in the information. (d) that there be demand for the return of the investigation forwarded to it. Consequently, on March
The court overruled such objections as the lawyer property. 21, 1995, the corresponding Information was filed
of the complainant told the judge that the evidence - The position of the defense is that the testimonies with the Regional Trial Court reading as follows:
was presented to prove that the P127.58 was tend to prove another kind of estafa --- using false "INFORMATION
misappropriated from the P1,632.97. The testimony pretenses or fraudulent acts (Art 315 par 2a RPC)--- "The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor II,
thus continued. [It turns out that Rita told Luz that and not thru abuse of confidence (Art 315 par 1b upon sworn complaint of the offended party,
P127.58 was due a Cesar Dalangin for some of the RPC). The elements of these two are different. Under Neddy Calayca, accuses ARTEMIO CALAYCA of the
dresses he made. Luz then instructed Rita to encash par 2a, demand is not necessary and deceit or false crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
the checks and pay Cesar. Rita gave Luz the representation must be shown. But this doesn’t That on or about the 29th day of January,
encashed amount minus the P127.58. Three weeks mean that proof of deceit is not allowed for par 1b. 1994 at about 1:00 o'clock in the morning,
later, when she noticed that many baby dresses were Abuse of confidence and deceit may co-exist. Even if more or less, at Barangay Solo, Municipality of
lost, she verified the receipts of the payments. Cesar deceit may be present, the abuse of confidence will Balingasag, Province of Misamis Oriental,
said he did not make the baby dresses Rita said he characterize the estafa as the deceit will be merely Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
did, and he didn’t receive the amount (he didn’t even incidental or, is absorbed by abuse of confidence. Honorable Court, the above-named accused
know Rita). Luz then demanded from Rita the said - As long as there is a relation of trust and confidence did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
amount; but Rita kept the money.] between the complainant and the accused and even feloniously and by means of force and
- The defense then filed a petition for certiorari in though such relationship has been induced by the intimidation, succeeded in having carnal
the CFI of Batangas against the MTC judge for accused thru false representations and pretense and knowledge (sexual intercourse) with her (sic)
denying the motions to strike out the testimonies which is continued by active deceit without truthfully own daughter, Neddy Calayca, against her will
relating to the evidence. CFI granted the petition and disclosing the facts to the complainant, the estafa and consent.
ordered the testimonies stricken out of the record. committed is by abuse of confidence although deceit "CONTRARY TO and in VIOLATION OF Article
co-exists in its commission. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
ISSUE - The presence of deceit would not change the whole by Republic Act No. 7659.
WON the testimonies are at variance with the theory of the prosecution that estafa with abuse of "Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, March 6,
allegations in the information. confidence was committed. 1995.
Dispositive CFI decision to strike out testimonies is (SGD.) ROBERTO S. CASIÑO
HELD reversed and set aside. "Asst. Provincial Prosecutor II"
NO - When arraigned under the above-quoted
- It is fundamental that every element of which the PEOPLE v CALAYCA Information, the appellant entered a plea of "Not
offense is composed must be alleged in the guilty" to the crime charged. Trial on the merits
301 SCRA 192
complaint or information. What facts and ensued thereafter.
circumstances are necessary to be stated must be MARTINEZ; January 20, 1999 - The evidence for the prosecution was anchored
determined by reference to the definitions and the mainly on the testimony of 16-year old Neddy
essentials of the specific crimes. The main purpose of NATURE Calayca who, on May 2, 1995, narrated that at about
requiring the various elements of a crime to be set Automatic review 1:00 o'clock in the morning of January 29, 1994, she
out in an information is to enable the accused to was sound asleep inside their house at Barangay
suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have FACTS Solo, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental when she was
no independent knowledge of the facts that - A daughter was again allegedly raped by her own awakened by the weight of her father, herein
constitute the offense. father, herein appellant Artemio Calayca, who is now appellant Artemio Calayca, who was already on top
- Inasmuch as the crime of estafa through facing a death sentence after having been found of her, naked and armed with a bolo. He forcibly
misappropriation or with grave abuse of confidence guilty of said crime in a Decision 1 dated June 13, undressed her, inserted his penis into her vagina and
is charged, the information must contain these 1995, rendered by the Regional Trial Court (Branch made a push and pull motion. Feeling the pain in her
elements: 24) of Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case No. 95- vagina, she resisted his onslaught by kicking and
(a) that personal property is received in trust, on 129. Hence, this automatic review. hitting him, telling him with bitter tears, "I wish you
commission, for administration or under any other - A rape charge was initiated by Neddy Calayca would die. You are a father without good morals." But
circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of through a sworn complaint with supporting affidavits she was helpless to resist his lustful desire as he
and documents 3 filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial threatened her with a knife saying, "I will kill you if
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 21 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

you will not agree." After the sexual assault, she WON the correct penalty was imposed Dispositive Judgment modified
picked up her clothes, dressed up and was left
weeping. She was then 15 years old when this HELD
incident happened. 7 NO
- Neddy Calayca first thought of immediately filing a - While the Court agrees that the penalty of death
case against appellant but was prevented by his should be imposed on him, regrettably this is not in US v JAVIER DICHAO
threat to kill her. She, however, reported her awful accord with the law and jurisprudence.
27 Phil 421
experience with the appellant to her relatives in Although the matter of the proper imposition of the
Mambayaan. She informed them that even before penalty is not assigned as an error by the appellant, MORELAND; March 30, 1914
the January 29, 1994 incident, appellant had sexually nevertheless, it is a well-established rule in criminal
abused her many times. Her relatives, who were also procedure that an appeal in a criminal proceeding NATURE
afraid of appellant, merely advised her to sue him. throws the whole case open for review and it Appeal From CFI Davao’s Decision
She immediately went home in Solo because she becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct an
feared her father. When she reached home, her error as may be found in the appealed judgment, FACTS
eldest sister Betty Lani Calayca also arrived from whether it is made the subject of assignment of - Said CFI sustained a Demurrer to an INFORMATION
Manila. Informed of the rape incident, Lani and errors or not. and dismissed the case of rape against Antonio Javier
Neddy decided to leave the appellant. The two then - The trial court imposed the death penalty on Dichao.
traveled to Don Carlos, Bukidnon and worked as appellant because of the presence of the - The Information stated that Dichao committed the
servants of the mayor, thinking their father could no circumstance of minority of the victim (she was only crime of rape “on or about and during the interval
longer find them there. However, appellant was able 15 years old at the time she was raped on January between October 1910, to August 1912“ (vague di
to locate them. While in the house of the mayor, 29, 1994) as well as the relationship of the offender ba?) in Davao and that Dichao was, at that period,
appellant harassed them, so Betty Lani had him (father) and the victim (daughter), pursuant to the legal guardian, being the stepfather, of Isabel de
arrested by the police. While appellant was in jail, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 30 which la Cruz who was under 12 years old when he raped
Neddy reported to the police authorities that he amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. her; that as a result of said carnal knowledge Isabel
raped her. The police then took her sworn statement Section 11 provides, inter alia, that where the victim gave birth to a child on August 5, 1912.
on the rape incident. Thereafter, Neddy filed her of the crime of rape is under 18 years of age and the - The Demurrer alleged that the facts set forth in the
complaint for rape against the appellant. offender is a parent of the victim, the death penalty Information did not constitute a public offense and
- Appellant Artemio Calaycadid not deny the shall be imposed. This is among the seven (7) that the criminal complaint did not conform
imputation of her daughter Neddy Calayca that he circumstances enumerated in Section 11 which, as substantially to prescribed form and that complaint
raped her in the early morning of January 29, 1994. we have held in the recent case of People v. Garcia, was vague and ambiguous.
All that he testified to was that he was a widower in 32 are considered special qualifying circumstances
1998 and has six children by his late wife, two of specifically applicable to the crime of rape. ISSUE
whom he identified as Neddy, the private - There being no allegation of the minority of the WON CFI committed an error in dismissing the case
complainant, and Betty Lani. He claimed that Neddy victim in the Information under which the appellant based upon the Demurrer
was only nine years old when his wife died. The was arraigned, he cannot be convicted of qualified
private complainant stayed with him together with rape as he was not properly informed that he is being HELD
his five other children, while Betty Lani stayed with accused of qualified rape. Appellant's conviction of NO. CFI’s decision must be affirmed.
his (appellant's) brother at San Juan, Misamis qualified rape violates his constitutional right to be Ratio The allegations of an information should, if
Oriental. Betty Lani and Neddy left his house on properly informed of the nature and cause of possible, be sufficiently explicit and certain as to
August 19, 1993. They took his savings from the accusation against him. In a criminal prosecution, it TIME to inform the defendant of the date on which
proceeds of the sale of his pig in the amount of is the fundamental rule that every element of the the criminal act is alleged to have been committed.
P5,000.00. He then looked for his two daughters and crime charged must be alleged in the Information. Unless the accused is informed of the day, or about
found them at Bocboc, Don Carlos, Bukidnon. When The main purpose of this constitutional requirement the day, he may be, to an extent deprived of the
he asked them why they took his money, his two is to enable the accused to properly prepare his opportunity to defend himself.
daughters did not say a word, forcing him to slap defense. He is presumed to have no independent Reasoning
them. knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. - While Sec 7 of the Code of CrimPro provides that
- The defense did not present any other witness nor - The failure to allege the fact of minority of the “except when time is a material ingredient of an
any documentary evidence. A judgment convicting victim in the Information for rape is fatal and offense, the precise time of commission need not be
the appellant of the crime charged and imposing consequently bars the imposition of the death stated in a complaint or information, but the act may
upon him the penalty of death was rendered by the penalty. Having been informed only of the elements be alleged to have been committed at any time
trial court. of simple rape, the appellant can be convicted only before the filing thereof,” - this DOES NOT MEAN
of such crime and be punished accordingly with that the prosecuting officer may be careless in fixing
ISSUE reclusion perpetua. the date of the alleged crime, or that he may omit
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 22 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the date altogether, or that he may make the - It does not authorize the total omission of a date or - Molero’s alibi was readily refuted.
allegation indefinite as to amount to the same thing. such an indefinite allegation with reference thereto - Trial court found Molero guilty beyond reasonable
- Where the exact date cannot be fixed, or where the as amounts to the same thing. doubt of rape.
prosecuting officer is NOT thoroughly satisfied that - SC: the variance bet the date of the commission of - A double jeopardy issue arose because there were
he can prove a precise date, he should allege in the the crime as alleged in the info and that as proved on two complaints filed:
information that the crime was committed ON or trial DOES NO warrant necessarily the acquittal of - filed March 22, 1977: rape was committed Feb
ABOUT a DATE NAMED. the accused. IF such variance occurs and it is shown 13, 1976
- Under such an allegation he is not required to prove that the defendant is surprised thereby, and that, by - filed March 30, 1978: rape was committed Feb
any precise date but may prove any date which is reason of that surprise, he is unable to defend 5, 1976
NOT SO REMOTE as to surprise and prejudice the himself properly, the court may in the exercise of - Molero was arraigned under the first complaint, he
defendant. sound discretion based on ALL circumstances, order pleaded not guilty. - During trial, the provincial fiscal
- In case of SURPRISE, the Court may allow an the information amended so as to set forth the filed motion for leave to amend the complaint. This
amendment of the information as to time and an correct date and may grant an adjournment for such was granted. Thus, the new complaint.
adjournment to the accused, if necessary to meet the a length of time as will enable the defendant to - Molero filed motion to quash 2nd criminal complaint
amendment. prepare himself to meet the variance in date which on ground of double jeopardy. This was denied.
- SC then cited cases: was the cause of his surprise.
US v De Castro~ “While it is not necessary, Dispositive Decision affirmed. ISSUES
unless time is a material ingredient of the offense, 1. WON Molero was under double jeopardy
that the precise time of the commission of the PEOPLE v MOLERO 2. WON Molero committed the rape
offense should be stated, still the act should be
144 SCRA 397
alleged to have been committed at some time before HELD
the filing of the complaint.” GUTIERREZ JR.; September 24, 1986 1. NO
US v. Enriquez- question of time as alleged - Section 9, Rule 117 of 1985 Rules on Criminal
in the information was discussed in an incidental way NATURE Procedure: Conviction or acquittal of the defendant
for the purpose of determining whether it of itself or Appeal from decision of CFI or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another
in connection with the other allegations sufficiently prosecution for the offense charged…
identified the transaction which constituted estafa so FACTS - Here, the case was not terminated because the
as to notify the defendant of the transaction referred - Molero was charged with rape by daughter in dispositive portion of the order expressly directed the
to; Time is not a mat’l ingredient in the crime of complaint filed in CFI Negros Oriental. Provincial Fiscal and/or prosecuting fiscal to file a
estafa. Molero told daughter to go with him to the river to new complaint and/or information.
US v. Cardona- question of time was raised catch shrimps and fish. She was barely 17. She - The case was dismissed for no other reason except
in the demurrer (on appeal) as to the variance bet was hugged fr behind by Molero and she fell to the to correct the date of the crime.
the date of the crime in the info and that proved on ground. He unsheathed his bolo. He succeeded in - This dismissal did not amount to an acquittal.
the trial; Court here said that time being not an having sexual intercourse and warned her not to - There was no need for trial court to have used such
ingredient of the theft of a carabao, it did not have to tell anyone. procedure. It should just have denied motion for
be proved as laid. - The mother learned of the incident and told reconsideration of the order granting the
- The question whether the allegations of the info are daughter to keep quiet for the moment; they were prosecution’s motion for leave to amend the
sufficiently definite as to time and the question which secretive of their plan to report because Molero is a complaint.
arises on a variance between the allegations and the fierce man. After arraignment and where appellant pleaded not
proof are different in nature and legal effect, and are - Mother and daughter went to Station Commander. guilty, is it still proper to amend date of commission
decided on different principles. They were advised to report to the PC Headquarters. of crime? Applying Sections 10 and 13 of Rule 110 of
- In this case, the statement of the time when the At the PC Headquarters, complaint was investigated, Revised Rules of Court, amendment sought by
crime was committed is too indefinite to give the but accused didn’t want investigation to continue prosecution should have been granted. The precise
accused an opportunity to prepare his defense, and because accdg to him, this was their own problem. time is not an essential element of rape. The
that indefiniteness is not cured by setting out the - Internal and external exam of victim showed she amendment was only a matter of form and did not
date when a child was born as a result of such crime. had previous sexual intercourse. prejudice the rights of the appellant.
- Sec 7 Rules of CrimPro’s purpose is to permit the - Molero denied the charge, saying he couldn’t have 2. YES
allegation of a date of the commission of a crime as done it because he was already committed in the - Molero argues that if a crime was committed by him
NEAR to the ACTUAL date as the information of the provincial jail that time. He also denied the sworn at all, it was qualified seduction.
prosecuting officer will permit and when that has statement he made, saying he’s illiterate. He said he - SC didn’t agree. Appellant was shown to have
been done, any date proved which does not surprise was not informed of his rights to remain silent and to employed force and intimidation against daughter.
and substantially prejudice the defense. counsel; that he was not assisted by counsel during Also, he had moral ascendancy and influence over
investigation. the victim. The victim is illiterate and unschooled,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 23 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

and Molero threatened her with a bolo and rendered the same date, executed a joint affidavit to the same - Furthermore, Section 10, Rule 110 of the 1964
her practically helpless. effect Rules of Court provided:
- The Prosecuting Fiscal filed an Addendum to the Sec. 10. Time of the commission of the offense.-It
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. He alleged that is not necessary to state in the complaint or
the express pardon given the accused was invalid for information the precise time at which the offense
the offended party did not have "a will of her own," was committed except when time is a material
PEOPLE v LUALHATI being merely eleven years old when the crime was ingredient of the offense, but the act may be
committed; that the father of the offended party, alleged to have been committed at any time as
171 SCRA 277, 283
executed an affidavit objecting to the pardon given near to the actual date at which the offense' was
GRINO-AQUINO; March 16, 1989 to the accused; and that, as the father, he still committed as the information or complaint will
possessed the "patria potestas" over the offended permit.
NATURE party in spite of his having abandoned her. 2. NO
Petition for review of the Decision of the Trial court - Trial court denied the motion to dismiss on account Ratio Art. 344(3) of the Revised Penal Code prohibits
of the insistence of the victim's father to prosecute a prosecution for seduction, abduction, rape, or acts
FACTS the accused, absent judicial pronouncement of lasciviousness, except upon a complaint made by
- Complainant Josephine Dimaunahan was born on depriving him of parental authority over the offended the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or
January 7, 1967 party, a child below twelve years old. guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been
- In 1970, her mother separated from her father and - Accused filed Motion to Quash, which was denied by expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, as
started to live with appellant Vicente Lualhati without the trial court the case may be. It does not prohibit the
the benefit of marriage. She likewise lived with - Trial court convicted the accused of rape, and continuance of a prosecution if the offended party
appellant who supported her, took care of her studies imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. pardons the offender after the cause has been
and treated her like his own daughter. instituted, nor does it order the dismissal of said
- Sometime in June, 1978, while complainant's ISSUES cause. The only act that riding to Article 344
mother was at work, appellant and complainant were 1. WON there was a valid complaint against the extinguishes the penal action and the penalty that
alone in the house. Appellant had sexual intercourse appellant may have been imposed, is the marriage between
with complainant. It appeared that even prior to June, 2. WON the pardon given to him by the offended the offender and the offended party.
1978, appellant had already several sexual relations party, her mother, and grandmother extinguished his Reasoning
with complainant criminal liability, in spite of the objection of the - The rationale of the law on the prosecution of
- Upon arraignment on, the accused pleaded not victim's father. private crimes is simple: The law deems it the wiser
guilty policy to let the aggrieved woman and her family
- The defense filed a motion to dismiss on the ground HELD decide whether to expose to public view or to heated
that the complaint charged more than one offense, 1. YES controversies in court the vices, faults and
namely: Ratio Discrepancies between the accusation and the disgraceful acts occurring in the family. However,
“That on or about the month of June, 1978, and for complaint as to time of occurrence of the carnal when, as in the case at bar, the pardon is given after
sometime prior and subsequent thereto, ... the copulations in rape do not affect any essential right the filing of the complaint in court, it comes too late
accused Vicente Lualhati wilfully, unlawfully and of the accused, where the acts occurred within the to hide the shameful occurrence from public notice.
feloniously have carnal knowledge of the period of time alleged in both writings and the Dispositive Decision of trial court affirmed
complainant Josephine M. Dimaunahan ...” difference noted in other respects was of a formal,
- Fiscal alleged that the accused was being tried on rather than a substantial, character.
the Information which charged only one offense Reasoning
committed "in or about the month of June 1978." - Appellant contends that the complaint is void
- Trial judge denied motion to dismiss. because it charges at least three crimes of rape,
- The accused filed another Motion to Dismiss, namely: (1) that which was committed "on or about
alleging that he had been pardoned by the offended the month of June, 1978;" (2) that which was PEOPLE v RAZONABLE
party, her mother and grandmother. Attached, to the committed "sometime prior to said period;" and (3)
Motion to Dismiss was the joint affidavit of 330 SCRA 562
that which was committed "subsequent thereto."
desistance signed by the offended party, her mother - Argument has no merit. Attached to Josephine's PUNO; April 12, 2000
and grandmother complaint was her sworn statement wherein, she
- -The offended party executed and filed an affidavit categorically affirmed that Vicente abused her before NATURE
alleging that her father abandoned her at the age of the start of classes in June 1978. That affidavit, which - Appeal from a decision by the RTC of Camarines
two years and three months, without providing for may be considered part of the complaint required by Norte, dated May 3, 1996, finding appellant Benjamin
her support and studies, and that the same were law, cures any ambiguity in the complaint regarding Razonable guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping
provided by her mother and grandmother who, on the number of offenses committed by the accused. his daughter, Maria Fe Razonable, and sentencing
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 24 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

him to suffer the penalties of 3 reclusion perpetua Ratio The rationale of the rule (Section 11, Rule 110 living alone for a long time. It is the most natural
and to pay the amount of P200,000 as moral of the ROC) is to inform the accused of the nature reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to
damages. and cause of the accusation against him. To claim see the appearance of their assailant and observe
this substantive right protected by no less than the the manner in which the crime was committed. Most
FACTS Bill of Rights, the accused is duty bound to follow our often, the face and body movements of the assailant
- Razonable was charged in 3 separate Informations procedural rules which were laid down to assure an create a lasting impression which cannot be easily
with the crime of rape, which are identically worded, orderly administration of justice. erased from their memory. The impression becomes
as follows: more profound where the malefactor is the victim's
"That sometime in the year 1987, at Purok I, Brgy. IV, Reasoning own father.
Mantagbac, Municipality of Daet, Province of - Firstly, it behooved the accused to raise the issue - The fact that Maria Fe continued to live with
Camarines Norte, and within the jurisdiction of this of a defective information, on the ground that it does Razonable will not likewise crumple her credibility. At
Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then not conform substantially to the prescribed form, in a the time of the incident, she was a simple, naïve and
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have motion to quash said information or a motion for bill hapless child of twelve years. She was living by her
carnal knowledge of his own daughter MARIA FE H. of particulars. An accused who fails to take this lonesome self with her father, entirely dependent on
RAZONABLE, against the latter's will and by means of seasonable step will be deemed to have waived the him for all her needs. Her mother was in Isabela and
force and intimidation, to her damage and prejudice. defect in said information. The only defects in an her nearest sibling lived in another town. It could
"The crime was committed with the aggravating information that are not deemed waived are where hardly be expected that such a child of tender age
circumstances of relationship, the accused is the no offense is charged, lack of jurisdiction of the would know what to do and where to go under the
father of the offended party and that said offense offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty circumstances. It is not proper to judge the actions of
was committed in their own dwelling and the and double jeopardy. Corollarily, we have ruled that children who have undergone traumatic experiences
offended party not having given provocation for it." objections as to matters of form or substance in the by the norms of behavior expected under the
Razonable pleaded not guilty and his case was tried information cannot be made for the first time on circumstances from mature persons.
on the merits. appeal. Razonable did not raise either in a motion to - The delay in the filing of the cases does not
- Although Maria Fe was raped on 3 consecutive days quash or a motion for bill of particulars the defect in necessarily impair the credibility of the victim.
in the middle of June 1987, she was able to disclose the Information regarding the indefiniteness of the Experience teaches us that many victims of rape
the dastardly acts of her father to her elder sister allegation on the date of the commission of the never complain or file criminal charges against the
only in February of 1993 because her conscience offense. rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy
would not allow her any peace of mind. She also - Secondly, during the trial, the defense never and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world
feared recurrence of the bestial acts. Her father often objected to the presentation of evidence by the or risk the offender's making good on his threats.
drank with friends inside their house and she was prosecution to prove that the offense was committed Dispositive Considering that the acts were
wary that appellant might give her to his friends. in the middle of June 1987. It has not been shown committed prior to the effectivity of RA 7659, the
Thus, accompanied by her sister Ana Marie, that Razonable was taken by surprise with the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion
complainant went to the police station and filed a testimony of Maria Fe that she was raped in the perpetua in each of the three cases. However,
complaint. Then they proceeded to the Camarines middle of June 1987, and hence could not properly consistent with recent rulings, the amount of P50,000
Norte Provincial Hospital where she was examined. defend himself. On the contrary, he was able to give for each count of rape should be awarded by way of
Based on the medical certificate, she had, at the time an alibi as to his whereabouts at that particular time. moral damages, and hence the award given by the
of examination, incompletely healed hymenal In fine, he cannot pretend that he was unable to trial court should be reduced to P150,000. Likewise,
lacerations at 5, 6, 7, and 9 o'clock positions. defend himself in view of the vagueness of the current case law dictates that the victim shall be
allegation in the information as to when the crimes entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000
ISSUE were committed. for each count of rape.
2. NO - Decision of the RTC AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
1. WON the RTC erred in not considering the Reasoning Appellant claims that his guilt has not
information insufficient to support a judgment of
conviction for its failure to state the precise date of
been proven beyond reasonable doubt on the ALMEDA v VILLALUZ
following grounds: (1) the identity of the perpetrator
the alleged commission of the offense, it being an has not been established with certitude since the
essential element of the crime charged PEOPLE v CASEY and FELIX
room was dark and it has not been shown that it was
2. WON the lower court erred in finding that the guilt properly illuminated; (2) it was unnatural for Maria Fe 103 SCRA 21
of Razonable of the three counts of rape has been to remain in their house if it was true that she was GUERRERO; February 24, 1981
proven beyond reasonable doubt threatened and intimidated; and (3) there was an
unreasonable delay in the filing of the complaint NATURE
HELD which rendered the rape charges doubtful. Automatic review of the judgment of the Circuit
1. NO - It is highly inconceivable that Maria Fe would not Criminal Court imposing upon Casey and Felix the
recognize her own father with whom she has been capital c\punishment for the death of Alfredo Valdez.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 25 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

1. WON the Court a quo erred in illegally trying Reasoning


FACTS appellant Casey on the amended information without - Indeed, accused-appellant Joseph Casey gave an
- On May 22, 1968, Assistant Fiscal Herminio I. arraignment extrajudicial sworn statement that he met accused-
Benito filed an Information for Murder against 2. WON the Court a quo erred in holding that appellant Ricardo Felix and another person named
accused-appellant Joseph Casey alias "Burl", appellants acted with evident premeditation and Rudy in Cubao, Quezon City on that fateful day.
alleging: abuse o of superior strength, and in qualifying the However, there is no showing that this meeting was
That on or about the 31st day of March, 1968, in crime committed as aggravated murder purposely arranged to plan the killing of the victim.
the municipality of San Juan, province of Rizal, a 3. WON whether or not there is conspiracy between In fact, the following questions and answers in the
place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable the two accused in the commission of the crime said sworn statement show that there was no
Court, the above- named accused, being then 4. WON the Court erred in discounting Casey’s preconceived design to kill the victim.
armed with a knife, together with one Ricardo defense that he acted in legitimate self-defense - There is evident premeditation when the killing had
Felix alias "Carding Tuwad" who is then armed been carefully planned by the offender or when he
with a firearm and who was (sic) still at large, HELD had previously prepared the means which he had
and the two of them conspiring and 1. NO considered adequate to carry it out, when he had
confederating together and mutually helping and Reasoning prepared beforehand the means suitable for carrying
aiding one another, with intent to kill, evident - The lack of arraignment under the amended it into execution, when he has had sufficient time to
premeditation and treachery and taking information is objected to by accused-appellant consider and accept the final consequences, and
advantage of superior strength, did, then and Joseph Casey allegedly on the ground that there is a when there had been a concerted plan. 16 It has also
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, violation of his constitutional right to be informed of been held that to appreciate the circumstances of
assault and shoot and stab with the said firearm the charge against him. There can be a violation of evident premeditation, it is necessary to establish
and knife one Alfredo Valdez, thereby inflicting such right, however, only when the amendment the following; (1) the time when the offender
upon the latter fatal wounds which directly pertains to matters of substance. In the case at bar, determined to commit the crime; (2) the act
caused his death. the alterations introduced in the information refer to manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
- In June, 1968, upon arraignment, Casey pleaded the inclusion of accused appellant Ricardo Felix to determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time
not guilty to the crime charged in the said complaint. the same charge of murder. They do not change the between the determination and execution to snow
- September, 1968, accused ' appellant Ricardo Felix nature of the crime against accused-appellant Casey. him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and
alias "Carding Tuwad" was arrested. Accordingly, an Conspiracy, evident premeditation, treachery and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of
Amended Information was filed by the same fiscal to taking advantage of superior strength are similarly his will had he desired to hearken to its warning.
include Ricardo Felix as an accused, stating: alleged in both informations. No extenuating - From the answers of accused-appellant Casey in
That on or about the 31st day of March, 1968, in circumstance is likewise alleged in both. Thus the said sworn statement, it can be gleaned that the
the municipality of San Juan, province of Rizal, a amendment of the information as far as accused- killing was not a preconceived plan. It was not
place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable appellant Casey is concerned is one of form and not preceded by any reflection or deep thought. It was
Court, the above named accused Joseph Casey of substance as it is not prejudicial to his rights. just a spontaneous decision reached when the victim
alias "Burl" being then armed with a knife, - The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by started to run away upon being approached by
together with the accused Ricardo Felix alias the amendment of an information has been said to accused-appellant Ricardo Felix.
"Carding Tuwad" who was then armed with a be whether a defense under the information as it - There are indeed two accused-appellants in this
firearm, and the two of them conspiring and originally stood would be available after the case charged with the murder of not one victim but
confederating together and mutually helping and amendment is made, and whether any evidence superiority in number does not necessarily mean
aiding one another, with intent to kill, evident defendant might have would be equally applicable to superiority in strength. It is necessary to show that
premeditation and treachery and taking the information in the one form as in the other. A the aggressors "cooperated in such a way as to
advantage of superior strength, did, then and look into Our jurisprudence on the matter shows that secure advantage from their superiority in strength."
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, an amendment to an information introduced after 3. YES
assault and shoot and stab with the said firearm the accused has pleaded not guilty thereto, which Reasoning
and knife one Alfredo Valdez, thereby inflicting does not change the nature of the crime alleged - Although there is no direct showing that the
upon the latter fatal wounds which directly therein, does not expose the accused to a charge accused had conspired together, but their acts and
- The court a quo rendered the aforementioned which could call for a higher penalty, does not affect the attendant circumstances disclose that common
judgment of conviction. It found that two aggravating the essence of the offense or cause surprise or motive that would make accused Ricardo Felix as a
circumstances attended the commission of the deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the co-principal with the actual slayer, Joseph Casey.
crime, namely: employing or taking advantage of new averment had each been held to be one of form Without doubt, he performed overt acts in
superior strength and evident premeditation, one of and not of substance — not prejudicial to the furtherance of the conspiracy.
which qualified the killing to murder. accused and, therefore, not prohibited by Section 13, - Ricardo Felix's overt acts consist in instigating the
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court. pursuit of the deceased, in firing a shot at him and in
ISSUES 2. YES giving Joseph Casey encouragement by his armed
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 26 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

presence while the latter inflicted the fatal wounds in the Municipal Court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, the offense was committed in 1964. The defense
on the deceased. From the extrajudicial confession of pertinent portion as follows: refused to cross-examine witness Alcantara, asked
the accused-appellant Joseph Casey, it can also be That in the month of August, 1964, in the respondent Court to strike off the testimony of
inferred that Ricardo Felix was the moving factor of municipality of San Jose, province of Nueva Ecija, Alcantara because it referred to an offense not
the evil act perpetrated by the former against the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this mentioned in the information, and asked for a ruling
victim. While it was Joseph Casey who inflicted the Honorable Court, the above named accused by respondent Court on the prosecution's verbal
mortal wounds that caused the death of the victim, Narciso Mananing being the driver of complainant motion to amend the information.
he did so out of his perverted sense of friendship or Maria Ignacio- Francisco, Florentino Alcantara, - Respondent Judge required the prosecution and the
companionship with Ricardo Felix. repair shop owner where the truck hereinafter defense to submit memoranda. The contested order
4. YES described was found and recovered, Francisco of July 22, 1970, denying the prosecution's verbal
Reasoning Estrella, a Philippine Constabulary soldier stationed motion to amend information on the ground that said
- claim is uncorroborated and contrary to the at Bulacan, and Melecio Guevarra, all conspiring amendment would prejudice the substantial rights of
testimony of the eyewitness, Mercedes Palomo. together, without the knowledge and consent of the accused was issued.
- The fact that the victim sustained four stab wounds the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away one
while the accused complained merely of abrasions on (1) Bedford truck with Chassis No. 153559, with ISSUE
his back indicates the falsity of the claim. Motor No. 2/54/5/6, with Plate No. T-35049, Series WON the respondent Court abused its discretion
Dispositive the judgment of the trial court under of 1964, to the damage and prejudice of the when it refused an amendment to the information to
automatic review is MODIFIED in that the accused- owner, Maria Ignacio-Francisco in the amount of change the date of the alleged commission of the
appellants Joseph Casey and Ricardo Felix are found P23,000.00, value of said vehicle. offense from "August 1969" to "August 1964", on the
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of - On November 15, 1969, the Acting City Fiscal of ground it would constitute an impairment of the
homicide without any attending circumstances and San Jose City, (converted into city) Nueva Ecija, filed substantial rights of the accused as guaranteed by
should be sentenced to reclusion temporal in its an information (Crim. Case No. CCC-IV-170) with the the Constitution.
medium period. But applying the Indeterminate respondent Court, charging private respondent
Sentence Law, each of the accused is sentenced to Francisco Estrella and three others, with qualified HELD
an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision theft. This time the information contained “Aug. NO
mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four 1969” instead of “Aug. 1964” in the previous Ratio While it has been held that except when time
months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The information and alleged grave abuse of confidence is a material ingredient of an offense, the precise
accused are likewise sentenced to indemnify the and that accused dismantled the vehicle. time of commission need not be stated in the
heirs of the deceased Alfredo Valdez in the amount - On January 28, 1970, private respondent Francisco information, this Court stated that this does not
of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS jointly and severally, Estrella was arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty. mean that the prosecuting officer may be careless
and to pay the costs. During the arraignment, respondent-Judge required about fixing the date of the alleged crime, or that he
his clerk to read the information to Francisco may omit the date altogether, or that he may make
Estrella. From January 28, 1970, up to May 21, 1970, the allegation so indefinite as to amount to the same
PEOPLE v REYES
the latter date being the scheduled trial of the case, thing. The prosecution is given the chance to allege
108 SCRA 203 the prosecution never moved to amend the an approximation of time of the commission of the
CONCEPCION, JR; October 23, 1981 information. offense and the precise date need not be stated but
- On May 21, 1970 when the prosecution was it does not mean that it can prove any date remote
NATURE scheduled to present its evidence, it verbally moved or far removed from the given approximate date so
Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary that it be allowed to amend the information so as to as to surprise and prejudice the accused.
injunction on the order dated July 10, 1970, of the change the date of the commission of the offense Reasoning
respondent Judge, (Hon. Alfredo C. Reyes of the from "August 1969" to "August 1964." Private - The period of almost five years between 1947 and
Circuit Criminal Court, 4th Judicial District, respondent Francisco Estrella, having come to the 1952 covers such a long stretch of time that one
Cabanatuan City) in Criminal Case No. CCC-IV-170- trial court ready to defend himself from an offense cannot help but be led to believe that another theft
NE, "People v Francisco Estrella," which denied allegedly committed in "August 1969", vigorously different from that committed by the co-defendants
petitioner's verbal motion for the amendment of the objected to the verbal motion. in 1952 was also perpetrated by them in 1947. Under
information in said case, by deleting the year "1969" - Respondent Judge withheld his ruling on the this impression the accused, who came to Court
as alleged therein, and in lieu thereof to put the year prosecution's motion to amend, and instead, prepared to face a charge of theft of large cattle
"1964 ". required the prosecution to present its first witness, allegedly committed by them in 1952, were certainly
to determine whether the sought amendment in the caught by sudden surprise upon being confronted by
FACTS information would constitute a change of substance evidence tending to prove a similar offense
- Sometime in October, an information for qualified affecting the rights of the accused or merely of form. committed in 1947. The variance is certainly unfair to
theft was filed against private respondent Francisco - Florentino Alcantara, originally a co-accused but them, for it violates their constitutional rights to be
Estrella and three others, as Criminal Case No. 6799, discharged as a prosecution witness, testified that informed before the trial of the specific charge
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 27 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

against them and deprives them of the opportunity WON an information for the crime of homicide can be - As a result of a shooting incident, two
to defend themselves. Moreover, they cannot be amended so as to charge the crime of murder after informations for frustrated homicide were
convicted of an offense of which they were not the accused had entered a plea of not guilty filed against Sixto Ruiz in the Court of First
charged. (People v Opemia) Instance of Rizal.
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the questioned orders HELD - In Criminal Case No. 4747, Ernesto Bello
dated July 10, 1970 and September 14, 1970, by NO. was named as the victim, while in Criminal
respondent Judge are hereby AFFIRMED, the - The provision which is relevant to the problem is Case No 4748, Rogelio Bello was the
preliminary injunction issued on September 24, 1970 Rule 110, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court complainant.
dissolved, and this petition DISMISSED for lack of - The petitioner invokes the first paragraph, whereas - Upon arraignment, Sixto Ruiz pleaded not
merit. Without costs. the respondent relies on the second. guilty to the two informations.
Voting Fernandez,* Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., - To amend the information so as to change the - A reinvestigation of these two cases was
concur. crime charged from homicide to the more serious made in the Dept. of Justice, following which
offense of murder after the petitioner had pleaded State Prosecutor filed a motion for leave of
not guilty to the former is indubitably proscribed by court to amend the informations on the
SEPARATE OPINION the first paragraph of the above-quoted provision. ground that the evidence disclosed a prima
For certainly a change from homicide to murder is facie case against Luis Padilla and Magsikap
not a matter of form; it is one of substance with very Ongchenco who acted in conspiracy with
BARREDO [concur]
serious consequences. Ruiz.
I concur, but I believe this decision cannot bar
- Can the amendment be justified under the second - Ruiz filed his opposition to the motion.
another prosecution of private respondent under
paragraph? The answer is, No. For the provision - The trial Judge denied the motion to amend
another information charging theft committed in
speaks not of amendment but of dismissal of the the information saying that allowance of the
1964.
information. in other words the provision amendment alleging conspiracy would be
contemplates the filing of a substitute, not an amending the manner of committing the
DIONALDO v DACUYCUY amended information crime and thereby would constitute
108 SCRA 736 - Can not the information for homicide against the substantial amendment.
ABAD SANTOS; October 30, 1981 petitioner be dismissed since no judgment has yet - As a consequence, State Prosecutor filed
been rendered and another information for murder two new informations for frustrated
NATURE be filed? The answer, again, is, No. For the petitioner homicide against Luis Padilla and Magsikap
Petition to nullify orders of respondent judge having pleaded not guilty to homicide, to dismiss the Ongchenco (Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and
charge against him so as to file another charge for 9674) alleging that the two conspired with
FACTS murder will place him thereby in double jeopardy. Ruiz who was referred to as accused in
-Petitioner Rolando Dionaldo stands charged with the Aquino concur: Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748.
crime of homicide. After he entered a plea of not - respondent Judge relied on Dimalibot vs. Salcedo - Padilla and Ongchenco moved to quash the
guilty, the prosecution filed a motion for leave to - The Dimalibot case is different from the instant two new informations. The motion was
amend the information, attaching thereto an case. The plea in the Dimalibot case was made denied by the lower court.
amended information charging the accused with during the preliminary investigation to a complaint
for homicide filed in the justice of the peace court.
- Ruiz also filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673
murder qualified by treachery and evident and 9674 a motion to permit to quash
premeditation-a more serious offense. That is not the plea contemplated in Section 9, Rule
and/or strike out the allegation of
-No explanation was given in the motion for alleging 117 of the Rules of Court. The plea in the instant
conspiracy in the two informations. The
evident premeditation but as to the allegation of case was made to an information filed in the Court of
trial Judge ordered the striking out from the
treachery it was explained that, "the affidavit of the First Instance.
records the aforesaid motion and clarified
complaining witness indicates that the attack was that “the allegation of conspiracy does not
sudden and it was only after they sustained the PEOPLE v CA (RUIZ) alter the theory of the case, nor does it
wounds consequent to the treacherous attack that 121 SCRA 733 introduce innovation nor does it present
they were forced to fight back to repel further
RELOVA: April 28, 1983 alternative imputation nor is it inconsistent
aggression." It can thus be seen that all along this with the with the original allegations.”
claimed circumstance was known to the prosecution - From these orders of the lower court, Ruiz,
NATURE
but it was not alleged. Padilla, and Ongchenco went to the CA on a
Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to
-Counsel for the accused opposed the motion to petition for certiorari with preliminary
review the decision and resolution of the CA
amend the information but the respondent judge injunction alleging that the trial Judge
granted the motion exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his
FACTS
judicial discretion in issuing the orders in
ISSUE Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 28 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- CA granted petition. The motion for Antonio Cimarra, Ulpiano Villar, Bayani Catindig and merely states with additional precision something
reconsideration by herein petitioners to the Avelino de Leon. Said accused (now private which is already contained in the original
foregoing decision of the CA was denied for respondents) were all members of the police force of information, and which, therefore, adds nothing
lack of merit. Quezon City and were charged as accessories-after- essential for conviction for the crime charged is an
the-fact in the robbery committed by the minor amendment to form that can be made at anytime.
ISSUE Ricardo Cabaloza, who had already pleaded guilty - The proposed amendments in the amended
WON the CA erred in granting the petition of (Ruiz, and had been convicted in a crimial case before the information, in the instant case, are clearly
Padilla, and Ongchenco) Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon substantial and have the effect of changing the crime
City. Ricardo Cabaloza was convicted for the robbery charged from "Robbery" punishable under Article 209
HELD of the same items, articles and pieces of jewelry to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place" punishable
YES belonging to Ding Velayo, Inc. valued at P75,591.40. under Art. 302 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby
- First and foremost, the trial Judge should - Upon arraignment, all of the accused (now private exposing the private respondents-accused to a
have allowed the amendment in Criminal respondents) entered a plea of "not guilty" to the higher penalty as compared to the penalty imposable
Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 considering that charge filed against them. for the offense charged in the original information to
the amendments sought were only formal. - However, before the trial could proceed, the which the accused had already entered a plea of "not
- The amendments of Criminal Cases Nos. prosecuting fiscal filed a Motion to Admit Amended guilty" during their arraignment.
4747 and 4748 would not have prejudiced Information seeking to amend the original - Moreover, the change in the items, articles and
Ruiz whose participation as principal in the information by: (1) changing the offense charged pieces of jewelry allegedly stolen into entirely
crimes charged did not change. from "Robbery" to "Robbery in an Uninhabited different articles from those originally complained of,
- But the fact that the trial court erred in Place," (2) alleging conspiracy among all the affects the essence of the imputed crime, and would
denying the motion of the prosecution to accused, and (3) deleting all items, articles and deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet all
amend the informations in Criminal Cases pieces of jewelry alleged to have been stolen in the the allegations in the amended information, in the
Nos. 4747 and 4748 was no bar to the filing original Information and substituting them with a preparation of their defenses to the charge filed
of the new informations. The allegation in different set of items valued at P71,336.80. against them. It will be observed that private
Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 filed - Private respondents opposed the admission of the respondents were accused as accessories-after-the-
against Padilla and Ongchenco that the two Amended Information. The respondent court resolved fact of the minor Ricardo Cabaloza who had already
conspired and confederated with Ruiz to deny the proposed amendments contained in the been convicted of robbery of the items listed in the
merely describe the fact that the latter was Amended Information. Petitioner moved for original information. To charge them now as
already charged with the same offense. It is reconsideration of the aforesaid order but the accessories-after-the-fact for a crime different from
incorrect to say that the allegations of respondent court denied said motion; hence, this that committed by the principal, would be manifestly
conspiracy include Ruiz as a defendant in petition. incongruous as to be allowed by the Court.
the said case. Thus, he cannot file a motion - The allegation of conspiracy among all the private
to quash the same. ISSUE respondents-accused, which was not previously
Dispositive Decision and resolution of the CA are WON the amended information should be admitted included in the original information, is likewise a
SET ASIDE. Decisions of lower court allowing substantial amendment saddling the respondents
retention of the allegation of conspiracy and the HELD with the need of a new defense in order to meet a
reference to Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 in - Amendment of an information under Sec. 14, Rule different situation in the trial court. To allow at this
the informations filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure stage the proposed amendment alleging conspiracy
and 9674 are SUSTAINED. (formerly, Section 13, Rule 110 of the old Rules on among all the accused, will make all of the latter
Criminal Procedure) may be made at any time before liable not only for their own individual transgressions
PEOPLE v MONTENEGRO the accused enters a plea to the charge. Thereafter or acts but also for the acts of their co-conspirators.
and during the trial, amendments to the information Dispositive Petition is DISMISSED. Orders of the
159 SCRA 236
may also be allowed, as to matters of form, provided respondent court AFFIRMED. TRO lifted.
PADILLA; March 25, 1988 that no prejudice is caused to the rights of the
accused. GARCIA v FLORIDO
NATURE - The test as to when the rights of an accused are
Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction 52 SCRA 420
prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or
and/or restraining order information is when a defense under the complaint or ANTONIO; August 31, 1973
information, as it originally stood, would no longer be
FACTS available after the amendment is made, and when NATURE
- The City Fiscal of Quezon City, thru Assistant Fiscal any evidence the accused might have, would be Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of
Virginia G. Valdez, filed an Information for "Robbery" inapplicable to the complaint or information as First Instance of Misamis Occidental, dismissing
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal against amended. On the other hand, an amendment which petitioners' action for damages against respondents,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 29 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Mactan Transit Co., Inc. and Pedro Tumala, "without filed by the Chief of Police and that, with the filing of effect abandoned their right to press recovery for
prejudice to refiling the said civil action after the aforesaid criminal case, no civil action could be damages in the criminal case, and have opted
conviction of the defendants in the criminal case filed filed subsequent thereto unless the criminal case has instead to recover them in the present civil case.
by the Chief of Police of Sindangan, Zamboanga del been finally adjudicated, pursuant to Sec. 3 of Rule - As a result of this action of petitioners the civil
Norte", and from the order of said Court dated 111 of the Rules of Court, and, therefore, the filing of liability of private respondents to the former has
January 21, 1972, denying petitioners' motion for the instant civil action is premature, because the ceased to be involved in the criminal action.
reconsideration. liability of the employer is merely subsidiary and Undoubtedly an offended party loses his right to
does not arise until after final judgment has been intervene in the prosecution of a criminal case, not
FACTS rendered finding the driver, Pedro Tumala, guilty of only when he has waived the civil action or expressly
- On August 4, 1971, petitioners, German C. Garcia, negligence; that Art. 33 of the New Civil Code, is not reserved his right to institute, but also when he has
Chief of the Misamis Occidental Hospital, together applicable because Art 33 applied only to the crimes actually instituted the civil action. For by either of
with his wife, Luminosa L. Garcia, and Ester of physical injuries or homicide, not to the negligent such actions his interest in the criminal case has
Francisco, bookkeeper of said hospital, hired and act or imprudence of the driver. disappeared.
boarded a PU car with plate No. 241-8 G Ozamis 71 - The lower court sustained Mactan Inc. et. Al. and - As we have stated at the outset, the same
owned and operated by respondent, Marcelino dismissed the complaint negligent act causing damages may produce a civil
Inesin, and driven by respondent, Ricardo Vayson, for liability arising from crime or create an action for
a roundtrip from Oroquieta City to Zamboanga City, ISSUES quasi-delict or culpa extracontractual. The former is
for the purpose of attending a conference of chiefs of 1. WON the lower court erred in dismissing the a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a
government hospitals, hospital administrative distinct and independent negligence, having always
complaint for damages on the ground that
officers, and bookkeepers of Regional Health Office had its own foundation and individuality. Some legal
since no express reservation was made by
No. 7 at Zamboanga City. writers are of the view that in accordance with Article
the complainants, the civil aspect of the
- At about 9:30 a.m., while the PU car was 31, the civil action based upon quasi-delict may
criminal case would have to be determined
negotiating a slight curve on the national highway at proceed independently of the criminal proceeding for
only after the termination of the criminal
kilometer 21 in Barrio Guisukan, Sindangan, criminal negligence and regardless of the result of
case
Zamboanga del Norte, said car collided with an the latter. Hence, "the proviso in Section 2 of Rule
oncoming passenger bus (No. 25) with plate No. 77-4 2. WON the lower court erred in saying that 111 with reference to . . . Articles 32, 33 and 34 of
W Z.N. 71 owned and operated by the Mactan Transit the action is not based on quasi-delict since the Civil Code is contrary to the letter and spirit of
Co., Inc. and driven by defendant, Pedro Tumala. As the allegations of the complaint in culpa the said articles, for these articles were drafted . . .
a result of the aforesaid collision, petitioners aquiliana must not be tainted by any and are intended to constitute as exceptions to the
sustained various physical injuries which assertion of violation of law or traffic rules general rule stated in what is now Section 1 of Rule
necessitated their medical treatment and or regulations and because of the prayer in 111. The proviso, which is procedural, may also be
hospitalization. the complaint asking the Court to declare regarded as an unauthorized amendment of
- Alleging that both drivers of the PU car and the the defendants jointly and severally liable substantive law, Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil
passenger bus were at the time of the accident for moral, compensatory and exemplary Code, which do not provide for the reservation
driving their respective vehicles at a fast clip, in a damages required in the proviso."
reckless, grossly negligent and imprudent manner in - But in whatever way We view the institution of the
gross violation of traffic rules and without due regard HELD civil action for recovery of damages under quasi-
to the safety of the passengers aboard the PU car, 1. YES delict by petitioners, whether as one that should be
petitioners, German C. Garcia, Luminosa L. Garcia, Ratio An action based on quasi-delict may be governed by the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 111
and Ester Francisco, filed on September 1, 1971 with maintained independently from a criminal action. By of the Rules which require reservation by the injured
respondent Court of First Instance of Misamis instituting a civil action based on a quasi-delict, a party considering that by the institution of the civil
Occidental an action for damages (Civil Case No. complainant may be deemed to abandon his/her action even before the commencement of the trial of
2850) against the private respondents, owners and right to press recovery for damages in the criminal the criminal case, petitioners have thereby
drivers, respectively, of the PU car and the passenger case. foreclosed their right to intervene therein, or one
bus that figured in the collision, with prayer for Reasoning where reservation to file the civil action need not be
preliminary attachment. - In the case at bar, there is no question that made, for the reason that the law itself (Article 33 of
- The principal argument advanced by Mactan Inc. et. petitioners never intervened in the criminal action the Civil Code) already makes the reservation and
al to in a motion to dismiss was that the petitioners instituted by the Chief of Police against respondent the failure of the offended party to do so does not
had no cause of action for on August 11, 1971, or 20 Pedro Tumala, much less has the said criminal action bar him from bringing the action, under the peculiar
days before the filing of the present action for been terminated either by conviction or acquittal of circumstances of the case, We find no legal
damages, respondent Pedro Tumala was charged in said accused. justification for respondent court's order of dismissal.
Criminal Case No. 4960 of the Municipal Court of - It is, therefore, evident that by the institution of the 2. YES, because the action in fact satisfies the
Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, in a complaint present civil action for damages, petitioners have in elements of quasi-delict.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 30 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Ratio An action shall be deemed to be based on a however, that neither Section 1 nor Section 2 of Rule before the RTC, Branch 12, seeking to set aside the
quasi-delict when all the essential averments under 111 fixes a time limit when such reservation shall be MTC order of suspension. The petition was docketed
Articles 2176-2194 of the New Civil Code are present, made. as Civil Case No. CEB-26195.
namely: (a) act or omission of the private - Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition
respondents; (b) presence of fault or negligence or SEPARATE OPINION on the ground that the petition was filed by the
the lack of due care in the operation of the private complainant, instead of the government
passenger bus No. 25 by respondent Pedro Tumala prosecutor representing the People of the Philippines
BARREDO [concur]
resulting in the collision of the bus with the in criminal cases. RTC dismissed the petition for lack
- I would like to limit my concurrence.
passenger car; (c) physical injuries and other of conformity or signature of the government
- Article 2176 and 2177 definitely create a civil
damages sustained by petitioners as a result of the prosecutor. Petitioner moved MFR but was denied.
liability distinct and different from the civil action
collision; (d) existence of direct causal connection From these orders, petitioner filed the instant
arising from the offense of negligence under the
between the damage or prejudice and the fault or petition for review.
Revised Penal Code. Since Civil Case No. 2850 is
negligence of private respondents; and (e) the Petitioner’s Claim That a person aggrieved may
predicated on the above civil code articles and not on
absence of pre-existing contractual relations file a special civil action for certiorari and that
the civil liability imposed by the Revised Penal Code,
between the parties. “person” includes the complainant or the offended
I cannot see why a reservation had to be made in the
Reasoning party. A special action on an order issued by a lower
criminal case. As to the specific mention of Article
- The circumstance that the complaint alleged that court in a criminal case may be filed by the private
2177 in Section 2 of the Rule 111, it is my considered
respondents violated traffic rules in that the driver offended party.
view that the latter provision is inoperative, it being
drove the vehicle "at a fast clip in a reckless, grossly Respondents’s Comment In all criminal cases, all
substantive in character and is not within the power
negligent and imprudent manner in violation of initiatory pleadings, as well as subsequent
of the Supreme Court to promulgate, and even if it
traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of proceedings, must be initiated by the government
were not substantive but adjective, it cannot stand
the passengers aboard the PU car" does not detract counsel because the injured party is the People of
because of its inconsistency with Article 2177, an
from the nature and character of the action, as one the Philippines and the private complainant is a mere
enactment of the legislature superseding the Rules of
based on culpa aquiliana. The violation of traffic rules witness to the offense allegedly committed by the
1940.
is merely descriptive of the failure of said driver to accused. People v. Dacudao and Metropolitan Bank
- Besides, the actual filing of Civil Case No. 2850
observe for the protection of the interests of others, and Trust Company v. Veridiano II apply, such that a
should be deemed as the reservation required, there
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which private prosecutor in a criminal case has no authority
being no showing that prejudice could be caused by
the circumstances justly demand, which failure to act for the People of the Philippines. It is the
doing so.
resulted in the injury on petitioners. Certainly government’s counsel, the Sol-Gen, who appears in
- Accordingly, I concur in the judgment reversing the
excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear criminal cases or incidents before SC.
order of dismissal of the trial court in order that Civil
indication of negligence. Since the same negligent
Case No. 2850 may proceed, subject to the limitation
act resulted in the filing of the criminal action by the ISSUE
mentioned in the last sentence of Article 2177 of the
Chief of Police with the Municipal Court (Criminal WON a private offended party in a criminal
Civil Code, which means that of the two possible
Case No. 4960) and the civil action by petitioners, it proceeding may file a special civil action for certiorari
judgments, the injured party is entitled exclusively to
is inevitable that the averments on the drivers' under Rule 65, assailing an interlocutory order,
the bigger one.
negligence in both complaints would substantially be without the conformity of the public prosecutor
the same. It should be emphasized that the same
negligent act causing damages may produce a civil RODRIGUEZ v GADIANE HELD
liability arising from a crime under Art. 100 of the 495 SCRA 368 YES
Revised Penal Code or create an action for quasi- TINGA; July 17, 2006 Ratio If criminal case is dismissed by the trial court
delict or culpa extra-contractual under Arts. 2176- or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal
2194 of the New Civil Code. This distinction has been NATURE aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor
amply explained in Barredo vs. Garcia, et all (73 Phil. Petition for review on certiorari General in behalf of the State. The capability of the
607, 620-621). private complainant to question such dismissal or
- It is true that under Sec. 2 in relation to Sec. 1 of FACTS acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect of the
Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court which became - Thomasita Rodriguez (petitioner) was the private case. (Metrobank v. Veridiano II). But if the order
effective on January 1, 1964, in the cases provided complainant in a criminal case filed against Rolando which is assailed is not one dismissing the case or
for by Articles 31, 33, 39 and 2177 of the Civil Code, Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols, Jr. (respondents), for acquitting respondents / defendants, there is no
an independent civil action entirely separate and violation of B.P. 22. The MTC hearing the complaint limitation to the capacity of the private complainant
distinct from the civil action, may be instituted by the had suspended the criminal proceeding on the to seek judicial review of the assailed order.
injured party during the pendency of the criminal ground that a prejudicial question was posed in a Reasoning
case, provided said party has reserved his right to separate civil case then pending. On 28 Feb. 2001, - [1] A special civil action for certiorari may be filed
institute it separately, but it should be noted, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 by an aggrieved party alleging grave abuse of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 31 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction "Timog Park," located in Angeles City, with Manuel P. -Private respondents contend that since petitioner
on the part of the trial court. In a long line of cases, Lazatin (Lazatin, for short) as its President. did not comply with the agreement, he was not
this Court construed the term “aggrieved parties” to - Antolin T. Naguiat purchased, on installment basis, entitled to the 10% rebate in price, and as a
include the State and the private offended party or four (4) lots from TSDC, identified as Lots Nos. 13, consequence, the previous payments made by
complainant. The complainant has an interest in the 14, 15 and 16, of Block 26 of Timog Park. Each lot petitioner did not amount to full payment as required
civil aspect of the case so he may file such special consists of 300 square meters. The four (4) lots have for all the lots and which would have entitled
civil action questioning the decision or action of the a total area of 1,200 square meters, with a price of petitioner to the issuance and delivery of the
respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so P60.00 per square meter. On the same date (7 certificates of title to all the lots.
doing, complainant should not bring the action in the February 1983) petitioner made a down payment of -On 26 July 1984, petitioner, filed a complaint for
name of the People of the Philippines. The action P7,200.00, representing 10% of the alleged total specific performance with damages, with the
may be prosecuted in name of said complainant. price of P72,000.00 for the four (4) lots. A Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch LX,
- [2] In this case, there is no doubt that petitioner corresponding receipt for the downpayment was docketed as Civil Case No. 4224. In his complaint,
maintains an interest in the litigation of the civil issued by TSDC to the petitioner. While the Contract petitioner prayed, among others, that judgment be
aspect of the case against respondents. Section 1(b), to Sell between TSDC and the petitioner stipulated a rendered ordering private respondents to deliver to
Rule 111 of 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states two-year period within which to pay the total him the transfer certificates of title covering the
that the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall contract price, the latter made substantial payments three (3) lots which he had allegedly fully paid for,
be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. in the months of June to August 1983. On 10 August and which private respondents had refused to do so.
Hence, the possible conviction of respondents would 1983, he paid the sum of P12,529.30 as his alleged Also, it was prayed that judgment be rendered
concurrently provide a judgment for damages in full payment for Lot. No. 16, after which, TSDC ordering the private respondents to jointly and
favor of petitioner. The suspension of the criminal caused to be issued in the name of the petitioner the severally pay the petitioner, actual damages equal to
case which petitioner decries would necessarily title to said lot. On 7 November 1983, petitioner paid P320,000.00, representing unrealized gross profits;
cause delay in the resolution of the civil aspect of the TSDC the amount of P36,067.97, which was allegedly moral damages at the discretion of the court; and,
said case which precisely is the interest and concern his full payment for the remaining three (3) Lots, attorney's fees equal to P15,000.00, plus the costs of
of petitioner. Such interest warrants protection from namely, Lots Nos. 13, 14 and 15. A corresponding the action.
the courts. receipt for said amount was also issued by TSDC to -Before the civil action was filed, petitioner also filed
Dispositive: Petition is GRANTED. The assailed the petitioner. on 5 June 1984 with the City Fiscal of Angeles City a
orders of RTC are SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. CEB- -Thereafter, from December 1983 up to June 1984, criminal complaint against herein respondent Manuel
26195 is REINSTATED petitioner demanded from TSDC the issuance in his Lazatin, for violation of Presidential Decree No. 957,
favor of the certificates of title for the three (3) lots, specifically Section 25 thereof, which provides:
last paid for, but the private respondents (TSDC and "PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957
Lazatin) refused on the ground that the petitioner REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISIONS LOTS
had not fully paid for said three (3) lots. AND CONDOMINIUMS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
-Sometime in January, 1983, TSDC's Board of VIOLATIONS THEREOF.
Directors approved the petitioner's contemplated SEC. 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or
purchase of the aforesaid lots. To confirm the developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to
agreement, respondent Lazatin wrote petitioner a the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No
letter reiterating standard conditions of the sale, fee, except those required for the registration of
which the petitioner allegedly accepted by affixing the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds shall be
his conformity to said letter. The conditions for the collected for the issuance of such title. In the event
NAGUIAT v IAC (TIMOG SILANGAN sale of the lots were among others, "(i) 10% down a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at
payment with a commitment to commence the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer,
DEVELOPMENT CORP)
construction therefrom (thereon) in one month's the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage
164 SCRA 505 time; (ii) said construction to be finished within a or the corresponding portion thereof within six
PADILLA; August 18, 1988 period of six (6) months; and, (iii) the effective price months such issuance in order that the title over
was P70 per square meter with a rebate of P10.00 any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and
NATURE per square meter upon completion of the house in six delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith.
Petition to review on certiorari the decision of the (6) months." But, as alleged by the private SEC. 39. Penalties. Any person who shall violate
Intermediate Appellate Court respondents, petitioner commenced the construction any of the provisions of this Decree and/or any rule
of a house on one lot but failed to finish it within the or regulation that may be issued pursuant to this
FACTS stipulated period of six (6) months. And as to the Decree, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
-Timog Silangan Development Corporation (TSDC, for other lots, petitioner allegedly failed altogether to fine of not more than twenty thousand
short) is a domestic corporation engaged in the construct houses on them. (P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not
business of developing and selling subdivision lots in more than ten years: Provided, that in the case of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 32 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

corporations, partnership, cooperatives, or 2. WON the civil and criminal case should be the same, which are, the Contract to Sell, the letter
associations, the President, Manager or consolidated which contains the conditions for the purchase of the
Administrator or the person who has charge of the lots and, to which petitioner allegedly affixed his
administration of the business shall be criminally HELD conformity, the official receipts for the alleged
responsible for any violation of this Decree and/or 1. NO payments made by the petitioner, and other related
the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant - In the case at bar, the petitioner filed his motions documents.
thereto." for extension of time to file a motion for - Based on the foregoing, and considering that the
-On 13 September 1984, an information was filed reconsideration on 30 October 1985 and 15 criminal action filed is one for violation of a special
against respondent Lazatin. November 1985, both within the periods sought to be law where, irrespective of the motives, mere
-Petitioner filed on 23 February 1985 a motion to extended. Hence the Habaluyas ruling did not yet commission of the act prohibited by said special law,
consolidate Civil Case No. 4224 and Criminal Case apply to bar said motions for extension. As admitted constitutes the offense, then the intervention of the
No. 6727. Despite the objection and opposition of the by petitioner himself, he filed with the respondent petitioner's counsel, as private prosecutor in the
private respondents, in an Order dated 20 March appellate court two (2) motions for extension of time criminal action, will not prejudice the substantial
1985, the trial court granted the motion and ordered to file motion for reconsideration of the latter court's rights of the accused.
consolidation of the two (2) cases. decision, with the justification that the two (2) - The consolidation of the two cases in question,
-At the pre-trial hearing of both cases, petitioners's motions were timely and properly presented, since where petitioner's counsel may act as counsel for the
counsel appeared as counsel for the plaintiff in Civil they were filed before the expiration of the plaintiff in the civil case and private prosecutor in the
Case and as private prosecutor in the Criminal Case. respective periods sought to be extended. criminal case, will instead be conducive to the early
Private respondents objected, and filed their Motion - The case of Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, termination of the two (2) cases, and will redound to
and Opposition to Appearance of Plaintiff as Private has ruled that: the benefit and convenience of the parties; as well as
Prosecutor with respect to the trial of the Criminal "Beginning one month after the promulgation of this to the speedy administration of justice.
Case; the opposition was overruled by the trial court. Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no - As a ground for the consolidation of the criminal
-Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari and motion for extension of time to file a motion for new and civil cases, petitioner invokes Rule 111, Sec.
prohibition with the respondent appellate court, trial or reconsideration may be filed with the 3(a), Rules of Court, which provides:
seeking the annulment of the orders of the trial Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional "Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses.
court, dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985. In due Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court." Whenever the offended party shall have instituted
course, the respondent appellate court rendered a - Based on the aforequoted ruling of the Habaluyas the civil action to enforce the civil liability arising
decision favorable to herein private respondents. case, motions for extension of time to file a motion from the offense, as contemplated in the first
-The decision of the respondent appellate court was for new trial or reconsideration may no longer be paragraph of Section 1 hereof, the following rules
received by petitioner's counsel on 16 October 1985. filed before all courts, lower than the Supreme Court. shall be observed:
On 30 October 1985, petitioner's counsel filed with The rule in Habaluyas applies even if the motion is (a) 'After a criminal action has been commenced,
the respondent appellate court a Motion for filed before the expiration of the period sought to be the pending civil action arising from the same
Extension of Time to file a motion for reconsideration extended, because the fifteen (15) day period for offense shall be suspended, in whatever stage it
of aforesaid decision, praying for fifteen (15) days filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration with may be found until final judgment in the criminal
from 31 October 1985, within which to file said said courts, is non-extendible. But as resolved also in proceeding has been rendered. However, if no final
motion. the Habaluyas case, the rule that no motion for judgment has been rendered by the trial court in
-On 15 November 1985, petitioner's counsel filed a extension of time to file a motion for new trial or the civil action, the same may be consolidated with
Second Motion for Extension of Time to file a motion reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or the criminal action upon application with the court
for reconsideration, praying for another fifteen (15) Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and trying the criminal action. If the application is
days from 15 November 1985, within which to file the Intermediate Appellate Court, shall be strictly granted, the evidence presented and admitted in
said motion for reconsideration. It was denied stating enforced "beginning one month after the the civil action shall be deemed automatically
among others that the fifteen (5) days period to file a promulgation of this Resolution." The Court reproduced in the criminal action, without
motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. promulgated the Habaluyas resolution on 30 May prejudice to the admission of additional evidence
-On 2 December 1985, petitioner's counsel still filed 1986. Thus, the Habaluyas ruling became effective, that any party may wish to present.
his motion for reconsideration it was also denied. and strictly enforced, only beginning 1 July 1986. Under the aforequoted provision, the civil action
2. YES that may be consolidated with a criminal action, is
ISSUES - In the cases at bar, the nature of the issues one for the recovery of civil liability arising from
1. WON no motion for extension of time to file a involved, at least, the factual issues in the civil and the criminal offense, or ex delicto. In the case at
motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed criminal actions are almost identical, i.e., whether or bar, the civil action filed by the petitioner was for
with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the not petitioner had fully paid for the lots he purchased specific performance with damages. The main
Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate from the private respondents, so as to entitle him to relief sought in the latter case, i.e., the delivery of
Court as applied in the Habaluyas rule the delivery of the certificates of title to said lots. The the certificates of title to the lots which petitioner
evidence in both cases, likewise, would virtually be had allegedly fully paid for, was grounded on the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 33 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Contract to Sell between the petitioner and the REYES v SEMPIO-DIY reservation therefore…” (Judgment in such a
private respondent. Hence the civil action filed by proceeding becomes binding as res judicata,
141 SCRA 208
the petitioner was for the enforcement of an according to Roa v Dela Cruz. Thus, plaintiff is
obligation arising from a contract, or ex contractu, PATAJO; January 29, 1986 barred).
and not one for the recovery of civil liability arising
from an offense; hence, the law invoked by the ISSUE
petitioner is inapplicable. NATURE WON intervention of private prosecution and failure
- But, as held in Canos v. Peralta, the consolidation of Direct appeal on a question of law from a resolution to make a reservation bars plaintiff from filing a
a criminal action with a civil action arising not ex of the Regional Trial Court (Malabon). separate civil action for damages against the
delicto, may still be done, based upon the express accused
authority of Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, FACTS
which provides: - MTC (Navotas): Cristina Malicsi was charged with HELD
"Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving the crime of intriguing against honor. Zenaida Cruz NO, plaintiff is not barred.
a common question of law or fact are pending before Reyes (petitioner) was the aggrieved party. In said Ratio The mere appearance of a private prosecutor
the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any criminal case, Reyes was represented by a private in the criminal case does not necessarily constitute
or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order prosecutor named Atty. Barayang. such intervention on the part of the aggrieved party
all the actions consolidated; and it may make such - Malicsi pleaded guilty to the information and was as could only import an intention on her part to press
orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend sentenced to pay P50. Because of her plea of guilty, her claim for damages in said criminal case and a
to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." the aggrieved party was unable to present evidence waiver of her right to file a separate civil action for
- In Canos v. Peralta, where the Court sustained the to prove damages against the accused. Reyes was damages.
order of a trial court to consolidate a civil action (an not able to make a reservation of her right to file a Reasoning
action for the recovery of wage differential, overtime separate civil action for damages. - In the Roa case, there was a full-blown hearing
and termination pay, plus damages) with a criminal - Instead, she filed a new action against Cristina where a private prosecutor participated actively and
action (for violation of the Minimum Wage Law), it Malicsi and her husband with the Regional Trial Court there could be no question that the aggrieved party's
was held that: for damages arising from defamatory words which participation through the private prosecutor in said
"A Court may order several actions pending before it were the subject of the information in the Criminal case clearly indicated her intention to have her claim
to be tried together where they arise from the same action. for damages litigated in the criminal action against
act, event or transaction, involve the same or like - At the pre-trial plaintiff admitted that she was the accused. It was only after the trial of the case on
issues, and depend largely or substantially on the represented by a private prosecutor in the criminal the merits that a decision was rendered finding the
same evidence, provided that the court has case against defendant Cristina Malicsi and in said accused guilty of slight slander and sentencing her to
jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and case she did not reserve the right to file a separate pay a fine of P50.00 but making no award of
that a joint trial will not give one party an undue action for damages. There was also admission that damages in favor of the aggrieved party. The reason
advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any the private prosecutor was for proving damages for the Court's not making any award of damages is
of the parties . . .” against the accused. because of the failure of the aggrieved party to
- The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid - The issue in the RTC was WON the plaintiff, submit evidence to support her claim for damages.
multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and represented by a private prosecutor and the failing to - In the present case, while it is true that Reyes was
abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, make a reservation to file a separate action, was represented by a private prosecutor for the purpose
to simplify the work of the trial court; in short the barred from filing a separate civil action for damages of proving damages, the unexpected plea of guilt by
attainment of justice with the least expense and against the accused Cristina Malicsi. RTC ruled in the accused and her being sentenced immediately to
vexation to the parties litigants." favor of the defendant. a fine of P50.00 prevented petitioner from proving
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. - RTC: “There is no question that in defamation cases her claim for damages and making a reservation to
The decision of the respondent appellate court, dated (such as the present) as in cases of fraud and file a separate civil action. Controlling case should be
9 October 1985, is SET ASIDE. The Orders of the trial physical injuries, a civil action for damages entirely Meneses v Luat, and not Roa v Dela Cruz. In the Roa
court, in Civil Case No. 4224 and Criminal Case No. separate and distinct from the criminal action may case, not only was the offended party represented by
6727, dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985 are be brought by the injured party, and such action shall a private prosecutor in the criminal action, the action
REINSTATED. proceed independently of the criminal prosecution went through trial on the merits. In the Luat case,
SO ORDERED. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. defendant Luat did not proceed to trial, as he
An exception to the above rule; when the offended pleaded guilty upon arraignment. The mere
party actually intervenes in the criminal action by
CORPUS v PAJE appearance of private counsel in representation of
appearing therein through a private prosecutor for the offended party did not constitute such active
the purpose of recovering indemnity for damages, he intervention as could only import an intention to
BORDAS v CANADALLA is deemed to have waived his right to file a separate press a claim for damages in the same action.
civil action for damages if he failed to make a
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 34 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The failure of petitioner to make a reservation to -Defendants filed motion to dismiss alleging that (1) failed to file MR within the reglementary period.
file a separate civil action did not foreclose her right plaintiffs may not cause a judicial inquiry into the Plaintiffs claimed that the motion to set aside the
to file said separate complaint for damages. Under circumstances of their detention in the guise of a order of November 8, 1983 and the amplificatory
Article 33 of the Civil Code there is no requirement damage suit because, as to them, the privilege of the motion for reconsideration was filed for all the
that as a condition to the filing of a separate civil writ of habeas corpus is suspended; (2) assuming plaintiffs, although signed by only some of the
action for damages a reservation to file said civil that the courts can entertain the present action, lawyers.
action be first made in the criminal case and such defendants are immune from liability for acts done in -September 21, 1984: RTC issued order dealing with
reservation is not necessary, the provision of Rule the performance of their official duties; and (3) the both motions (1) to reconsider its order of May 11,
111, Section 2 notwithstanding. complaint states no cause of action against the 1984 declaring that with respect to certain plaintiffs,
Dispositive Petition is granted. defendants. the resolution of November 8, 1983 had already
-Plaintiffs filed two separate oppositions to the become final, and (2) to set aside its resolution of
ABERCA v VER motion to dismiss. November 8, 1983 granting the defendants' motion
-Defendants filed a Consolidated Reply. to dismiss. In effect, the case against the defendants
160 SCRA 590
-RTC NCR Branch 95 Judge Willelmo C. Fortun issued (except for Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo, and Master Sgt.
YAP; April 15, 1988 a resolution granting the motion to dismiss. "After a Bienvenido Balabaere) was dismissed.
careful study of defendants' arguments, the court -March 15, 1985: petitioners (plaintiffs below) filed
NATURE finds the same to be meritorious and must, the instant petition for certiorari seeking to annul and
Petition for certiorari therefore, be granted. On the other hand, plaintiffs' set aside RTC's resolution of November 8, 1983, its
arguments in their opposition are lacking in merit." order of May 11, 1984, and its resolution dated
FACTS -Plaintiffs filed motion to set aside the order September 21, 1984.
-This case stems from alleged illegal searches and dismissing the complaint and a supplemental motion -Respondents filed comment on the petition,
seizures and other violations of the rights and for reconsideration. November 9, 1985.
liberties of plaintiffs by various intelligence units of -Defendants filed a comment on the aforesaid motion -A reply was filed by petitioners on August 26, 1986.
the AFP, known as Task Force Makabansa (TFM) of plaintiffs, furnishing a copy thereof to the
ordered by General Fabian Ver "to conduct pre- attorneys of all the plaintiffs. ISSUES
emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist -December 15, 1983: Judge Fortun issued an order 1. WON the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
(CT) underground houses in view of increasing voluntarily inhibiting himself from further proceeding habeas corpus bars a civil action for damages for
reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in Metro in the case and leaving the resolution of the motion illegal searches conducted by military personnel and
Manila," to set aside the order of dismissal to Judge Lising, "to other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed
-Plaintiffs allege, among others, that complying with preclude any suspicion that he (Judge Fortun) cannot under the Constitution
said order, elements of the TFM raided several resolve [the] aforesaid pending motion with the cold 2. WON a superior officer under the notion of
places, employing in most cases defectively issued neutrality of an impartial judge and to put an end to respondent superior be answerable for damages,
judicial search warrants; that during these raids, plaintiffs assertion that the undersigned has no jointly and severally with his subordinates, to the
certain members of the raiding party confiscated a authority or jurisdiction to resolve said pending person whose constitutional rights and liberties have
number of purely personal items belonging to motion." been violated
plaintiffs; that plaintiffs were arrested without proper -Plaintiffs resolved an amplificatory motion for 3. WON RTC was correct in dismissing the complaint
warrants issued by the courts; that for some period reconsideration signed in the name of the Free Legal with respect to plaintiffs Rogelio Aberca, Danilo de la
after their arrest, they were denied visits of relatives Assistance Group (FLAG) of Mabini Legal Aid Puente, Marco Palo, Alan Jazminez, Alex Marcelino,
and lawyers; that plaintiffs were interrogated in Committee. Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino, Alfredo Mansos and
violation of their rights to silence and counsel; that -May 2,1984: defendants filed a comment on said Rolando Salutin, on the basis of the alleged failure of
military men who interrogated them employed amplificatory motion for reconsideration. said plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration of
threats, tortures and other forms of violence on them -May 11, 1984: RTC Judge Esteban Lising, without the court's resolution of November 8, 1983, granting
in order to obtain incriminatory information or acting on the motion to set aside order of November the respondent's motion to dismiss
confessions and in order to punish them; that all 8, 1983, issued an order declaring that since certain
violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights were part plaintiffs failed to file a motion to reconsider the HELD
of a concerted and deliberate plan to forcibly extract Order of November 8, 1983, dismissing the 1. NO
information and incriminatory statements from complaint, nor interposed an appeal therefrom within - The suspension of the privilege of the writ of
plaintiffs and to terrorize, harass and punish them, the reglementary period, as prayed for by the habeas corpus does not destroy petitioners' right and
said plans being previously known to and sanctioned defendants, said Order is now final against said cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and
by defendants. plaintiffs. detention and other violations of their constitutional
-Plaintiffs sought damages (actual/compensatory, -on May 28,1984: plaintiffs filed a motion for rights. The suspension does not render valid an
moral, exemplary), and attorney's fees. reconsideration, alleging that it was not true that the otherwise illegal arrest or detention. What is
plaintiffs mentioned in the order of May 11, 1984 suspended is merely the right of the individual to
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 35 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

seek release from detention through the writ of constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other meaning and a larger dimension. No longer may a
habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his penal statute. superior official relax his vigilance or abdicate his
liberty. - In carrying out this task and mission to protect the duty to supervise his subordinates, secure in the
- At the heart of petitioners' complaint is Article 32 of Republic from its enemies, constitutional and legal thought that he does not have to answer for the
the Civil Code. It is obvious that the purpose of the safeguards must be observed. transgressions committed by the latter against the
above codal provision is to provide a sanction to the -Moreover, petitioners' right and cause of action for constitutionally protected rights and liberties of the
deeply cherished rights and freedoms enshrined in damages are explicitly recognized in P.D. No. 1755 citizen. Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the
the Constitution. Its message is clear; no man may which amended Article 1146 of the Civil Code by persons who are directly, as well as indirectly,
seek to violate those sacred rights with impunity. adding the following to its text: “However, when the responsible for the transgression joint tortfeasors.
Certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and action (for injury to the rights of the plaintiff or for a -RTC was therefore mistaken in dropping defendants
cannot be sacrificed to the transient needs or quasi-delict) arises from or out of any act, activity or General Fabian Ver, Col. Fidel Singson, Col. Rolando
imperious demands of the ruling power. The rule of conduct of any public officer involving the exercise of Abadilla, Col. Gerardo Lantoria, Jr., Col. Galileo
law must prevail, or else liberty will perish. Our powers or authority arising from Martial Law Kintanar, Col. Panfilo Lacson, Capt. Danilo Pizarro, lst
commitment to democratic principles and to the rule including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the Lt. Pedro Tango, Lt. Romeo Ricardo and Lt. Ricardo
of law compels us to reject the view which reduces plaintiff, the same must be brought within one (1) Bacalso from the acts of their subordinates.
law to nothing but the expression of the will of the year. -The responsibility of the defendants, whether direct
predominant power in the community. Democracy -Even assuming that the suspension of the privilege or indirect, is amply set forth in the complaint. It is
cannot be a reign of progress, of liberty, of justice, of the writ of habeas corpus suspends petitioners' well established in our law and jurisprudence that a
unless the law is respected by him who makes it and right of action for damages for illegal arrest and motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint
by him for whom it is made. Now this respect implies detention, it does not and cannot suspend their states no cause of action must be based on what
a maximum of faith, a minimum of Idealism. On rights and causes of action for injuries suffered appears on the face of the complaint. To determine
going to the bottom of the matter, we discover that because of respondents' confiscation of their private the sufficiency of the cause of action, only the facts
life demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment belongings, the violation of their right to remain alleged in the complaint, and no others, should be
which is not derived from reason, but which reason silent and to counsel and their right to protection considered. For this purpose, the motion to dismiss
nevertheless controls. 2 against unreasonable searches and seizures and must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts
- We find respondents' invocation of the doctrine of against torture and other cruel and inhuman alleged in the complaint.
state immunity from suit totally misplaced. The cases treatment. -Applying this test, it is difficult to justify the trial
invoked by respondents actually involved acts done -However, we find it unnecessary to address the court's ruling, dismissing for lack of cause of action
by officers in the performance of official duties constitutional issue pressed upon us. On March 25, the complaint against all the defendants, except
written the ambit of their powers. It may be that the 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Master Sgt. Bienvenido
respondents, as members of the AFP, were merely Proclamation No. 2, revoking Proclamation Nos. 2045 Balaba. The complaint contained allegations against
responding to their duty, as they claim, "to prevent and 2045-A and lifting the suspension of the privilege all the defendants which, if admitted hypothetically,
or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion of the writ of habeas corpus. The question therefore would be sufficient to establish a cause or causes of
and subversion" in accordance with Proclamation No. has become moot and academic. action against all of them under Article 32 of the Civil
2054 of President Marcos, despite the lifting of 2. YES Code.
martial law on January 27, 1981, and in pursuance of -The doctrine of respondent superior has been 3. NO
such objective, to launch pre-emptive strikes against generally limited in its application to principal and -A timely motion to set aside said order of November
alleged communist terrorist underground houses. But agent or to master and servant (i.e. employer and 8, 1983 was filed by plaintiffs, through counsel. True,
this cannot be construed as a blanket license or a employee) relationship. No such relationship exists the motion was not signed by all the counsels for the
roving commission untramelled by any constitutional between superior officers of the military and their several plaintiffs but the body of the motion itself
restraint, to disregard or transgress upon the rights subordinates. clearly indicated that the motion was filed on behalf
and liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and -Be that as it may, however, the decisive factor in of all the plaintiffs.This must have been also the
protected by the Constitution. The Constitution this case, in our view, is the language of Article 32. understanding of defendants' counsel himself for
remains the supreme law of the land to which all The law speaks of an officer or employee or person when he filed his comment on the motion, he
officials, high or low, civilian or military, owe 'directly' or "indirectly" responsible for the violation furnished copies thereof, not just to the lawyers who
obedience and allegiance at all times. of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. signed the motion, but to all the lawyers of plaintiffs.
- Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any public Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e. the one directly -In filing the motion to set aside the resolution of
officer or employee or any private individual liable in responsible) who must answer for damages under November 8, 1983, the signing attorneys did so on
damages for violating the Constitutional rights and Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also behalf of all the plaintiff. They needed no specific
liberties of another, as enumerated therein, does not to answer for the damages or injury caused to the authority to do that. The authority of an attorney to
exempt the respondents from responsibility. Only aggrieved party. appear for and in behalf of a party can be assumed,
judges are excluded from liability under the said -By this provision, the principle of accountability of unless questioned or challenged by the adverse
article, provided their acts or omissions do not public officials under the Constitution acquires added
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 36 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

party or the party concerned, which was never done the precepts of the United Nations Charter and the - Respondents’ Comment The decision of the trial
in this case. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. More than court carries with it the final adjudication of her civil
Dispositive Petition granted. SC annuled and set this, pursuant to our Constitution which the people liability. Since petitioner chose to actively intervene
aside the resolution of the respondent court, dated decisively ratified on February 2, 1987, the in the criminal action without reserving his right to
November 8, 1983, its order dated May 11, 1984 and independent office of the Commission on Human file a separate civil action for damages, he assumed
its resolution dated September 21, 1984. Case Rights has been created and organized with ample the risk that in the event he failed to recover
remanded to the respondent court for further powers to investigate human rights violations and damages he cannot appeal from the decision of the
proceedings. Costs against private respondents. take remedial measures against all such violations by lower court.
the military as well as by the civilian groups.
SEPARATE OPINION ISSUES
OCCENA v ICAMINA 1. WON the decision of the MCTC constitutes the final
adjudication on the merits of private respondent's
TEEHANKEE [concur] 181 SCRA 328
civil liability
- All persons, be they public officers or employees, or FERNAN; January 22, 1990 2. WON petitioner is entitled to an award of damages
members of the military or police force or private
individuals who directly or indirectly obstruct, defeat, NATURE HELD
violate or in any manner impede or impair the Petition for certiorari to review the decision of RTC 1. NO
constitutional rights and civil liberties of another
- The decision of the MCTC has not yet become final
person, stand liable and may be sued in court for FACTS due to the timely appeal filed by petitioner with
damages as provided in Art. 32 of the Civil Code. - Petitioner Eulogio Occena instituted before the respect to the civil liability of the accused in said
- The decision herein upholds and reinstates the civil Second Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sibalom, San case. It was only the unappealed criminal aspect of
action for damages filed in the court below by Remigio — Belison, Province of Antique, Criminal the case which has become final.
petitioners-plaintiffs for illegal searches conducted by Case No. 1717, a criminal complaint for Grave Oral - People vs. Coloma: from a judgment convicting the
military personnel and other violations of their Defamation against private respondent Cristina accused, two (2) appeals may, accordingly, be taken.
constitutional rights and liberties. At the same time it Vegafria for allegedly openly, publicly and The accused may seek a review of said judgment, as
rejects the automatic application of the principle of maliciously uttering the following insulting words and regards both civil and criminal actions; while the
respondeat superior or command responsibility that statements: "Gago ikaw nga Barangay Captain, complainant may appeal with respect only to the civil
would hold a superior officer jointly and severally montisco, traidor, malugus, Hudas," which, freely action, either because the lower court has refused to
accountable for damages, including moral and translated, mean: "You are a foolish Barangay award damages or because the award made is
exemplary, with his subordinates who committed Captain, ignoramus, traitor, tyrant, Judas" and other unsatisfactory to him.
such transgressions. However, the judgment gives words and statements of similar import which caused The right of either to appeal or not to appeal in the
the caveat that a superior officer must not abdicate great and irreparable damage and injury to his event of conviction of the accused is not dependent
his duty to properly supervise his subordinates for he person and honor. upon the other. Petitioner may, as he did, appeal
runs the risk of being held responsible for gross - Private respondent as accused therein entered a from the decision on the civil aspect which is deemed
negligence and of being held under the cited plea of not guilty. Trial ensued, at which petitioner, instituted with the criminal action and such appeal,
provision of the Civil Code as indirectly and solidarily without reserving his right to file a separate civil timely taken, prevents the decision on the civil
accountable with the tortfeasor. action for damages actively intervened thru a private liability from attaining finality.
- Brandeis:"In a government of laws, existence of the prosecutor. 2. YES
government be imperilled following it fails to observe - After trial, private respondent was convicted of the - Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses are
the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent offense of Slight Oral Defamation and was sentenced governed by Article 100 of the RPC which provides
omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the to pay a fine of Fifty Pesos (P50.00) with subsidiary that "Every person criminally liable for a felony is
whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the also civilly liable," in relation to Article 2177 of the
government becomes the law breaker, it breeds costs. Civil Code on quasi-delict, the provisions for
contempt for the law, it invites every man to become - No damages were awarded to petitioner. independent civil actions in the Chapter on Human
a law unto himself, it invites anarchy. To declare that - Disagreeing, petitioner sought relief from the RTC, Relations and the provisions regulating damages,
in the administration of criminal law the end justifies which denied his petition. also found in the Civil Code.
the means ... would bring terrible retribution." - Petitioner’s Claim The RTC decision is contrary to - Underlying the legal principle that a person who is
- It need only be pointed out that one of the first acts Article 100 of the RPC providing that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable is the view that
of the present government under President Corazon criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable, and from the standpoint of its effects, a crime has dual
C. Aquino after her assumption of office in February, Article 2219 of the New Civil Code providing that character:
1986 was to file our government's ratification and moral damages may be recovered in libel, slander or (1) as an offense against the state because of the
access to all human rights instruments adopted any other form of defamation. disturbance of the social order; and
under the auspices of the United Nations, declaring
thereby the government's commitment to observe
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 37 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

(2) as an offense against the private person injured whether on reasonable doubt or not, is not a bar to a
by the crime unless it involves the crime of treason, NATURE subsequent civil action for recovery of civil liability,
rebellion, espionage, contempt and others wherein Petition for certiorari to review the order of the Court arising not from criminal negligence, but from a
no civil liability arises on the part of the offender of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Br. III. Zosa, J. quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
either because there are no damages to be - It has been held that Article 2176 of the Civil Code,
compensated or there is no private person injured by FACTS in referring to "fault or negligence" covers acts "not
the crime. - September 24, 1968, 2 PM – Bonite, a caminero of punishable by law" as well as acts that may be
In the ultimate analysis, what gives rise to the civil the Bureau of Public Highways was killed when he criminal in character, whether intentional and
liability is really the obligation of everyone to repair was hit by a truck driven by Abamonga. A complaint voluntary or negligent. A separate civil action lies
or to make whole the damage caused to another by for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not
reason of his act or omission, whether done filed by the surviving heirs of Bonite but Abamonga he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or
intentional or negligently and whether or not was acquitted because of insufficient evidence. acquitted, provided that the offended party is not
punishable by law. - In the course of the trial, the petitioners actively allowed to recover damages on both scores.
- As a general rule, a person who is found to be participated in the proceedings through their lawyer, - Article 29 of the Civil Code does not state that the
criminally liable offends two (2) entities: the state or private prosecutor Atty. Dulalas. right to file an independent civil action for damages
society in which he lives and the individual member - December 28, 1970 – The Bonite heirs filed an (under said article) can be availed of only in offenses
of the society or private person who was injured or action for recovery of damages against Abamonga not arising from a tortious act. The only requisite for
damaged by the punishable act or omission. The based on the same act but the court dismissed the the exercise of the right to file a civil action for
offense of which private respondent was found guilty complaint for damages because the Court believes damages is that the accused must have been
is not one of those felonies where no civil liability that the Bonite heirs did not reserve the right to do acquitted in the criminal action based on reasonable
results because either there is no offended party or so. doubt.
no damage was caused to a private person. - The respondent’s argument that the applicable
- There is here an offended party, whose main ISSUE provision is Article 33 is devoid of merit because of
contention precisely is that he suffered damages in WON an independent civil action for damages, under the abovementioned argument. In addition, Article
view of the defamatory words and statements Article 29 of the Civil Code, is deemed barred by 33 assumes defamation, fraud, or physical injuries
uttered by private respondent, in the amount of Ten petitioners' failure in the criminal action to make a were intentionally committed.
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as moral damages and reservation to file a separate civil action and by their - In the case at bar, Rule 111 of the former Rules of
the further sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) as active participation in the prosecution of such Criminal Procedure (i.e., that a reservation be made
exemplary damages. criminal action. in the criminal case of the right to institute an
- Article 2219, par. (7) of the Civil Code allows the independent civil action) is not applicable because
recovery of moral damages in case of libel, slander HELD Article 29 does not require it.
or any other form of defamation This provision of law YES - The requirement in Section 2 of Rule 111 of the
establishes the right of an offended party in a case Ratio When the accused in a criminal case is former Rules on Criminal Procedure, that there be a
for oral defamation to recover from the guilty party acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been reservation in the criminal case of the right to
damages for injury to his feelings and reputation. The proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for institute an independent civil action, has been
offended party is likewise allowed to recover punitive damages for the same act or omission may still be declared as not in accordance with law. It is
or exemplary damages. instituted against him, and only a preponderance of regarded as an unauthorized amendment to the
Calling petitioner who was a barangay captain an evidence is required to hold the accused liable. The substantive law, in this case the Civil Code. In fact,
ignoramus, traitor, tyrant and Judas is clearly an civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal of the the reservation of the right to file an independent
imputation of defects in petitioner's character accused, where the acquittal is based on reasonable civil action has been deleted from Section 2, Rule
sufficient to cause him embarrassment and social doubt (based on Article 29 of the Civil Code). 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, in
humiliation. Petitioner testified to the feelings of Reasoning consonance with the decisions of this Court declaring
shame and anguish he suffered as a result of the - In the criminal case against Abamonga, the such requirement of a reservation as ineffective.
incident complained of. accused was acquitted because there was - The active participation of the Bonite heirs does not
- Petitioner is entitled to moral damages in the sum insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond act as a bar from pursuing a civil action for damages
of P5,000.00 and a further sum of P5,000.00 as reasonable doubt. Clearly, the Bonite heirs have the because the civil action based on criminal liability
exemplary damages. right to file an independent civil action for damages and a civil action under Article 29 are two separate
Dispositive The petition was granted. despite the acquittal of the accused in the criminal and independent actions.
case. Dispositive WHEREFORE, the orders of the
BONITE v ZOSA - Aside from basing their action for damages in respondent court are hereby REVERSED and SET
Article 29 of the Civil Code, the petitioners may also ASIDE, and a new one is entered reinstating the
162 SCRA 180
rely on Article 2176 which provides that acquittal of complaint in the civil case directing said court to
PADILLA; June 20, 1988 the accused from a charge of criminal negligence,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 38 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

proceed with the trial of the case. Costs against defendant are to be considered as a modification of for the injury sustained by reason of the same, are
private respondent. the punishment, by increasing the penalty or preserved and remain in force, and it is therein
otherwise, meted out to the defendant for the expressly provided that the court, upon conviction
SEPARATE OPINION commission of the crime. (WON there is double of the accused, may enter judgment in favor of the
jeopardy) injured person, against the defendant in the
2. WON award was excessive criminal case for the damage occasioned by the
MELENCIO-HERRERA [concur] wrongful act."
- 4 of them merely concurred in the result- If there HELD - Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co.: "According
has been active participation in the prosecution of a 1. NO. to article 112 (Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure)
criminal case by the offended party, the civil action - Civil damages are no part of the punishment for the the penal action once started, the civil remedy
arising from the crime is deemed to have been also crime. should be sought therewith, unless it had been
brought in the criminal case. Consequently, a - What was the effect of the action of this court in waived by the party injured or been expressly
judgment finding the accused guilty and granting affirming that judgment as to the guilt and reserve by him for civil proceedings for the future.
him damages is binding upon the offended party and punishment of the accused and of reversing it as to If the civil action alone was prosecuted, arising out
he may not file a separate civil action under Article the question of civil damage, with instructions to of a crime that could be enforced only on private
33. execute the punishment imposed and to try the civil complaint, the penal action thereunder should be
- However if the accused is acquitted on the ground branch of the case? Bearing in mind the broad line of extinguished."
of reasonable doubt, as in this case, the civil action demarcation between the civil liability of the accused - Almeida vs. Abaroa (8 Phil. Rep., 178), was a civil
for damages for the same act may be instituted and his criminal liability, the bare fact that his civil action for damages brought the plaintiff against a
under Article 29 of the Civil Code, notwithstanding liability was determined and fixed had nothing person who had been previously acquitted on a
the fact that the offended party had actively whatever to do with the punishment imposed. The criminal charge. It was held that his acquittal in the
participated in the criminal action. latter was not thereby affected…. This time criminal action was a complete bar to a civil action
- The rule in Corpus vs. Paje which states that intervening between the judgment of guilt and the for damages based upon the alleged criminal act
reckless imprudence is not included in Article 33 of judgment of civil damages could in no way give to of which the defendant had been accused. In the
the Civil Code, was note deemed as authoritative the latter the character of the former. course of this decision it was said:
doctrine because, of 11 justices, only 9 took part in - (That) the defendant might serve the term of - "Instituting a criminal action only, it will be
the decision and imprisonment fixed by the court as the punishment understood, brings the civil action as well, unless the
for his crime, and after the sentence for civil damaged or prejudiced person waives the same or
US v HEERY damages and in case of his insolvency, he would expressly reserves the right to institute the civil
have to return to prison to serve the subsidiary action after the termination of the criminal case, if
25 Phil 600 imprisonment by reason of his insolvency, being there be any reason therefor. (Art. 112 of the said
TRENT; Oct 22, 1913 argued that this would constitute double jeopardy. It Law of Criminal Procedure.)
is well settled that execution against the person will - "The right to bring the civil action, as reserved by
FACTS issue in civil actions in case of personal injuries, and the person damaged or prejudiced, after the
-Heery was charged with attempted murder, but was that this is not imprisonment for debt or punishment termination of the criminal case, is only permitted, if
convicted of the lesser crime of maliciously inflicting for crime. It is in lieu of the payment of the indemnity there be any reason therefore, and so says the law,
serious injury upon Alex Sternberg, and was and is considered as a discharge thereof. If the in the event that the judgment rendered in the
sentenced to one year and three months of prision payment of the indemnity is not punishment for the criminal cause is a finding of guilt against the
correccional by the trial court. crime, the imprisonment in lieu thereof is not accused; but if the accused be acquitted, then the
-On appeal, the decision was affirmed but case was punishment for the crime. compliant in the civil action must be based on some
remanded because it did not include the evidence of - As the civil liability is no part of the punishment for fact and or cause distinct and separate from the
civil damages suffered by the offended party. the crime, there would have been no question of criminal act itself."
-Then lower court, in its ruling, restated the double jeopardy... In the present case, the civil - The court then quotes from article 114 of the
conviction (of one yr to 3 months of prision liability of the defendant was established, and the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
correccional) and then included P50,500 for sole question determined upon the second trial was "When a criminal proceeding is instituted for the
indemnity, with subsidiary imprisonment, in case of the amount of civil damages. The plea of double judicial investigation of a crime or misdemeanor,
insolvency. jeopardy can not be allowed. no civil action arising from the same act can be
-Heery raised the question of double jeopardy, and -On civil liability of persons accused of crime: prosecuted; but the same shall be suspended, if
the award being excessive. - Springer vs. Odlin: "By General Orders, No. 58, there be one, in whatever stage or state it may be
section 107, the privileges secured by the Spanish found, until final sentence in the criminal
ISSUES law to persons claiming to be injured by the proceeding is pronounced.
1. WON remanding the case for determination of commission of an offense to take part in the
civil damages and their assessment against the prosecution of the offense and to recover damages
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 39 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

"To prosecute a penal action it shall not be introduced as evidence and was not, therefore, impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless
necessary that a civil action arising from the same considered by that court. If it had been introduced as the offended party expressly waives the civil action
crime or misdemeanor be previously instituted." evidence, the government would have had the right or reserves the right to institute it separately”, and
- Under the Spanish criminal law, an injured person to meet it and be heard upon it in that court. To that, inasmuch as petitioner had failed to expressly
had the right to intervene in the prosecution of the permit the question to be raised here for the first reserve her right to institute the civil action
accused for the purpose of having his damages time, and in the resolution thereof, to consider separately, she may not now institute another action
ascertained. The trial court was required to include evidence that was never introduced in the trial court under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code based on
the amount of these damages in the judgment of and which the government has never had an the act or omission complained of in the criminal
conviction. The plain provisions of section 107 of our opportunity to meet in an orderly way, is not only to action.
criminal procedure, quoted supra, expressly take the prosecution by surprise but is to establish a
preserves this right to the injured person. The refusal precedent which may be dangerous in practice and ISSUES
of the trial court to allow the injured person to subversive of orderly procedure. 1. WON CFI was correct in considering and applying
introduce evidence as to his damages is, therefore, Sec 1, Rule 107, of the Rules of Court
clearly prejudicial error. PARKER v PANLILIO and PHIL AIR 2. WON respondent judge erred in suspending the
2. YES. hearing
LINES
- There can be no objection to allowing the
physicians' fees of P500 and P1,300 for the three 91 PHIL 1 HELD
months' salary, being the time the injured party was BAUTISTA ANGELO; March 5, 1952 1. NO
incapacitated from performing the work in which he - The present civil case is based upon a cause of
was then engaged. The remainder, P48,700, appears NATURE action not arising from the civil liability involved in
to have been allowed on account of the permanent Certiorari and mandamus the criminal case instituted against the accused. The
diminution of Sternberg's ability to earn money. The civil case is based on alleged culpa contractual
evidence of record does not establish such disability FACTS incurred by PAL because of its failure to carry safely
with that degree of certainly which will justify an - Asuncion Parker and her minor daughter Kathleen Richard Parker to his place of destination, whereas
award for that purpose. We have reached this filed a complaint for damages against Philippine Air the criminal case involves the civil liability of the
conclusion after a most careful examination of all the Lines, Inc., based on the alleged failure of PAL to accused.
testimony upon this point. carry safely Richard Parker from Daet, Camarines - Rule 107 contemplates a case where the offended
Dispositive The award of damages is reduced to Norte to Manila. party desires to press his right to demand indemnity
P1,800, the defendant to suffer subsidiary - PAL set up as special defense that the plane from the accused in the criminal case which he may
imprisonment, which in no event can exceed one- exploded in mid-air due to “dynamite surreptitiously assert either in the same criminal case or in a
third of the principal penalty, in case of insolvency. introduced into said air craft by criminal hands”. A separate action.
criminal case was already filed in CFI Camarines - The failure of Parker to reserve her right to institute
SEPARATE OPINION Norte against the supposed guilty parties. the civil action in the criminal case cannot in any way
- When the case was set for the continuation of the be deemed as waiver on her part to institute a
hearing, PAL presented an oral motion for the separate civil action against PAL based on its
MORELAND [concurring and dissenting]
suspension of the hearing, invoking (then) sec 1 Rule contractual liability.
The record being in this condition, I am inclined to
107, of the Rules of Court, which provides that no 2. NO
believe that this court should not take up and
civil action arising from the same offense can be - The present civil case is directly interwoven with
discuss, much less decide, the question of former
prosecuted until final judgment in the criminal the criminal case in the sense that the main issue
jeopardy. To do so it must not only hold, in violation
proceeding has been rendered. Parker vehemently involved in both cases is the determination of the
of the provisions of section 24 of the Code of
opposed. failure of Richard Parker to reach safely his
Criminal Procedure, that it is unnecessary to plead
- CFI suspended the hearing until the final destination or the determination of the cause of his
the defense in the trial court but must also hold that
determination of the criminal case which was then death. This was the main reason that guided the
it is unnecessary to introduce evidence in that court
pending appeal in the SC. lower court in postponing the hearing of the civil
to substantiate the plea. The plea of former
Petitioners’ Claim It was a mistake on the part of case until final judgment in the criminal case has
conviction or once in jeopardy should, according to
respondent judge to consider and apply Sec 1, Rule been rendered.
established rules and the provisions of the Code of
107 of the Rules of Court, as her cause of action in - Inasmuch as the power to grant or refuse
Criminal Procedure, be substantiated by the
the civil case is based on culpa contractual and not continuances is inherent in all courts unless
production of the record of the former trial and the
on the civil liability arising from the offense involved expressly limited by statute, and there is no showing
introduction of the same in evidence. That was not
in the criminal case. that the lower court has abused its discretion is
done in this case. While the evidence taken in the
Respondents’ Comments “When a criminal action suspending the hearing, the petition for certiorari
former trial was introduced in the present case for
is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of the must fail.
the purpose of establishing the extent of defendant's
civil liability arising from the offense charged is Dispositive Petition denied
civil liability, the remaining part of the record was not
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 40 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

action was duly informed thereof, such that no - Petitioner moved for the suspension of the
damages was awarded in the disposition of the proceedings in the civil case against him, citing the
criminal action. pendency of the criminal case against his driver. But
Reasoning the trial court denied petitioner’s motion on the
- Under the aforecited provisions of the rule, the civil ground that pursuant to the Civil Code, the action
action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly could proceed independently of the criminal action,
YAKULT PHILIPPINES v CA [CAMASO] instituted with the criminal action unless the in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves his accused in the criminal case.
190 SCRA 357
right to institute it separately or institutes the civil - CA dismissed his petition
GANCAYCO; Oct. 5, 1990 action prior to the criminal action. - There is no dispute that private respondent, as
- Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity offended party in the criminal case, did not reserve
NATURE under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under the right to bring a separate civil action, based on
Petition for review of decision of the CA Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the the same accident, either against the driver,
Philippines arising from the same act or omission of Herminio Andaya, or against the latter’s employer,
FACTS the accused. herein petitioner Ruben Maniago.
- 5 year old Roy Camaso (standing on a sidewalk) It is also provided that the reservation of the right to - petitioner argues that the civil action against him
was sideswiped by a motorcycle owned by Yakult institute the separate civil action shall be made was impliedly instituted in the criminal action
Philippines and driven by its employee, Larry Salvado before the prosecution starts to present its evidence previously filed against his employee because
on Dec.1982. and under circumstances affording the offended private respondent did not reserve his right to bring
- An information was then filed on Jan.1983 against party a reasonable opportunity to make such this action separately. (The records show that while
Salvado charging him with the crime of reckless reservation. this case was pending in the Court of Appeals, the
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries. ** The SC considered the actual filing of the civil criminal action was dismissed on July 10, 1992 for
- On Oct. 1984, a complaint for damages was filed in action far better than a compliance with the failure of the prosecution to file a formal offer of its
the RTC of Manila by Roy Camaso (represented by requirement of an express reservation that should be evidence, with the consequence that the prosecution
his father, David) against Yakult and Salvado. The made by the offended party before the prosecution failed to prosecute its case. Accordingly, it seems to
RTC decided in favor of the Camaso’s and held the presents its evidence. It added that the purpose of be petitioner’s argument that since the civil action to
defendants (herein petitioners) jointly and severally this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the recover damages was impliedly instituted with the
liable for damages, which then moved said offended party from recovering damages twice for criminal action, the dismissal of the criminal case
defendants Yakult and Salvado to appeal the the same act or omission. brought with it the dismissal of the civil action.)
judgment. They also filed a peitition for certiorari in Dispositive petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED. - Private respondent admits that he did not reserve
the CA challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction in the civil the right to institute the present civil action against
case. Their argument was that the civil action for
MANIAGO vCA (BOADO) Andaya’s employer. He contends, however, that the
damages for injuries arising from alleged criminal rights provided in Arts. 2176 and 2177 of the Civil
negligence, there being no malice, cannot be filed 253 SCRA 674
Code are substantive rights and, as such, their
independently of the criminal action and that under MENDOZA; February 20, 1996 enforcement cannot be conditioned on a reservation
Rule 111 Sec.1 of the 1985 Rules of Crim. Pro., such to bring the action to enforce them separately.
a separate civil action may not be filed unless FACTS
reservation thereof is expressly made. - Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle ISSUE
- The CA on Nov. 1989, dismissed the petition and buses which were used in transporting employees of WON despite the absence of reservation, Boado may
the subsequent MFR. the Texas Instruments, Inc. from Baguio City proper nonetheless bring an action for damages against
to its plant site at the Export Processing Authority in petitioner under the Art.2176, 2180 and 2177 of the
ISSUE Loakan, Baguio City. Civil Code and Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
WON a civil action instituted after a criminal action - One of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with
was filed can prosper even if there was no a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent
reservation to file a separate civil action Alfredo Boado along Loakan Road, Baguio City. As a
result of the accident, a criminal case for reckless HELD
HELD imprudence resulting in damage to property and NO
YES multiple physical injuries was filed against Ratio The right to bring an action for damages under
- Although the separate civil action filed in this case petitioner’s driver, Herminio Andaya, with the the Civil Code must be reserved as required by Rule
was without previous reservation in the criminal Regional Trial Court of Baguio City 111, § 1, otherwise it should be dismissed. §1 quite
case, it was nevertheless instituted before the - A month later, a civil case for damages was filed by clearly requires that a reservation must be made to
prosecution presented evidence in the criminal private respondent Boado against petitioner himself institute separately all civil actions for the recovery
action, and the presiding judge handling the criminal of civil liability, otherwise they will be deemed to
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 41 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

have been instituted with the criminal case. The right arising from the same act or omission, which is the - Nor does it matter that the action is against the
of the injured party to sue separately for the subject of the criminal action, is waived; (2) the right employer to enforce his vicarious liability under Art.
recovery of the civil liability whether arising from to bring it separately is reserved or (3) such action 2180 of the Civil Code. Though not an accused in the
crimes or from quasi delict under Art. 2176 of the has been instituted prior to the criminal action. Even criminal case, the employer is very much a party, as
Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be if an action has not been reserved or it was brought long as the right to bring or institute a separate
deemed instituted with the criminal action. before the institution of the criminal case, the action (whether arising from crime or from quasi
Reasoning acquittal of the accused will not bar recovery of civil delict) is not reserved. The ruling that a decision
A. There are statements in some cases implying that liability unless the acquittal is based on a finding that convicting the employee is binding and conclusive
Rule 111, §§1 and 3 are beyond the rulemaking the act from which the civil liability might arise did upon the employer “not only with regard to its civil
power of the Supreme Court under the Constitution. not exist because of Art. 29 of the Civil Code. liability but also with regard to its amount because
A careful examination of the cases, however, will - Through all the shifts or changes in policy as to the the liability of an employer cannot be separated but
show that approval of the filing of separate civil civil action arising from the same act or omission for follows that of his employee” is true not only with
action for damages even though no reservation of which a criminal action is brought, one thing is clear: respect to the civil liability arising from crime but
the right to institute such civil action had been The change has been effected by this Court. The new also with respect to the civil liability under the Civil
reserved rests on considerations other than that no rules require reservation of the right to recover the Code. Dispositive The decision appealed from is
reservation is needed. civil liability, otherwise the action will be deemed to REVERSED and the complaint against petitioner is
- In Garcia v. Florido the right of an injured person to have been instituted with the criminal action. DISMISSED.
bring an action for damages even if he did not make - Contrary to private respondent’s contention, the
a reservation of his action in the criminal prosecution requirement that before a separate civil action may SAN ILDEFONSO LINES, INC. v CA
for physical injuries through reckless imprudence be brought it must be reserved does not impair,
(PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY
was upheld on the ground that by bringing the civil diminish or defeat substantive rights, but only
action the injured parties had “in effect abandoned regulates their exercise in the general interest of CORPORATION)
their right to press for recovery of damages in the orderly procedure. 300 SCRA 484
criminal case. - It is the conduct of the trial of the civil action - not MARTINEZ; April 24, 1998
- In Abellana v. Marave in which the right of persons its institution through the filing of a complaint - which
injured in a vehicular accident to bring a separate is allowed to proceed independently of the outcome NATURE
action for damages was sustained despite the fact of the criminal case. Petition for review after a motion for reconsideration
that the right to bring it separately was not reserved. B. There is a practical reason for requiring that the of respondent court judgment was denied
But the basis of the decision in that case was the fact right to bring an independent civil action under the
that the filing of the civil case was equivalent to a Civil Code separately must be reserved. It is to avoid FACTS
reservation because it was made after the decision of the filing of more than one action for the same act or - In the afternoon of June 24, 1991, a Toyota Lite Ace
the City Court convicting the accused had been omission against the same party. Any award made Van being driven by its owner Annie U. Jao and a
appealed. against the employer, whether based on his passenger bus of herein petitioner San Ildefonso
- In Jarantilla v. CA the ruling is that the acquittal of subsidiary civil liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Lines, Inc. (hereafter, SILI) collided with each other at
the accused in the criminal case for physical injuries Penal Code or his primary liability under Art. 2180 of the intersection of Julia Vargas Avenue and
through reckless imprudence on the ground of the Civil Code, is ultimately recoverable from the Rodriguez Lanuza Avenue in Pasig, Metro Manila,
reasonable doubt is not a bar to the filing of an accused. totally wrecking the Toyota van and injuring Ms. Jao
action for damages even though the filing of the - In the present case, the criminal action was filed and her two (2) passengers in the process.
latter action was not reserved. This is because of Art. against the employee, bus driver. Had the driver - A criminal case was thereafter filed with the
29 of the Civil Code which provides that “when an been convicted and found insolvent, his employer Regional Trial Court of Pasig on September 18, 1991
accused is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. charging the driver of the bus, herein petitioner
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil But if the right to bring a separate civil action Eduardo Javier, with reckless imprudence resulting in
action for damages for the same act or omission may (whether arising from the crime or from quasi-delict) damage to property with multiple physical injuries.
be instituted.” This ruling obviously cannot apply to is reserved, there would be no possibility that the - About four (4) months later, or on January 13, 1992,
this case because the basis of the dismissal of the employer would be held liable because in such a herein private respondent Pioneer Insurance and
criminal case against the driver is the fact that the case there would be no pronouncement as to the civil Surety Corporation (PISC), as insurer of the van and
prosecution failed to prove its case as a result of its liability of the accused. In such a case the institution subrogee, filed a case for damages against petitioner
failure to make a formal offer of its evidence. of a separate and independent civil action under the SILI with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking
- the rulings in these cases are consistent with the Civil Code would not result in the employee being to recover the sums it paid the assured under a
proposition herein made that, on the basis of Rule held liable for the same act or omission. The rule motor vehicle insurance policy as well as other
111, §§1-3, a civil action for the recovery of civil requiring reservation in the end serves to implement damages, totaling P564,500.00 (P454,000.00 as
liability is, as a general rule, impliedly instituted with the prohibition against double recovery for the same actual/compensatory damages; P50,000.00 as
the criminal action, except only (1) when such action act or omission. exemplary damages; P50,000.00 as attorney's fees;
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 42 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; and P500.00 as evidence." is bound to observe the procedural requirements
appearance fees.) - Even though these so-called "independent civil which Ms. Jao ought to follow had she herself
- With the issues having been joined upon the filing actions" based on the aforementioned Civil Code instituted the civil case.
of the petitioners' answer to the complaint for articles are the exceptions to the primacy of the Dispositive The assailed decision of the Court of
damages and after submission by the parties of their criminal action over the civil action as set forth in Appeals dated February 24, 1995 and the Resolution
respective pre-trial briefs, petitioners filed on Section 2 of Rule 111, it is easily deducible from the dated April 3,1995 denying the motion for
September 18, 1992 a Manifestation and Motion to present wording of Section 3 as brought about by the reconsideration thereof are reversed. The
Suspend Civil Proceedings grounded on the 1988 amendments to the Rules on Criminal "manifestation and motion to suspend civil
pendency of the criminal case against petitioner Procedure -- particularly the phrase "… which has proceedings" filed by petitioners is granted.
Javier in the Pasig RTC and the failure of been reserved" -- that the "independent" character of
respondent PISC to make a reservation to file a these civil actions does not do away with the MARCIA v CA (PAJE and VICTORY
separate damage suit in said criminal action. reservation requirement. In other words, prior
LINER)
This was denied by the Manila Regional Trial reservation is a condition sine qua non before any of
Court in its Order dated July 21, 1993 these independent civil actions can be instituted and 120 SCRA 190
- After their motion for reconsideration of said July thereafter have a continuous determination apart RELOVA; January 27, 1983
21, 1993 Order was denied, petitioners elevated the from or simultaneous with the criminal action.
matter to this Court via petition for certiorari which - According to Justice Jose Y. Feria, remedial law NATURE
was, however, referred to public respondent Court of expert and a member of the committee which Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of
Appeals for disposition. On February 24, 1995, a drafted the 1988 amendments, whose learned Appeals affirming the judgment of the Court of First
decision adverse to petitioners once again was explanation on the matter was aptly pointed out by Instance of Rizal, which dismissed the complaint filed
rendered by respondent court, upholding the petitioners, “the 1988 amendment expands the by the petitioners against private respondents in the
assailed Manila Regional Trial Court Order. Hence, scope of the civil action which is deemed impliedly concept of an independent civil action for damages
this petition for review after a motion for instituted with the criminal action unless waived, for physical injuries resulting from reckless
reconsideration of said respondent court judgment reserved or previously instituted. Under the present imprudence.
was denied. Rule as amended, such a civil action includes not
only recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal
ISSUES Code and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 of the
1. WON an independent civil action based on Civil Code of the Philippines, but also damages under FACTS
Article 2176 (quasi-delicts) of the said code. - On December 23, 1956, in the municipality of
quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code
- It should be noted that while it was ruled in Abella Lubao, Pampanga, a passenger bus operated by
can be filed if no reservation was made in the said
vs. Marave (57 SCRA 106) that a reservation of the private respondent Victory Liner, Inc. and driven by
criminal case
right to file an independent civil action is not its employee, private respondent Felardo Paje,
2. WON a subrogee of an offended party can necessary, such a reservation is necessary under the collided with a jeep driven by Clemente Marcia,
maintain an independent civil action during the amended rule. Without such reservation, the civil resulting in the latter's death and in physical injuries
pendency of a criminal action when no reservation action is deemed impliedly instituted with the to herein petitioners, Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap.
of the right to file an independent civil action was criminal action, unless previously waived or Thereupon, an information for homicide and serious
made in the criminal action and despite the fact instituted. physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed
that the private complainant is actively - Far from altering substantive rights, the primary against Felardo Paje in the CFI of Pampanga.
participating through a private prosecutor in the purpose of the reservation is, to borrow the words of - On January 23, 1957, an action for damages was
aforementioned criminal case the Court in "Caños v. Peralta":"… to avoid filed in the CFI of Rizal by Edgar Marcia and Renato
multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and Yap, together with their respective parents, against
HELD abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, the Victory Liner, Inc. and Felardo Paje, alleging that
1. NO to simplify the work of the trial court; in short, the the mishap was due to the reckless imprudence and
- On the chief issue of "reservation", at the fore is attainment of justice with the least expense and negligence of the latter in driving the passenger bus.
Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which vexation to the parties-litigants." - While said Civil Case was in progress in the Court of
reads: 2. NO First Instance of Rizal, the criminal action proceeded
"Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed - Private respondent PISC, as subrogee, is not in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The
independently. -- In the cases provided for in exempt from the reservation requirement with accused Felardo Paje was convicted of the offense
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the respect to its damages suit based on quasi-delict charged. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals,
Philippines, the independent civil action which has arising from the same act or omission of petitioner he was acquitted with the CA holding that "CRIMINAL
been reserved may be brought by the offended Javier complained of in the criminal case. As private NEGLIGENCE is WANTING in this case, and that
party, shall proceed independently of the criminal respondent PISC merely stepped into the shoes of appellant was NOT even guilty of CIVIL NEGLIGENCE.
action, and shall require only a preponderance of Ms. Jao (as owner of the insured Toyota van), then it
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 43 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Insofar as appellant was concerned, the CA held that finding that the facts upon which civil liability did not returned which humiliated Zenaida and compelled
this was a case of PURE ACCIDENT." exist, bars the filing of an independent civil action if her to go back to her parents.
- As a consequence, herein private respondents, it is based on the crime. As early as 1952, We have Respondent’s Comment Conrado Bunag Jr.and
defendants in Civil Case of the Court of First Instance held in the case of Tan vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Zenaida Cirilo had earlier made plans to elope and
of Rizal, moved for the dismissal of the complaint Company, 91 Phil. 672, that "the acquittal of the get married (same as first set of facts) . And that the
invoking the decision of the Court of Appeals accused from the criminal charge will not necessarily reason why Conrado broke off their plan to get
acquitting Felardo Paje and citing Section 1 (d), Rule extinguish the civil liability unless the court declares married was their bitter disagreements over money
107 of the Rules of Court (now Section 3 (c), Rule in the judgment that the fact from which the civil and Zenaida’s threats to his life.
111 of the New Rules of Court). On August 10, 1966, liability might arise did not exist. Where the court - The Cirilo’s filed a complaint for damages against
the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a states 'that the evidence throws no light on the Conrado Bunag Jr. and his father Conrado Bunag Sr.
decision dismissing plaintiffs' complaint against the cause of fire and that it was an unfortunate accident (Zenaida’s uncle claims that Bunag Sr. assured them
defendants Victory Liner, Inc. and Felardo Paje. for which the accused cannot be held responsible,' that the couple were to be married). The
Petitioners appealed the case to the CA, which this declaration fits well into the exception of the rule Trial Court ordered Bunag Jr. to pay damages (80K-
basically affirmed the RTC decision. Hence, this which exempts the accused, from civil liability." moral damages,20K-exemplary damages, 20k-
recourse. - Also, the charge against Felardo Paje was not for temperate damages and 10k attorney’s fees) Bunag
homicide and physical injuries but for reckless Sr. was absolved from any and all liability.CA
ISSUE imprudence or criminal negligence resulting in affirmed in toto
WON the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting homicide (death of Clemente Marcia) and physical - Bunag Jr contends that both the trial court awarded
the accused in reckless imprudence on the ground injuries suffered by Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. the damages on the basis of a finding that he is
that the incident was accidental, extinguished by They are not one of the three (3) crimes mentioned guilty of forcible abduction with rape,despite the
implication the civil action for damages in Article 33 of the Civil Code and, therefore, no civil prior dismissal of the complaint therefore filed by
action shall proceed independently of the criminal Zenaida with the Pasay City Fiscal’s Office.
HELD prosecution.
YES ISSUE
Ratio Extinction of the penal action does not carry BUNAG JR. v CA (CIRILO) WON the Fiscal’s dismissal of the complaint for
with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction forcible abduction with rape extinguished the civil
211 SCRA 440
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that liability of Conrado Bunag Jr
the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist. REGALADO; July 10, 1992
Since, the CA found that this case was of pure HELD
accident, it is as good as saying as if he did not NATURE NO
commit the crime charged. There being no crime Petition for review from the decision of the CA - The dismissal did not in any way affect the right of
committed, no civil liability arises. Zenaida Cirilo to institute a civil action arising from
Reasoning FACTS the offense.
- It is the stand of herein petitioners that Section 2, - On Sept. 8, 1973 Conrado Bunag Jr. brought - Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, not Section 3 (c) Zenaida Cirilo to a motel or hotel where they had the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction
thereof, should apply in the case at bar. sexual intercourse and later that evening he brought proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that
"Sec. 2. Independent civil action. - In the cases Zenaida to the house of his grandmother’s house the fact from which the civil case might arise did not
provided for in Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2177 of where they lived together as husband and wife for 21 exist.
the Civil Code of the Philippines, an independent days until Sept. 29, 1973. They filed their application Reasoning
civil action entirely separate and distinct from the for marriage license with the Local Civil Registral of -Generally, every person criminally liable is also
criminal action, may be brought by the injured Bacoor, Cavite. However, after a few days, Conrado civilly liable. Criminal Liability will give rise to civil
party during the pendency of the criminal case, filed an affidavit withdrawing his application for a liability ex delicto only if the same felonious act or
provided the right is reserved as required in the marriage license. omission results in damage or injury to another and
preceding section. Such civil action shall proceed Plaintiff’s Claim Conrado Bunag Jr. abducted her in is the direct and proximate cause thereof.
independently of the criminal prosecution, and the vicinity of San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City -The two proceedings involved are not between the
shall require only a preponderance of evidence." and brought her to a motel where she was raped. same parties (the criminal action is between the
- We do not agree. Section 2 of Rule 111 merely Afterwhich he said that he would not let her go State and the defendant and the civil case is
refers to the institution of an independent civil action unless they get married, as he intended to marry between the offended party and the defendant).
without waiting for the filing or termination of the her , so much so that she promised not to make any Also, there are different rules as to the competency
criminal action and requires only preponderance of scandal and to marry him. They went to his of witnesses and the quantum of evidence in criminal
evidence to prosper and not proof beyond gradmother’s house and lived together as husband and civil proceedings.(criminal action – proof beyond
reasonable doubt as required for conviction in and wife for 21 days until Bunag Jr. left and never reasonable doubt; civil action—preponderance of
criminal cases. However, an acquittal based on the evidence)
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 44 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- In this case  the dismissal of the complaint for - Thereafter, acting on a motion to dismiss of therein exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100
forcible abduction with rape was by mere resolution defendant, the trial court issued on April 3, 1975 an of the Revised Penal Code; whereas the civil
of the fiscal at the preliminary investigation stage. order of denial. Petitioner thereafter filed in this liability for the same act considered as a quasi-
There is no declaration in a final judgment that the Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition and delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished
fact from which the civil case might arise did not mandamus, which was docketed as G.R. No. L-40992, even by a declaration in the criminal case that the
exist. assailing the aforesaid order of the trial court. Said criminal act charged has not happened or has not
petition was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's been committed by the accused . . .
JARANTILLA v CA (SING) resolution of July 23, 1975, and a motion for - The aforecited case of Lontoc vs. MD Transit & Taxi
reconsideration thereof was denied for the same Co., Inc., et al. involved virtually the same factual
171 SCRA 429 reason in a resolution of October 28, 1975. situation. The Court, in arriving at the conclusion
REGALADO; March 21, 1989 - After trial, the court below rendered judgment on hereinbefore quoted, expressly declared that the
May 23, 1977 in favor of the herein private failure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his right to
NATURE respondent and ordering herein petitioner to pay file a separate civil case is not fatal; that his
Appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeals damages. Thus, petitioner appealed said decision to intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from
upholding the decision of the trial court awarding the CA but said respondent court affirmed in toto the filing a separate civil action for damages, especially
damages to the private respondent. decision of the trial court with a few changes in the considering that the accused therein was acquitted
amount of the damages to be paid. because his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable
FACTS doubt; that the two cases were anchored on two
- Private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swiped ISSUE different causes of action, the criminal case being on
by a vehicle in the evening of July 7, 1971 in lznart WON the private respondent, who was the a violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
Street, Iloilo City" The respondent Court of Appeals complainant in the criminal action for physical while the subsequent complaint for damages was
concurred in the findings of the court a quo that the injuries thru reckless imprudence and who based on a quasi-delict; and that in the judgment in
said vehicle which figured in the mishap, a participated in the prosecution thereof without the criminal case the aspect of civil liability was not
Volkswagen (Beetle type) car, was then driven by reserving the civil action arising from the act or passed upon and resolved. Consequently, said civil
petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street toward omission complained of, can file a separate action for case may proceed as authorized by Article 29 of the
the direction of the provincial capitol, and that civil liability arising from the same act or omission Civil Code.
private respondent sustained physical injuries as a where the herein petitioner was acquitted in the - Under the present jurisprudential milieu, where the
consequence. criminal action on reasonable doubt and no civil trial court acquits the accused on reasonable doubt,
- Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then liability was adjudicated or awarded in the judgment it could very well make a pronounce ment on the civil
City Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries thru of acquittal liability of the accused and the complainant could file
reckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 47207 a petition for mandamus to compel the trial court to
thereof. Private respondent, as the complaining HELD include such civil liability in the judgment of
witness therein, did not reserve his right to institute YES acquittal. And that the failure of the court to make
a separate civil action and he intervened in the - The action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure of any pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as to
prosecution of said criminal case through a private the respondent to reserve his right to file a separate the civil liability of the accused amounts to a
prosecutor. Petitioner was acquitted in said criminal civil case and his intervention in the criminal case did reservation of the right to have the civil liability
case "on reasonable doubt". not bar him from filing such separate civil action for litigated and determined in a separate action. The
- On October 30, 1974, private respondent filed a damages. rules nowhere provide that if the court fails to
complaint against the petitioner in the former Court Ratio The allegations of the complaint filed by the determine the civil liability it becomes no longer
of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV, docketed therein private respondent supports and is constitutive of a enforceable.
as Civil Case No. 9976, and which civil action case for a quasi-delict committed by the petitioner. Dispositive Decision of CA affirmed, petion denied.
involved the same subject matter and act The Court has also heretofore ruled in Elcano vs. Hill
complained of in Criminal Case No. 47027. In his that:
answer filed therein, the petitioner alleged as special JIMENEZ v AVERIA
... a separate civil action lies against the offender
and affirmative detenses that the private respondent in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally 22 SCRA 380
had no cause of action and, additionally, that the prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided DIZON; March 29, 1968
latter's cause of action, if any, is barred by the prior that the offended party is not allowed, if he is also
judgment in Criminal Case No. 47207 inasmuch as actually charged criminally, to recover damages on FACTS
when said criminal case was instituted the civil both scores; and would be entitled in such - Ofelia V. Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday
liability was also deemed instituted since therein eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, were charged with estafa in the CFI of Cavite with the
plaintiff failed to reserve the civil aspect and actively assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. information alleging that they misappropriated
participated in the criminal case. In other words, the extinction of civil liability P20,000 received from Manuel Jimenez for the
referred to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refers purchase of a fishing boat named Basnig. They also
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 45 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

have the obligation to return the money if they do parties charged with estafa, because even on the on the civil action for the revocation of the
not purchase the boat, which they did not do. assumption that the execution of the receipt whose management contract. He contended that a
- Before arraignment, the accused filed a civil suit annulment they sought in the civil case was vitiated prejudicial question was involved, thus he could no
against Jimenez in the Quezon CFI contesting the by fraud, duress or intimidation, their guilt could still longer be tried pending the termination of the civil
validity of a certain receipt signed by them on be established by other evidence showing, to the suit. The respondents, in turn, contended that the
October 26, 1962 wherein they acknowledged having degree required by law, that they had actually resolution of the civil case will not determine the
received from him the sum of P20,000.00 with which received from the complaint the sum of P20,000.00 liability of Rojas in the criminal case (not a prejudicial
to purchase for him a fishing boat and its with which to buy for him a fishing boat, and that, question); and even granting that there was a
accessories, and the further sum of P240.00 as instead of doing so, they misappropriated the money prejudicial question, the cases could proceed
agent's commission, with the obligation, on their and refused or otherwise failed to return it to him independently pursuant to Art.33 of CC, which
part, to return the aforesaid amounts on January 30, upon demand. The contention of the private provides: In cases of defamation, fraud and physical
1963 in case they were unable to buy the fishing respondents herein would be tenable had they been injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate
boat. They assert now that they never received any charged with falsification of the same receipt and distinct from the criminal action may be brought
amount from Jimenez and that they signatures were involved in the civil action. by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
taken through the means of fraud and deceit by - If the ruling were otherwise, there would hardly be independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall
Jimenez a case for estafa that could be prosecuted speedily, require only a preponderance of evidence.
- After a few days, they filed a motion to suspend the it being the easiest thing for the accused to block the
proceedings of the criminal case pending the proceedings by the simple expedient of filing an ISSUE
resolution of the prejudicial question in the civil case independent civil action against the complainant, WON the is a prejudicial question, thus requiring the
– whether or not their signatures were taken through raising therein the issue that he had not received resolution of the civil action for the determination of
means of fraud and deceit by Jimenez. from the latter the amount alleged to have been the criminal case
- Judge Averia granted the motion and hence this misappropriated.
certiorari petition HELD
- Pre-ratio: Jimenez erred in the filing of a certiorari ROJAS v PEOPLE (ALIKPALA) NO
petition, and should have filed a mandamus to the SC Ratio: A prejudicial question, which is must be
57 SCRA 243
instead – to compel the lower court to proceed with determinative of the case before the court, and
the case. FERNANDO; May 31, 1974 jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in
another court, is not present in this case.
ISSUE NATURE Reasoning:
WON the determination of the issue raised in the civil Petition for certiorari and prohibition - It is indispensable then for this petition to succeed
case mentioned heretofore is a prejudicial question, that the alleged prejudicial question must be
in the sense that it must be first resolved before the FACTS determinative of the criminal case before respondent
proceedings in the criminal case for estafa may - Rojas was charged w/ violation of Art.319 (Removal, Judge. It is not so in this case.
proceed sale, pledge of mortgaged property) of RPC for - Pisalbor. v. Tesoro: CFI erred in holding that the
executing a new chattel mortgage on personal criminal case should be suspended. In the present
HELD property (Caterpillar Tractor) in favor of another proceedings, the civil case does not involve a
NO party w/o the consent of the previous mortgagee. question prejudicial to the criminal case, for to
- The issue of fraud and deceit raised in the civil case After the criminal case was instituted, a civil case whomsoever the land may be awarded after all the
does not constitute a prejudicial question. The was filed against him by the offended party (CMS evidence has been presented in the civil case, may
criminal court must now try the estafa case against Estate) for the termination of a management not affect the alleged crime committed by the notary
the two accused. contract, one of the causes of action of which public, which is the subject of the criminal case. But,
Reasoning consisted of petitioner having executed a chattel even supposing that both the civil and the criminal
- A prejudicial question has been define to be one mortgage when a prior chattel mortgage was still case involve the same question and one must
which arises in a case, the resolution of which, valid and subsisting, thus giving lie to his express precede the other, it should be the civil case which
(question ) is a logical antecedent of the issued manifestation that the property was free from all should be suspended rather than the criminal, to
involved in said case, and the cognizance of which liens and encumbrances. await the result of the latter.
pertains to another tribunal. Simply put, the - Note: the trigger for the filing of information re: - Dela Cruz v City Fiscal: Regardless of the outcome
questions must be determinative of the case before art.319 violation was the filing of 5 estafa cases of the pending civil case for annulment of the
the court, and that jurisdiction to try and resolve said against Rojas. affidavit of adjudication, determination of the charge
question must be lodged in another tribunal. - CFI Judge Alikpala ordered the arraignment, then of falsification would be based on the truth or falsity
- Applying these to the case, it will be readily seen the trial for the criminal case. Rojas filed an action of the narration of facts in the affidavit of
that the alleged prejudicial question is not for certiorari against the arraignment order, and adjudication, * * *. Therefore, the civil case
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the prohibition against the order setting the trial, based
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 46 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

aforementioned does not involve a prejudicial > therefore the alleged deed of sale in Pichel's favor involves the same facts upon which the criminal
question. sought to be declared valid was fictitious and prosecution is based, but also that the resolution of
- Benitez v. Concepcion, Jr (more analogous): the fact inexistent the issues raised in said civil action would be
that the principal issues in both cases are the same - September 5, 1978 - while Civil Case was being necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of
and did arise from the same facts would not show TRIED before CFI Basilan, the Provincial Fiscal of the accused.
any necessity that the civil case be determined first Basilan filed an INFORMATION for Estafa (criminal - If the first alleged sale in favor of Pichel is void or
before taking up the criminal case. case) in the same court against Ras arising from the fictitious, then there would be no double sale and
- Isip v. Gonzales: there is a prejudicial question only same double sale subject matter of the civil petitioner would be innocent of the offense charged.
when the matter that has to be priorly decided by complaint filed by Luis Pichel. A conviction in the criminal case (if it were allowed to
another authority is one the cognizance of which - November 6, 1978 - petitioner filed a MOTION FOR proceed ahead) would be a gross injustice and would
pertains to that authority and should not, under the SUSPENSION OF ACTION in said Criminal Case have to be set aside if it were finally decided in the
circumstances, be passed upon by the court trying claiming that same facts and issues were involved in civil action that indeed the alleged prior deed of sale
the criminal case. both the civil and criminal case and that the was a forgery and spurious.
- Moreover, Art.33 explicitly provides that in cases of resolution of the issues in the civil case would Dispositive Order of respondent judge in Criminal
xxx fraud, xxx, a civil action for damages entirely necessarily be determinative of the guilt or Case dated December 12, 1978 is hereby set aside.
separate and distinct from the criminal action, may innocence of the accused. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court
be brought by the injured party. Such civil action - December 4, 1978 - Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed on May 16, 1979 is hereby made permanent and
SHALL proceed independently of the criminal his opposition on respondent judge is enjoined from proceeding with
prosecution xxx. - December 12, 1978 - respondent judge saw no the arraignment and trial of the criminal case unless
- in this case, fraud is the basis for both the civil and prejudicial question and accordingly denied the the civil case shall have been finally decided and
criminal actions, thus they are to proceed motion terminated adversely against petitioner.
independently. The invocation of the doctrine of
prejudicial question is thus attended with futility. ISSUE LIBRODO v COSCOLLUELA, JR.
Personal note: ang pangit ng case. there’s realy no WON civil case would be prejudicial to the criminal
(GUANTERO)
discussion, puro citations, that’s why this digest is case given that they would discuss same facts and
also full of it. issues 116 SCRA 303
Dispositive Petition DENIED. MELENCIO-HERRERA; August 30, 1982
HELD
RAS v RASUL YES NATURE
- there appears to be a prejudicial question in the Petition for certiorari to review Negros CFI order
100 SCRA 125
case at bar, considering that Ras' defense in Civil
TEEHANKEE; September 18, 1980 Case of the nullity and forgery of the alleged prior FACTS
deed of sale in favor of Pichel (plaintiff in the civil - Felipe Rivera died leaving certain properties in San
NATURE case and complaining witness in the criminal case) is Carlos, Negros Occidental. His estate was settled in a
Petition to review and set aside the order of based on the very same facts which would be special proceeding on November 24, 1976 and was
respondent Judge dated December 12, 1978 of necessarily determinative of Ras' guilt or innocence terminated on the basis of a Project of Partition
criminal case in CFI Basilan denying petitioner's as accused in the criminal case. among Rufino Rivera Damandaman, Democrata
motion as accused therein to suspend proceedings Ratio A prejudicial question is defined as that which Guantero, and Zosimo Guantero.
due to the existence of a prejudicial question in Civil arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical - Rufino’s share of the estate comprise of lots
Case of the same court antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the designated as Lots 559-B, 1906-B, 1910-B, and a901-
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The B which were all sugar lands. On January 18, 1977,
FACTS prejudicial question must be determinative of the Rufino leased the properties to Dr. Librodo, the
- April 27, 1978 - Luis Pichel filed a COMPLAINT case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and petitioner, for a period of ten agricultural crop years.
against Alejandro Ras and Bienvenido Martin before resolve the question must be lodged in another court - On August 31, Democrata filed a petition to re-open
CFI Basilan praying for the nullification of the deed of or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct the intestate proceeding on the ground that she was
sale executed by Ras in favor of Martin and for the and separate from the crime but so intimately not present when the subdivision plan was submitted
declaration of the prior deed of sale allegedly connected with it that it determines the guilt or and that the judgment has not become final as the
executed in his favor by the defendant Alejandro Ras innocence of the accused. boundaries on the partition have not been platted.
as valid. Reasoning - In the meantime, according to the petitioner,
- RAS ANSWER - For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a private respondents, Guanteros, harvested the sugar
> they never sold the property to Pichel criminal action as to cause the suspension of the canes he planted on the land he leased from Rufino.
> the signatures appearing in the deed of sale in criminal action pending the determination of the On August 10, 1978, a Criminal Case (the Criminal
favor of plaintiff Pichel were forgeries civil, it must appear not only that the civil case Case) was filed against the respondents for theft
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 47 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

demanding damages amounting to Pesos 15,120.00. that in the resolution of the issue or issues a motion for reinvestigation in the Tanodbayan. The
During the pendency of the Criminal Case, another raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence same was granted.
case for damages (the Damages Case) against the of the accused would necessarily be - The Tanodbayan ordered to dismiss the case for
private respondents alleging damages to the determined. lack of merit and to withdraw the Information filed in
petitioner caused by the private respondents’ theft of - In the case at bar, the issues raised would not Criminal Case No. 11414 as soon as possible in the
the sugar canes and their occupation of the leased constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Case. interest of justice.
properties thus preventing him from cultivating or The Intestate Case involves only the co-heirs and the - Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion
taking possession of the same. He alleged that this facts involved are totally unrelated to the Criminal to withdraw the information against petitioners. This
resulted in his being deprived of income for two Case. Even if the Intestate Court should annul the was denied.
years amounting to Pesos 78,280.00. division and uphold the co-ownership, that would not - BAlgos et al filed a motion to suspend proceedings
- In their answer, respondents asserted that the lots be determinative of the criminal responsibility of in the criminal case against them on the ground of
are still under co-ownership among the heirs and private respondents for theft of the sugar cane, the existence of a prejudicial question in Civil Case
that this is the subject of another special proceeding which petitioner claims he planted in good faith by No. 5307. This was likewise denied by the
(the Intestate Case). That said, Democrata virtue of the valid lease agreement. The Ejectment Sandiganbayan.
contended that Rufino could not execute the lease Case also does not constitute a prejudicial question
contracts without her conformity without her to the Criminal Case. It involves the issue of ISSUE
conformity as co-owner. The Guanteros filed a possession between co-owners. A decision therein in WON the denial by the Sandiganbayan of the motion
motion to suspend the proceedings in the Criminal favor of Democrata would not affect the rights of to withdraw the information and of another motion to
Case on the ground of pendency of the Damages Librodo, which spring from the lease contract. With suspend proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial
Case, the Intestate Case, and the ejectment case regard the Damages case, it is actually the civil question in a pending civil action constitute a grave
(the Ejectment Case) which was filed by Rufino aspect of the Criminal Case as the two cases are of abuse of discretion.
against Democrata on January 13, 1977. the same facts, and the entitlement to damages
- The respondents took the position that the various being predicated on the unlawful taking treated of in HELD
cases focused on the issues of possession and the Criminal Case, no necessity arises for that civil NO.
ownership of the lots involved as well as of the Case to be determined ahead of the Criminal Case. - While the public prosecutor has the sole direction
improvements thereon, hence, determinative of their Dispositive In the absence of a prejudicial question, and control in the prosecution of offenses, once the
guilt in the criminal action and hence constitutive of the order of the judge is set aside and he is complaint or information is filed in court, the court
a prejudicial question. instructed to proceed without delay with the trial of thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case and all
- Despite the objections made by the petitioner, the the criminal case. subsequent actions that may be taken by the public
lower court issued the order finding that a prejudicial prosecutor in relation to the disposition of the case
question existed and suspending the Criminal case BALGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN must be subject to the approval of the said court.
proceeding. Hence this appeal. Before a re-investigation of the case may be
176 SCRA 287
conducted by the public prosecutor, the permission
ISSUE GANCAYCO; August 10, 1989 or consent of the court must be secured. And if after
WON the issues raised in the three cases mentioned such reinvestigation the prosecution finds a cogent
involve a prejudicial question that warrants a NATURE basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause
suspension of the Criminal Case Petition to review the decision of Sandiganbayan the dismissal of the case, such proposed course of
action must be addressed to the sound discretion of
HELD FACTS the court.
NO - Balgos et al were charged with violation of Section - The only instance when the appellate court should
The issues raised in the three cases do not involve 3(c) of RA 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft stay the hand of the trial court in such cases is when
the pivotal question of who planted the sugar can and Corrupt Practice Act, as amended, in an it is shown that the trial court acted without
and, therefore, are not determinative juris et jure of information that was filed with the Sandiganbayan by jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or otherwise
guilt or innocence in the Criminal Case. the Special Prosecutor which was approved by the committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Reasoning Deputy Tanodbayan, after a preliminary such lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- A prejudicial question is one based on a fact investigation. - Petitioners are public officers charged with having
distinct and separate from the crime but so - Lim, the plaintiff and prevailing party in Civil Case violated Section 3(c) of RA 3019, for evident bad
intimately connected with it that it determines No. 4047 filed a complaint for rescission of the sale faith and manifest partiality in enforcing the writ of
the guilt or innocence of the accused., and for of the car by Juanito Ang to private respondent execution in Civil Case No. 4047 against a Mustang
it to suspend the criminal action, it must Leticia Acosta-Ang for being allegedly in fraud of car registered in the name of Leticia Acosta-Ang
appear not only that said case involves facts creditors. The said complaint was filed with the RTC (complainant) who is not the judgment debtor
intimately related to those upon which the of Nueva Vizcaya. On the same day, petitioners filed thereby causing undue injury to said complainant
criminal prosecution would be based but also
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 48 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

and giving unwarranted benefits to the judgment civil action is resolved would be determinative juris was set on September 4, 1981 but petitioners failed
creditor in said case. et jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the to appear. It was reset to October 5, 1981 but this
- Upon reinvestigation of the criminal case by the criminal case. was postponed upon motion of petitioners.
Tanodbayan, he found evidence tending to show that - The pending civil case for the annulment of the sale - On October 14, 1981, OROSEA filed a Complaint in
the sale of said car to the complainant by Juanito of the car to Leticia Ang is not determinative of the the Court of First Instance of Quezon against the
Ang, the judgment debtor, was a sham intended to guilt or innocence of the petitioners for the acts Edano spouses for the annulment/rescission of the
defraud his creditors; that the deed of absolute sale allegedly committed by them in seizing the car. Even Contract of Sale for which the petitioners issued the
which ostensibly was executed before a notary public if in the civil action it is ultimately resolved that the checks, subject of the criminal case.
appeared to be fictitious inasmuch as the entry of sale was null and void, it does not necessarily follow - The estafa case was again set for arraignment. This
the document in the notarial register of said notary that the seizure of the car was rightfully undertaken. was postponed. With the entry of a new counsel,
public on said date referred to a catering contract of The car was registered in the name of Leticia Ang six petitioners filed a motion to quash the estafa case,
other parties; that the certificate of registration of months before the seizure. Until the nullity of the on ground of improper venue, but this motion was
the car was issued to complainant only on June 13, sale is declared by the courts, the same is withdrawn by petitioners before it could be resolved.
1984 which showed that the document of sale was presumptively valid. Thus, petitioners must - The arraignment was again postponed thrice.
actually executed only on or about the same date, demonstrate that the seizure was not attended by Petitioners then filed a 'Motion to Suspend
that is, seven days after Juanito Ang received copy of manifest bad faith in order to clear themselves of the Arraignment and Further Proceedings, with a
the adverse decision in Civil Case No. 4047; and that charge in the criminal action. Supplemental Motion To Suspend Proceedings. This
upon the execution of the judgment, the car was Dispositive The petition is DENIED for lack of merit was opposed by the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon.
found in the possession of Alvin, the son of Juanito and the restraining order dated June 6, 1989 is Resolving the motion to suspend, respondent Judge
Ang, who admitted that the car belonged to his hereby lifted. No costs. issued his orders, now under question, denying the
father by showing the receipt of its repair in the motion. CFI of Zambales also denied the same
name of Juanito Ang. This is the basis of the motion UMALI v IAC (EDANO) motion. A petition for certiorari is filed with CA and
for withdrawal of the information of the Tanodbayan. CA affirmed.
219 SCRA 339
- The respondents are aware that the complainant is
not a party to the civil case filed by the creditor PADILLA; June 21, 1990 ISSUE
against spouses Juanito and Lydia Ang and that a writ WON proceedings should be suspended until the civil
of execution cannot be implemented validly against NATURE case is disposed of, since CV No. 8769 involves a
one who is not a party to the action. All these, Review on certiorari prejudicial question.
coupled with the under haste in which the levy on
the Mustang car was made without first ascertaining FACTS HELD
the true owner thereof demonstrate quite - Petitioners (Umali, Calleja, Ledesma) are officers of NO.
convincingly the evident bad faith and manifest the Orosea Dev’t Corporation. Sometime on Sept. 4, - CV No. 8769 seeks the annulment of the deed of
partiality of the respondents, thereby giving 1979, Umali purchased from spoused Homorio and sale in favor of Orosea on the gound that there was
unwarranted benefits to the judgment creditor to the Solina Edano a lot in Mulanay, Province of Queazon fraud in misrepresenting that the land is free from all
damage and prejudice of the complainant. for P1, 036,500 payable on 4 installments (P225,000, liens and encumbrances, and that it is not tenanted,
- Although at the reinvestigation, the Tanodbayan P271,500, P270,000, P 270,000) They issued for this when in truth and fact, the land is covered by the
was persuaded that in fact the sale of the car to purpose 4 checks drawn against the Chartered Bank, land reform program and that vast portions thereof
Leticia Ang was fraudulent, this did not necessarily Manila Branch. The first check for P225,000.00 was are timber land, hence, allegedly indisposable public
clear petitioners of the aforesaid Anti-Graft charge honored upon its presentment. By arrangement the land. Therefore, according to petitioners, CV No.
against them. Still the burden is on the petitioners to petitioners made with the Edano spouses, a deed of 8769 involves issues, the resolution of which will
establish that they acted in good faith in proceeding absolute sale in the name of Orosea Dev’t Corp. was determine whether or not petitioners are criminally
with the execution on the car even they were executed even of the full purchase price has not yet liable in CR No. 1423-I. They further argue that, if
presented evidence tending to show it did not belong been fully paid. Thereafter, OROSEA secured a loan and when the court hearing CV No. 7869 annuls the
to Juanito Ang anymore. of P1,000,000.00 from the Philippine Veterans Bank subject deed of sale, then, their obligation to pay
- The denial of the motion to suspend the criminal using this property as security. When the check for private respondents under the said deed would be
proceedings on the ground of the pendency of a the second installment fell due, petitioners twice extinguished, resulting in the dismissal of CR No.
prejudicial question in Civil Case No. 5307 is well asked for deferment. The checks they have issued 1423-I. The contracts are thus voidable with the
taken. The doctrine of prejudicial question comes were dishonored. As a consequence of the dishonor existence of fraud vitiating their consent.
into play usually in a situation where a civil action of these checks, the Edano spouses filed a complaint - However, it cannot be denied that at the time the
and a criminal action are both pending and there for estafa against petitioners. acts complained of in the estafa case were
exists in the former an issue which must be - The information was filed by the Provincial Fiscal committed, the deed of sale they seek to be
preemptively resolved before the criminal action may against petitioners on May 21, 1981, and it was annulled, was still binding to the parties.
proceed, because whatsoever the issue raised in the docketed as Criminal Case No. 1423-I. Arraignment
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 49 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The two (2) essential elements for a prejudicial matter of the action wrt the offense of abduction with guilty parties. And such condition has been imposed
question to exist are: (a) the civil action involves an consent. MFR was denied "out of consideration for the offended woman and
issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised Petitioner’s claims – there was no complaint for her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in
in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such abduction with consent filed and that the lower court silence rather than go through with the scandal of a
issue in the civil action determines whether or not acquired no jurisdiction over his person or over the public trial."
the criminal action may proceed. crime of abduction with consent. - The gist of petitioner's pretense is that there are
- Given the nature of a prejudicial question, and some elements of the latter which are not included in
considering the issues raised in CV No. 8769 and CR ISSUE the former, and, not alleged, according to him, in the
No. 1423-I, we agree with the ruling of the WON CA erred in not reversing he decision of the TC complaint filed herein, namely: 1) that the offended
respondent Court of Appeals that the resolution of for lack of jurisdiction over the accused and the party is a virgin; and 2) that she is over 12 and under
the issues in CV No. 8769 is not determinative of the subject matter of the action for the offense abduction 18 years of age. The second element is clearly set
guilt or innocence of the petitioners-accused in CR with consent forth in said complaint, which states that Ester
No. 1423-I, hence, no prejudicial question is involved Ulsano is "a minor . . . 17 years of age . . .", and,
between the said two (2) cases. HELD hence, over 12 and below 18 years of age.
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. NO. - As regards the first element, it is settled that the
The decision dated 23 September 1982 of the Court - Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is virginity mentioned in Art 343 RPC, as an essential
of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 14504 is hereby acquired upon either his apprehension, with or ingredient of the crime of abduction with consent,
AFFIRMED. without warrant, or his submission to the jurisdiction should not be understood in its material sense and
of the court. It is not claimed that petitioner had not does not exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous
VALDEPENAS V PEOPLE been apprehended or had not submitted himself to woman of good reputation because the essence of
the jurisdiction of the court. His actions show that he the offense "is not the wrong done to the woman, but
16 SCRA 871
never questioned the judicial authority of the CFI, the the outrage to the family and the alarm produced in
CONCEPTION; April 30, 1966 justice of peace and the CA. He is deemed to have it by the disappearance of one of its members."
waived whatever objection he might have had to the - The complaint in the case at bar alleges not only
NATURE jurisdiction over his person, and, hence, to have that Ester Ulsano is a minor 17 years of age, but also
Appeal by Maximino Valdepenas from a decision of submitted himself to the Court's jurisdiction. His that petitioner "willfully, unlawfully and feloniously"
the CA, affirming that of the CFI of Cagayan, behavior - particularly the motions therein filed by took her by force and violence . . . against her will
convicting him of the crime of abduction with him — implied, not merely a submission to the and taking advantage of the absence of her mother"
consent. jurisdiction thereof, but also, that he urged the courts from their dwelling and carried "her to a secluded
to exercise the authority thereof over his person. spot to gain carnal intercourse with the offended
FACTS - On the other hand, it is well settled that jurisdiction party against her will, using force, intimidation and
- Jan 25, 56 – Ester Ulsano filed with the justice of over the subject matter of an action is and may be violence, with lewd designs." This allegation implies
peace a criminal complaint charging Valdepenas with conferred only by law. That jurisdiction over a given that Ester is a minor living under patria protestas,
forcible abduction with rape of Ester Ulsano. After the crime, not vested by law upon a particular court, may thus leading to the presumption that she is a virgin
preliminary investigation, the second stage of which not be conferred thereto by the parties involved in apart from being virtuous and having a good
was waived by Valdepenas, the justice of peace the offense; and that, under an information for reputation. The presumption of innocence includes
found that there was probable cause and forwarded forcible abduction, the accused may be convicted of that of morality and decency, and of chastity.
the complaint to the CFI. abduction with consent. Art 344 (3) RPC states that: Dispositive Wherefore, the decision appealed from
- CFI found him guilty as charged and sentenced him ". . . the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
accordingly. acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except petitioner Maximino Valdepenas. It is so
- On appeal, CA modified the decision, convicting him upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her ordered.
of abduction with consent. parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor in any case,
- Valdepenas filed MFR and new trial contesting the if the offended has been expressly pardoned by the PEOPLE v PLATEROS
findings of CA, to the effect that complainant was above- named persons, as the case may be".
below 18 y/o at the time of the occurrence. Motion 83 SCRA 401
- Art 344 RPC does not determine the jurisdiction of
was granted. The decision was set aside and the our courts over the offense therein enumerated. It AQUINO; May 30 1978
case was remanded to the CFI could not affect said jurisdiction, because the same is
- CFI rendered decision reiterating findings of CA. governed by the Judiciary Act of 1948, not by RPC, FACTS
Petitioner again appealed to CA which affirmed the which deals primarily with the definition of crimes - One night, Pedro Candel together with other
CFI decision. and the factors pertinent to the punishment of the pedicab drivers and Tomas Metucua, a second year
- MFR was filed on the ground that lower court had culprits. The complaint required in said Article 344 is college student drank beer in the kitchenette.
no jurisdiction over the person and the subject merely a condition precedent to the exercise by the Seated at another table were Warlito Plateros and
proper authorities of the power to prosecute the Murillo Lahoy who were also drinking beer.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 50 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Metucua and Plateros were rivals for the affection imposed is death or life imprisonment; and those between the decision of the Court of Appeals and this
of Estrella Silamro, the cashier in the kitchenette. involving other offenses which, although not so Court's decision in the instant murder case inasmuch
When Metucua was talking with Estrella, his alleged punished, arose out of the same occurrence or as the victims in the two cases are different. The
sweetheart, Plateros went near them and refused to which may have been committed by the accused attempted murder case decided by the Court of
leave them, thereby annoying Metucua. on the same occasion, as that giving rice to the Appeals involved the wounding of a certain Tomas
- At about midnight. Piquero, Candel and Añora, more serious offense, regardless of whether the Metucua whereas, in the instant murder case the
accompanied by Metucua, left the kitchenette and accused are charged as principals, accomplices or victim was Pedro Candel. The acquittal of Lahoy in
went to their pedicab. Candel was seated in the accessories, or whether have been tried jointly or connection with the wounding of Metucua would not
sidecar of the tricycle. Metucua sat on the driver's separately; x x x." affect the determination of his guilt or innocence in
seat. Lahoy and Plateros came out of the - In other words, the attempted murder case like the connection with the death of Pedro Candel.
kitchenette. Lahoy appeared to be angry, hostile and instant murder case, comes within the exclusive - This holding does not in anyway emasculate the
menacing. Without any warning, he stabbed Candel appellate jurisdiction of the SCt and should have rule in section 17(1) that criminal cases appealed to
(maybe thinking that it was Metucua who was inside been decided together with the instant murder case. the Court of Appeals, involving offenses which arose
the pedicab because Candel is the driver – abberatio out of the same occurrence, or which were
personae) two times. Plateros also stabbed Candel. ISSUES committed on the same occasion as the offense
Moved by the instinct of selfpreservation, Candel On Attempted Murder Case punished by death or reclusion perpetua should be
jumped out of the sidecar. He fell on the ground face 1. WON the decision of the Court of Appeals certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals. It is
down. Lahoy allegedly stabbed Metucua. Then, acquitting Lahoy of attempted murder should be set this Court that would determine whether or not the
Plateros and Lahoy fled from the scene of the aside for lack of appellate jurisdiction or as a “lawless cases appealed to the Court of Appeals should be
assault, thing” decided together with the case appealed to this
- Candel was brought to the hospital but he died on On Murder case Court.
that same morning. 2. WON the guilt of Lahoy and Plateros was proven 2. YES
Procedure beyond reasonable doubt The feeble denials of Plateros and Lahoy (who
- Two informations were filed in the Court of First 3. WON there was conspiracy between Lahoy and admittedly were near the owns of the crime, when it
Instance of Bohol accusing Plateros and Lahoy of (1) Plateros was perpetrated) cannot prevail over the positive
Murder of Candel and (2) Attempted Murder of 4. WON the crime should be categorized as simple and unequivocal declarations of the eyewitnesses,
Metucua. homicide only and not murder Añora and Piquero, that the appellants were the
- The trial court tried the two cases jointly and authors of the stab wounds which caused Candal's
rendered only one decision. Plateros and Lahoy were HELD death. Their guilt was proven beyond reasonable
found guilty of murder, sentencing each of them of 1. NO. doubt.
reclusion perpetua. In that same decision, the trial Ratio: The rule in section 17(1) is designed to avoid 3. YES.
court convicted Lahoy of attempted murder conflicts between the decisions of this Court and the There was a conspiracy between Plateros and Lahoy
(Plateros, his co-accused, was acquitted) of Metucua. Court of Appeals in cases involving offenses which as shown in their concerted efforts to injure Candel.
- Lahoy appealed to the Court of Appeals and the CA arose from the same occurrence or which were Plateros and Lahoy, as boon companions, had been
acquitted him. committed on the same occasion usually by the together since four o'clock in the afternoon. They had
- The murder case was elevated to SC for review. same accused. gone to different places and repaired twice to the
Together with it, the Solicitor General elevated the However, that general rule has an exception. Where, kitchenette. They were together when they left the
attempted murder case be he believed that the by allowing the Court of Appeals to decide a can scene of the stabbing.
decision of CA is void because Lahoy’s appeal ought involving an offense, which is not punishable by 4. NO
to have been certified to the Supreme Court by the death or reclusion perpetua but which arose out of Lahoy and Plateros, who could have stabbed Candel
CA because the attempted murder imputed to Lahoy the same occurrence or was committed on the same or Metucua inside the kitchenette, did not do so.
was committed on the same occasion and arose out occasion, as the case involving an offense punishable They waited for Metucua and the pedicab drivers to
of the same occurrence as the murder imputed to by death or reclusion perpetua pending in this Court, leave the kitchenette. Their intention was to make a
him and Plateros in this case, as contemplated in there will be no conflict between the decisions of this surprise attack without any risk to themselves. The
section 17(1), formerly section 17(4) of the Judiciary Court and the Court of Appeals, the former case need assault was deliberate, sudden and unexpected. That
Law, which reads: not be elevated to this Court (People vs. Cariño, 101 is the characteristics manifestation of treachery
"SEC. 17, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. -x x x " Phil. 1206). The rationale of that exception to the (alevosia). Hence, the killing was properly
x x xx x x x x x "The Supreme Court shall have general rule is found in the maxim: Cessanie ratione categorized as murder by the trial court (Art. 14(16),
exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, legis, cessat et ipsa lex. (The reason for the law Revised Penal Code).
modify or affirm on appeal, as the law or rules of ceasing, the law itself also ceases.) Dispositive WHEREFORE, the trial court's judgment
court may provide, final judgments and decrees of Reasoning: is affirmed with costs against the appellants. They
inferior courts herein provided, in "(1) All criminal - The doctrine of the Cariño case may be applied in are entitled to credit for their preventive
cases involving offenses for which the penalty this case because here there can be no conflict
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 51 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

imprisonment under the conditions laid down in offense which carries a penalty that would otherwise prescribe in accordance with the following rules: . .
article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. fall within the jurisdiction of an inferior court. . Violations penalized by municipal ordinances
-In the instant case, should the information be refiled shall prescribe after two months.
PEOPLE v LAGON with the RTC, the court may not impose a more Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the
onerous penalty upon Lagon. Although the RTC day of the commission of the violation of the law,
185 SCRA 442
retains subject-matter jurisdiction to try and decide and if the same be not known at the time, from the
FELICIANO.: May 18, 1990 the refiled case under PD 818, given the date of the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
commission of the crime (before effectivity of PD proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
FACTS 818), the lower penalty provided in Art 315 The prescription shall be interrupted when
-On July 7 1976 a criminal action was filed with the (otherwise within the jurisdiction of the City Court) proceedings are instituted against the guilty
City Court of Roxas charging Lagon with estafa for should be imposed. person, and shall begin to run again if the
allegedly issuing a P4,232 check as payment for Dispositive WHEREFORE, the Court resolved to proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
goods knowing she had insufficient funds. However DENY the petition constituting jeopardy.
on Dec. 2, as the trial commenced, the City Court - Petitioner concludes that as the information was
dismissed the information on the ground that the
ZALDIVIA V REYES, JR. filed way beyond the two-month statutory period
penalty prescribed by law for estafa was beyond the from the date of the alleged commission of the
court’s authority to impose. Hence this petition for 211 SCRA 277
offense, the charge against her should have been
review. CRUZ; July 3, 1992 dismissed on the ground prescription.
Prosecution’s position The prosecution contends
ISSUE NATURE that the prescriptive period was suspended upon the
WON the City Court had jurisdiction over the case Petition for review on certiorari filing of the complaint against her with the OPP. The
SolGen invokes Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules
HELD FACTS on Criminal Procedure (RCP), providing as follows:
NO - The petitioner Lus Zaldivia is charged with Section 1. How Instituted For offenses not
- It is settled doctrine that jurisdiction of a court in quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor's subject to the rule on summary procedure in
criminal law matters is determined by the law in permit in violation of Ordinance No. 2, Series of special cases, the institution of criminal action
effect at the time of the commencement of the 1988, of the Municipality of Rodriguez, in the shall be as follows:
criminal action and not the law in effect at the time Province of Rizal, allegedly committed on May 11, …b) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of
of the commission of the offense charged. 1990. The referral-complaint of the police was the MTC and MCTC, by filing the complaint directly
-Under Sec 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, received by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor with the said courts, or a complaint with the
“municipal judges in the capitals of provinces and (OPP) of Rizal on May 30, 1990 and the information fiscal's office. However, in Metropolitan Manila and
sub-provinces and judges of city courts shall have was filed with the MTC of Rodriguez, presided by other chartered cities, the complaint may be filed
like jurisdiction as the CFI to try parties charged with Judge Andres Reyes, Jr., on October 2, 1990. only with the office of the fiscal.
an offense within their respective jurisdictions, in - The petitioner moved to quash the information on In all cases such institution interrupts the period of
which penalties provided do not exceed prision the ground that the crime had prescribed, but the prescription of the offense charged.
correccional or fines no exceeding P6,000 or both. motion was denied. On appeal, the RTC of Rizal - Respondent maintains that the filing of the
-At the time of the commission of the crime, the affirmed the denial of the motion. complaint with the OPP comes under the phrase
imposable penalty under Art 315 of the RPC was Petitioner’s claims In this petition, the petitioner "such institution" and that the phrase "in all cases"
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision argues that the charge against her is governed by applies to all cases, without distinction, including
correccional it is minimum period, falling well within the following provisions of the Rule on Summary those falling under the RSP.
the jurisdiction of the City Court. But when the Procedure (RSP):
information was filed, PD 818 had increased the Section 1. Scope. This rule shall govern the ISSUE
imposable penalty to prision mayor in its medium procedure in the MetTC, the MTC, and the MCTC in WON the offense has prescribed
period. the following cases:
-The real question raised by petitioner is whether the B. Criminal Cases: HELD
said doctrine disregards the rule against retroactivity 3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances; . YES
of penal laws. It has been repeatedly held that in - Petitioner also invokes Act No. 3326, "An Act to - The filing of the complaint in the MTC, even if it be
criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction is not determined Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations merely for purposes of preliminary examination or
by what may be meted out to the offender in after Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances investigation, should, and does, interrupt the period
trial but by the extent of the penalty which the law and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if
imposes. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the Court in Run," reading as follows: the court where the complaint or information is filed
which the information is filed, it is retained Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts can not try the case on its merits. Even if the court
regardless of whether the evidence proves a lesser shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, where the complaint or information is filed may only
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 52 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

proceed to investigate the case, its actuations prescription shall be suspended "when proceedings charging petitioners with crime of falsification of
already represent the initial step of the proceedings are instituted against the guilty party." The private document. Allegedly, Aurora and Angelina
against the offender. proceedings referred to in Section 2 thereof are made it appear that they were the guardians of
- It is important to note that this decision was "judicial proceedings," contrary to the submission of minors George and Alexander Meijia (sons of the
promulgated on May 30, 1983, two months before the SolGen that they include administrative spouses?) when they weren’t the guardians at the
the promulgation of the RSP on August 1, 1983. On proceedings. date of the execution of the document, a certain
the other hand, Section 1 of Rule 110 is new, having - At any rate, the Court feels that if there be a Carolina M. de Castro was the judicial guardian of the
been incorporated therein with the revision of the conflict between the RSP and the RCP, the former said minors).
RCP on January 1, 1985, except for the last should prevail as the special law. And if there be a -Petitioners asked for a reinvestigation. Angeles City
paragraph, which was added on October 1, 1988. conflict between Act No. 3326 and the RCP, the latter Fiscal reinvestigated to give them opportunity to
- Sec. 1 of the RCP begins with the phrase, "for must again yield because this Court, in the exercise present exculpatory evidence. After reinvestigation,
offenses not subject to the rule on summary of its rule-making power, is not allowed to "diminish, parties charged moved for the dismissal of the case
procedure in special cases," which plainly signifies increase or modify substantive rights" under Article mainly on the ground that the City Court of
that the section does not apply to offenses which are VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution Prescription in Angeles had no jurisdiction over the offense
subject to summary procedure. The phrase "in all criminal cases is a substantive right. because the private document that contained
cases" appearing in the last paragraph obviously - The prescriptive period for the crime imputed to the alleged false statement of fact was signed
refers to the cases covered by the Section, that is, the petitioner commenced from its alleged by them outside the territorial limits of said
those offenses not governed by the RSP. commission on May 11, 1990, and ended two months city (One in Makati, the other one in QC).
- The charge against the petitioner, which is for thereafter, on July 11, 1990, in accordance with -However, the resolution of their motion to dismiss
violation of a municipal ordinance of Rodriguez, is Section 1 of Act No. 3326. It was not interrupted by was delayed and the City Court already set their
governed by the RSP and not the RCP. the filing of the complaint with the OPP on May 30, criminal case for arraignment. Petitioners secured
- Where paragraph (b) of the section does speak of 1990, as this was not a judicial proceeding. The several postponements of the arraignment. But since
"offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the MTC judicial proceeding that could have interrupted the City Fiscal continually failed to act on their motion to
and MCTC," the obvious reference is to Section 32 (2) period was the filing of the information with the MTC dismiss, petitioners filed a motion to quash instead,
of B.P. No. 129, vesting in such courts: of Rodriguez, but this was done only on October 2, on the ground that court had no jurisdiction.
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses 1990, after the crime had already prescribed. Respondents (with conformity of City Fiscal) filed an
punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. Case is DISMISSED opposition to the motion to quash. Respondent judge
years and two months, or a fine of not more than on the ground of prescription. denied motion to quash, set arraignment. So
four thousand pesos, or both such fine and petitioners filed present action.
imprisonment, regardless of other imposable LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE
accessory or other penalties, including the civil ISSUE
18 SCRA 616
liability arising from such offenses or predicated 1. WON City Court of Angeles City had jurisdiction to
thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or DIZON, October 29, 1966 try and decide the criminal case for alleged
amount thereof; Provided, however, That in offenses falsification of a private document allegedly done by
involving damage to property through criminal NATURE the parties named in the info even if the acts of
negligence they shall have exclusive original Petition for review on Certiorari and Prohibition falsification was allegedly done in Makati and QC,
jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not and thus outside the jurisdiction of said court
exceed twenty thousand pesos. FACTS Other procedural issues
- These offenses are not covered by the RSP. Under -Petitioners (Roy Villasor, Angelina Meijia Lopez and 2. WON the motion to quash was improper, and
Section 9 of the RSP, "the complaint or information Aurora Mejia Villasor) and other heirs of spouses should not be allowed since by filing the said motion,
shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior Manuel Meijia and Gloria Lazatin entered into a the petitioners necessarily assumes the truth of the
preliminary examination or preliminary contract with respondent Trinidad Lazatin for the allegation of the information to the effect that the
investigation." Both parties agree that this provision development and subdivision of 3 parcels of land offense was committed within the territorial
does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a belonging to the intestate estate. Lazatin transferred jurisdiction of Angeles City
preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the his rights to Terra Dev’t Co (TDC). 3. WON the prayer for writs of certiorari and
case shall be deemed commenced only when it is -Petitioners and co-heirs filed an action in CFI QC for prohibition is proper
filed in court, whether or not the prosecution decides rescission of said contract with Lazatin for alleged
to conduct a preliminary investigation. This means gross and willful violation of its terms. HELD
that the running of the prescriptive period shall be -Respondents (Lazatin and TDC) filed with Fiscal’s 1. NO.
halted on the date the case is actual filed in court Office of City of Angeles a complaint against Ratio. The place where the criminal offense
and not on any date before that. petitioners for violation of A172 in relation to A171, was committed not only determines the venue
- This interpretation is in consonance with the afore- par4, RPC. Preliminary investigation conducted. of the action but is an essential element of
quoted Act No. 3326 which says that the period of Fiscal filed with Court in Angeles City information jurisdiction [US vs. Pagdayuman].
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 53 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Reasoning. Petitioners are charged with having undergo trial in said court and suffer all the who was also charged with estafa, in his capacity as
falsified a private document, not using a falsified embarrassment and mental anguish that go with it. the President of Yabut Transit Lines. The exact same
document, so it is essential to determine when and Dispositive WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby thing happened in his case (motion to quash ->
where the offense of falsification of a private rendered declaring that the offense charged in the improper venue reason -> quashed -> MFR denied).
document is deemed consummated or committed. information filed in Criminal Case No. C-2268 of the
The crime of falsification of a private document is City Court of Angeles City is not within the ISSUE
consummated when such document is actually jurisdiction of said court and that, therefore, said 1. WON CFI Bulacan had jurisdiction over the case
falsified with the intent to prejudice a 3rd person, court is hereby restrained and prohibited from 2. WON new law punishes the postdating or issuance
whether such falsified document is or is not put to further proceedings therein. Costs against the private thereof in payment of a pre-existing obligation
use illegally. The improper and illegal use of the respondents. 3. WON facts charged in the informations constitute
document is not material or essential element of the estafa
crime of falsification of a private document [US vs. PEOPLE v YABUT
Infante, US vs. Barreto] HELD
76 SCRA 624
2. NO 1. YES
Ratio. The motion to quash now provided for in Rule MARTIN; April 29, 1977 Ratio Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check
117 of the Rules of Court is manifestly broader in under Art. 315 par 2(d) of the RPC may be a
scope than the demurrer, as it is not limited to NATURE transitory or continuing offense. Its basic
defects apparent upon the face of the complaint or Petition for review on certiorari of Orders of CFI elements of deceit and damage may independently
information but extends to issues arising out of Bulacan arise in separate places. In the event of such
extraneous facts, as shown by the circumstance that, occurrence, the institution of the criminal action in
among the grounds for a motion to quash, Section 2 FACTS either place is legally allowed.
of said Rule provides for former jeopardy or acquittal, - Cecilia YABUT was accused of ESTAFA by means of - The venue of the offense lies at the place where the
extinction of criminal action or liability, insanity of false pretenses before the CFI Bulacan. She, as check was executed and delivered to the payee.
the accused etc., which necessarily involve questions treasurer of the Yabut Transit Lines, made out 3 Reasoning Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the ROC: “In
of fact in the determination of which a preliminary checks in the total sum of P6, 568.94 drawn against all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted
trial is required. the Merchants Banking Corp (located in Caloocan and tried in the Court of the municipality or province
Reasoning. The argument of the respondents refer City), payable to Freeway Tires Supply. The checks wherein the offense was committed or any one of the
to the now obsolete demurrer to an information. were dishonored because of insufficient funds. Yabut essential ingredients thereof took place.”
3. YES failed to deposit the necessary funds to cover the - The estafa charged in the 2 informations involved
Ratio. The general rule is that a court of equity will checks. here appear to be transitory or continuing in nature.
not issue a writ of certiorari to annul an order of a - Instead of entering a plea, YABUT filed a MOTION Deceit has taken place in Malolos (thru issuance and
lower court denying a motion to quash, nor issue a TO QUASH contending that: (1) the acts charged do delivery of worthless checks), while the damage in
writ of prohibition to prevent said court from not constitute the offense as there is no allegation Caloocan, where the checks were dishonored by the
proceeding with the case after such denial, it being that the postdated checks were issued and delivered drawee banks there.
the rule that upon such denial the defendant should to the complainant prior to or simultaneously with - The place where the bills were written, signed or
enter his plea of not guilty and go to trial and, if the delivery of the merchandise; (2) estafa is not dated does not necessarily fix the place where they
convicted, raise on appeal the same legal questions indictable when checks are postdated or issued in were executed. What is decisive is the delivery of the
covered by his motion to quash. In this as well as in payment of pre-existing obligations; (3) venue was instrument which is the final act essential to its
other jurisdictions, however, this is no longer the improperly laid because checks were issued and consummation as an obligation.
hard and fast rule. received by complainant in Caloocan, Yabut’s office. - The receipt of the bad checks by a certain Yambao
-The writs of certiorari and prohibition, as - The People opposed and maintained that new law in Caloocan cannot be taken as delivery of the
extraordinary legal remedies, are, in the ultimate on checks, RA 4885, amending Art. 315 par.2(d) RPC, checks to Freeway Tires because he did not take
analysis, intended to annul void proceedings; to penalizes the postdating and that Malolos court can delivery of the checks as holder.
prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal exercise jurisdiction since the last ingredient of the - Place of business of Freeway Tires is at Malolos,
authority and to provide for a fair and orderly case, damage, transpired in Bulacan (residence of Bulacan from where the tire and gas purchases were
administration of justice. the complainant) after the dishonor of the checks for made by the private respondents. Payment should
Reasoning. In several cases, the court already took lack of funds. then be considered effected there.
cognizance of said writs, overlooking the flaw in the - The judge quashed the information for the reason of 2. YES
procedure followed in the interest of a more improper venue. The other issue was not resolved by - Due to the absence of concrete evidence on the
enlightened and substantial justice. The lack of the judge. specific nature of the obligation assumed or
jurisdiction of the City Court of Angeles is patent and - People’s MFR for this dismissal was denied. supposedly discharged by the issuance of the bad
it would be highly unfair to compel the petitioners to ** This is actually a decision for two petitions: the checks, resolution of this controversial issue on the
other case involved Cecilia’s husband, GEMINIANO
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 54 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

basis of the averments in the informations alone is made defamatory imputations against Mahinan on or "The criminal and civil action for damages in cases
not ripe. about February 17, 1976 in Bambang, Nueva of written defamations as provided for in this
3. YES Vizcaya. chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately
Reasoning In considering a motion to quash based -Quoted in the information were the affidavits of with the court of first instance of the province or
on the ground that the facts charged do not Pascual and Bautista signed at Cauayan, Isabela, city where the libelous article is printed and first
constitute an offense, the point of resolution is Bautista's undated letter asking for Mahinan's published or where any of the offended parties
whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, dismissal, and Agbayani's "unusual incident report" actually resides at the time of the commission of
would meet the essential elements of the offense as subscribed and sworn to before a Manila notary and the offense:
defined in the law. Facts alleged should be taken as enclosing documentary evidence to support his "Provided, however, That where one of the
they are. charges of malversation and falsification against offended parties is a public officer whose
Dispositive Appealed orders ordering the quashal Mahinan and praying for the latter's separation from office is in the City of Manila at the time of
of the estafa informations against the two private the service. the commission of the offense, the action
respondents are reversed and set aside. Arraignment -According to the information, all those documents shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of
of the private respondents in the criminal cases allegedly depicted Mahinan "as an incorrigible the City of Manila or of the city or province
should be set at the earliest date, and thereafter, the managerial misfit, despoiler of public office, where the libelous article is printed and first
trial on the merits to proceed immediately. spendthrift of GSIS funds, inveterate gambler, published, and in case such public officer
chronic falsifier", and an "unreformed ex-convict". does not hold office in the City of Manila, the
SEPARATE OPINION -The four accused filed a motion to quash contending action shall be filed in the Court of First
that the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya has Instance of the province or city where he
no jurisdiction over the offense charged because held office at the time of the commission of
TEEHANKEE [concurring]
Mahinan was a public officer holding office at the offense or where the libelous article is
- The motion to quash on the ground of improper
Cauayan, Isabela when the alleged libel was printed and first published…
venue must yield to the express allegations of the
committed and, under Article 360 of the Revised "Preliminary investigation of criminal actions
informations, bearing in mind that what determines
Penal Code, the offense charged comes within the for written defamations as provided for in
jurisdiction are the allegations in the information and
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Isabela. the chapter shall be conducted by the
that venue is sufficiently conferred wherein any one
They argued that the provincial fiscal of Nueva provincial or city fiscal of the province or
of the essential ingredients of the offense charged
Vizcaya had no authority to conduct the preliminary city, or by the municipal court of the city or
took place. It also imports on the part of the accused
investigation and to file the information. capital of the province where such actions
a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the
-It was denied by the trial court in its order of April may be instituted in accordance with the
information.
25, 1977 on the ground that Mahinan was not a provisions of this article.
public officer within the meaning of article 203 of the ". . . ." (As amended by Republic Act Nos. 1289 and
AGBAYANI v SAYO Revised Penal Code since the insurance business of 4363)
89 SCRA 699 the GSIS is not an inherently governmental function. - Before article 360 was amended, the rule was that
AQUINO; April 30, 1979 -After petitioners' motion for the reconsideration of a criminal action for libel may be instituted in any
that order was denied, they filed in this Court the jurisdiction where the libelous article was published
NATURE instant petition. or circulated, irrespective of where it was written or
Instant petition for certiorari and prohibition printed. Under that rule, the criminal action is
ISSUE transitory and the injured party has a choice of
FACTS WON the CFI of Nueva Ecija was the proper venue of venue.
-Conrado B. Mahinan, a lawyer, was the manager of the criminal action for written defamation filed by -Experience had shown that under that old rule the
the Cagayan Valley Branch of the Government Mahinan offended party could harass the accused in a libel
Service Insurance System (GSIS) stationed at case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a
Cauayan, Isabela. Among his subordinates were HELD remote or distant place.
Wilson Agbayani, Carmelo N. Bautista, Pablo R. NO -Republic Act No. 4363 was enacted so as to prevent
Pascual, and Renato Romeo P. Dugay. -There is no issue as to whether Mahinan is a public the offended party in written defamation cases from
-On March 8, 1976, Mahinan filed with the fiscal's officer. As GSIS branch manager, he is inconveniencing the accused by means of out-of-
office at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya a complaint for unquestionably a public officer. town libel suits, meaning complaints filed in remote
written defamation against Agbayani, Bautista, -Article 360, which lays down the rules on venue in municipal courts
Pascual and Dugay. cases of written defamation and which specifies the -The rules on venue in article 360 may be restated
-On July 23, 1976, the provincial fiscal of Nueva officer or court that should conduct the preliminary thus:
Vizcaya filed in the Court of First Instance of that investigation, reads as follows: 1. Whether the offended party is a public official or
province an information for libel charging Agbayani, ART. 360.Persons responsible. . . . a private person, the criminal action may be filed
Bautista, Pascual and Dugay with having maliciously in the Court of First Instance of the province or city
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 55 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

where the libelous article is printed and first WON CFI of Manila has jurisdiction to continue with
published. CATINGUB v CA (PCSO) the trial of the offense as charged in view of the
2. If the offended party is a private individual, the evidence presented by the prodecution
121 SCRA 106.
criminal action may also be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the province where he actually GUERRERO; March 25, 1983. HELD
resided at the time of the commission of the YES.
offense. NATURE - Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, Sec. 14(a)
3. If the offended party is a public officer whose This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of provides:
office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38698-R entitled "Sec. 14. Place where action is to be instituted. —
the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of "PEDRITO L. CATINGUB, Petitioner, versus HON. (a) In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be
First Instance of Manila. RICARDO C. PUNO, Judge of the CFI Manila, Branch instituted and tried in the court of the municipality
4. If the offended party is a public officer holding 24, and the PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES or province wherein the offense was committed or
office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in OFFICE, Respondents." any one of the essential ingredients thereof took
the Court of First Instance of the province or city place.”
where he held office at the time of the commission FACTS -Petitioner could have been charged and tried
of the offense. - Catingub was designated Temporary Sales in Cagayan de Oro City for it is not disputed
-As a corollary, the preliminary investigation of the Supervisor of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes that he received the sweepstakes tickets from
criminal action for written defamation shall be Office (PCSO) assigned at the Cagayan de Oro the PCSO, Cagayan de Oro branch. The
conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the Branch. As such, he received sweepstakes tickets on essential ingredient of receiving the
province or city, or by the municipal court of the city consignment, with the express obligation to turn over sweepstakes tickets took place in Cagayan de
or capital of the province where such action may be the proceeds of the sales of these tickets to the Oro City. He could also be charged in the City
instituted. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. Later, he was of Manila since the final accounting must be
-Applying the foregoing rules, the proper venue of informed by the Auditing Examiner of the PCSO, rendered in the Central Office, Manila. This is
Mahinan's criminal action for written defamation Cagayan de Oro Branch that he has been found short therefore, a case of concurrent jurisdiction by
against the petitioners is the Court of First Instance of P12,307.45. Petitioner was ordered to explain the the proper court of the place wherein "anyone
of Isabela, since as a GSIS branch manager, he was a shortage in writing and to produce the missing of the essential ingredients thereof took
public official stationed at Cauayan, Isabela and the amount. He failed to do so. His services were place." But the choice of venue lies with the
alleged libel was committed when he was (as he still) terminated without prejudice to whatever court prosecuting officer and not with the accused.
in the public service. The preliminary investigation of action the PCSO will take for the recovery of the Dispositive Decision of CA Affirmed. Remand to the
the complaint should have been conducted by the amount involved. In a letter, petitioner proposed to trial court for further proceedings in the ordinary
provincial fiscal of Isabela, or by the municipal judge the General Manager of the PCSO, Manila, to settle course of law
of Ilagan, the provincial capital, or by the Court of his shortages by making monthly payments in the
amount of at least P200.00, which proposal was,
First Instance of the same province. PEOPLE v GROSPE
-The criminal action could have been filed also in the however, denied by the General Manager (there was
already an admission in this letter). 157 SCRA 154.
Court of First Instance of the province or in the city
court of the city where the libel was printed and first -Catingub, was charged with the crime of MELENCIO-HERRERA ; January 20, 1988
published. malversation (take note: crimes of estafa and
-The information in this case is defective or deficient malversation are similar in nature: difference is that FACTS
because it does not show that the Court of First the funds in malversation are public in character) in - Manuel Parulan is a wholesale dealer of San Miguel
Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, where it was filed, has the Court of First Instance of Manila. He filed Corp (SMC). He issued two checks in favor of SMC
jurisdiction to entertain the criminal action for written motion to dismiss after arraignment on the sole (P86,071.20 and P11,918.80) that were dishonored
defamation initiated by Mahinan against the ground that "the prosecution made a wrong for insufficiency of funds.
petitioners and that the provincial fiscal of that choice of jurisdiction." He contended that "on the - The checks were received at the SMC Bulacan
province had the authority to conduct the preliminary basis of the prosecution's evidence, the offense branch, then forwarded to the SMC Regional Office in
investigation. charged, together with all its essential ingredients San Fernando, Pampanga.
-Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of occurred and the consummation thereof (was) - SMC Finance Officer deposited the check in BPI San
jurisdiction completed, in Cagayan de Oro. Fernando, Pampanga branch.
Dispositive Petition granted. The trial court's order -TC and CA dismissed motion hence this petition - (Parulan’s bank is Planters Development Bank in
denying petitioners' motion to quash is set aside. It is before the SC Bulacan)
directed to dismiss Criminal Case No. 509, the libel
case against the petitioners, without prejudice to the ISSUE
filing of another criminal action for written
defamation in the Court of First Instance of Isabela
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 56 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- SMC filed for violation of BP22 (1st check) and for - In respect of the Bouncing Checks Case, the offense public or official document. The trial court adjudged
estafa under par. 2d2 (2nd check) with the RTC in also appears to be continuing in nature. It is true that petitioner Bala in Criminal Case No. 24443, guilty of
Pampanga. the offense is committed by the very fact of its the crime of falsification of a public document. The
- After hearing the facts and evidence, Judge Grospe performance; and that the Bouncing Checks Law petitioner seasonably appealed, but the Court of
of the Pampanga RTC dismissed the case because he penalizes not only the fact of dishonor of a check but Appeals, on April 9, 1980, affirmed in toto the lower
said that the two essential elements, deceit and also the act of making or drawing and issuance of a court's decision. After the case had been remanded
damage, of the offenses charged occurred and took bouncing check. The case, therefore, could have to the court of origin for execution of judgment, the
place in Bulacan. DECEIT took place when Parulan been filed also in Bulacan. The determinative factor petitioner applied for and was granted probation by
gave the checks to SMC in Bulacan, with the false (in determining venue) is the place of the issuance of the respondent judge in his order dated August 11,
assurance that it had sufficient funds. DAMAGE the check. However, it is likewise true that 1982. The petitioner was then placed under
occurred at the moment the checks issued by the knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the probation for a period of one (1) year, subject to the
accused were dishonored by the Planters check of the insufficiency of his funds, which is an terms and conditions enumerated therein.
Development Bank, the drawee bank, at Santa Maria, essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a - The probationer (petitioner) asked his supervising
Bulacan which received them from the BPI, San continuing eventuality, whether the accused be probation officer for permission to transfer his
Fernando, Pampanga branch for clearing purpose. within one territory or another. Accordingly, residence from BF Homes to Phil-Am Life Subdivision
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense also lies in Las Piñas specifically 33 Jingco Street. The
ISSUES in the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga. probation officer verbally granted the probationer's
1. WON any of the essential elements of the - Jurisdiction or venue is determined by the request as he found nothing objectionable to it.
offenses charged occurred or took place within the allegations in the Information, which are controlling. - By the terms of the petitioner's probation, it should
jurisdiction of RTC Pampanga. The Information filed herein specifically alleges that have expired on August 10, 1983, one year after the
2. WON this petition for Certiorari places accused in the crime was committed in San Fernando, order granting the same was issued. But, the order of
double jeopardy. Pampanga, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of final discharge could not be issued because the
the Court below. respondent probation officer had not yet submitted
HELD 2. NO his final report on the conduct of his charge.
1. YES The case was dismissed not on merits but on the Subsequently, the respondent People of the
- A person charged with a transitory crime may be erroneous conclusion of the judge that his court had Philippines, through Assistant City Fiscal Jose D.
validly tried in any municipality or province where no jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal being null Cajucom of Manila, filed a motion to revoke the
the offense was in part committed. In transitory or and void, the proceedings before the RTC can’t be probation of the petitioner before Branch XX of the
continuing offenses in which some acts material and said to have been lawfully terminated. Therefore, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, presided over by
essential to the crime and requisite to its there is no second proceeding to place the accused the respondent judge. The motion alleged that the
consummation occur in one province and some in in double jeopardy. petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of
another, the Court of either province has jurisdiction Dispositive Petition granted. Judge is ordered to his probation.
to try the case, it being understood that the first reassume jurisdiction over Criminal Cases Nos. 2800 - On January 4, 1984, the petitioner filed his
Court taking cognizance of the Case will exclude the and 2813 of his Court and to render judgment of opposition to the motion on the ground that he was
others. either conviction or acquittal in accordance with the no longer under probation, his probation period
ESTAFA under par 2d evidence already adduced during the joint trial of having terminated on August 10, 1983, as previously
- Elements: said two cases. adverted to. As such, no valid reason existed to
(1) Deceit took place in Pampanga, where it was revoke the same, he contended. As if to confirm the
uttered and delivered. The rule is that the issuance BALA v MARTINEZ Manila Assistant City Fiscal's motion to revoke the
as well as the delivery of the check must be to a petitioner's probation, the respondent probation
181 SCRA 459
person who takes it as a holder, which means the officer filed on January 6, 1984, a motion to
payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in MARTINEZ; January 20, 1999 terminate Manuel Bala's probation, at the same time
possession of it, or the bearer, thereof, who in this attaching his progress report on supervision dated
case is the Financial Officer of SMC NATURE January 5, 1984. The same motion, however, became
(2) Damage took place in Bulacan, where the Petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary the subject of a "Manifestation," dated January 10,
check was dishonored by the drawee bank. injunction to review the order of the Court of First 1984, which stated that the probation officer was not
- Therefore, jurisdiction may be entertained by Instance of Manila pursuing the motion to terminate dated January 6,
either the Bulacan or the Pampanga court. 1984; instead, he was submitting a supplemental
BP 22 violation FACTS report which recommended the revocation of
- The petitioner had been indicted for removing and probation "in the light of new facts, information, and
2 substituting the picture of Diazen which had been evidences."
Art. 315, par. 2(d) states: 'By postdating a check, or issuing a check
in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the
attached to her United States of America passport, - Thereafter, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss
bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the with that of Notarte, in effect falsifying a genuine and/or strike out the motion to revoke probation,
amount of the check
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 57 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

questioning the jurisdiction of the court over his case compels change of venue, and necessarily, control temporary release. Sola, Garcia and Cabral posted
inasmuch as his probation period had already over the petitioner, to the Executive Judge of the RTC bail and have since been released.
expired. Moreover, his change of residence of his new residence. Thus, in the apportionment of -The witnesses informed the prosecution of their
automatically transferred the venue of the case from the regional trial courts under Batas Pambansa Blg. fears that if the trial is held at the CFI Himamaylan
the RTC of Manila to the Executive. Judge, of the RTC 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan, their
of Makati which latter court include under its Act of 1980, Las Piñas is one among the safety could be jeopardized. At least two of the
jurisdiction the Municipality of Las Piñas the municipalities included in the National Capital Judicial accused are officials with power and influence in
probationer's place of residence, invoking Section 13, Region (Metro Manila) with a seat at Makati. 18 Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. In
P.D. No. 968, which provides Needless to say, the Regional Trial Court in Makati, addition, most of the accused remained at large.
Sec. 13. Control and Supervision of Probationer. ... like the Manila Regional Trial Court, forms part of the Indeed, there have been reports made to police
Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region. 19 authorities of threats made on the families of the
place under the jurisdiction of another court, Accordingly, the various branches of the regional trial witnesses.
control over him shall be transferred to the courts of Makati or Manila under the National Capital - February 11, 1981: petition for cancellation of bail
Executive Judge of the, Court of First Instance of Region, are coordinate and co-equal courts, the bonds and change of venue was filed.
that place, and in such a case a copy of the totality of which is only one Regional Trial Court. - February 12, 1981: the Court required the comment
probation order the investigation report and other Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judges. of the Solicitor General as well as of the private
pertinent records shall be furnished to said In other words, the case does not attach to the respondents.
Executive Judge. branch or judge. Therefore, in this case, RTC Branch - March 4, 1981, the Comment was submitted by
Thereafter. the Executive Judge to whom XX of Manila, which granted the probation, has not Solicitor General Mendoza. It opened with this
jurisdiction over the probationer is transferred shall lost control and supervision over the probation of the preliminary statement: "The present petition was
have the power with respect to him that was petitioner. filed by the private prosecutors in Criminal Cases
previously possessed by the court which granted Dispositive Petition dismissed Nos. 1700-1706, People v. Pablo Sola, et al., pending
the probation. trial before the CFI of Negros Occidental. Rightly, any
- The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss PEOPLE v SOLA petition before this Honorable Court on behalf of the
for lack of merit. Hence, this petition. People of the Philippines can, under the law, be
103 SCRA 393
instituted only by the Solicitor General. The assertion
ISSUE FERNANDO; March 17, 1981 of the petitioner private prosecutors that they are
WON his transfer of residence automatically instituting the action 'subject to the control and
transferred jurisdiction over his probation from the FACTS supervision of the Fiscal' will not, therefore, improve
Manila Regional Trial Court to the same court in his - September 15, 1980: acting on the evidence their legal standing." Nonetheless, it adopted the
new address. presented by the Philippine Constabulary two-pronged trusts of the petition: 1. the setting
commander at Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, the CFI aside, by certiorari, of the order of the Municipal
HELD issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of Court of Kabankalan, presided over by Judge
NO the deceased bodies of 7 persons believed in the Gasataya, granting bail to the accused in the criminal
- In criminal cases, venue is an element of hacienda of Pablo Sola at Sta. Isabel, Kabankalan, cases mentioned above, and 2. the petition for a
jurisdiction. Such being the case, the Manila RTC Negros Occidental. change of venue or place of trial of the same criminal
would not be deprived of its jurisdiction over the - September 16, 1980: elements of the 332nd PC/INP cases to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
probation case. To uphold the petitioner's contention Company proceeded to the place of Sola. Diggings - March 15, 1981: The Court Resolved to: (a) [Note]
would mean a depreciation of the Manila court's made in a canefield yielded two common graves the comment of the Solicitor General on the urgent
power to grant probation in the first place. It is to be containing the 7 bodies. petition for change of venue and cancellation of bail
remembered that when the petitioner-accused - September 23 and October 1, 1980: the PC bonds, adopting the plea of the petition, namely, (1)
applied for probation in the then CFI of Manila, he provincial commander filed 7 separate complaints for the setting aside, by certiorari, of the order of the
was a resident of Las Piñas as he is up to now, murder against the accused Pablo Sola, Francisco Municipal Court of Kabankalan, presided over by
although in a different subdivision. As pointed out Garcia, Ricardo Garcia, Jose Bethoven Cabral, Judge Rafael Gasataya, granting bail to the accused
earlier, he merely moved from BF Homes to Philam Florendo Baliscao and 14 other persons of unknown in the 7 Criminal Cases, and (2) the petition for a
Life Subdivision 33 Jingco Street, also in Las Piñas. names. change of venue or place of trial of the same criminal
On the other hand, pursuing the petitioner's - After due preliminary examination of the cases to avoid a miscarriage of Justice; (b) [Transfer]
argument on this score to the limits of it logic would complainant's witnesses and his other evidence, the the venue of the aforesaid criminal cases to Branch V
mean that his probation was null and void in the municipal court found probable cause against the of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental at
place, because then the Manila CFI was without accused. It thus issued an order for their arrest. Bacolod City, presided by Executive Judge Alfonso
jurisdiction to grant him probation as he was a - Without giving the prosecution the opportunity to Baguio, considering that District Judge Ostervaldo
resident of Las Piñas. It is therefore incorrect to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong, the court Emilia of the Court of First Instance, Negros
assume that the petitioner's change of abode granted them the right to post bail for their Occidental, Branch VI at Himamaylan has an
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 58 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

approved leave of absence covering the period from - People v. Gutierrez: To compel the prosecution to - Municipal Judge Alfredo V. Granados of the
January 12 to March 12, 1981 due to a mild attack of proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will Municipal Court of Pulilan received the complaint and
cerebral thrombosis and that the said Branch V is the not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make conducted a preliminary investigation, first stage.
nearest court station to Himamaylan: and (c) [Await] a mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the - October 25, 1974: the Complaint was amended.
the comment of respondents on the petition to very purpose for which courts have been - Rufino Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe were again
cancel bail, without prejudice to the public officials established." named but Gerardo Fajardo was dropped and Oscar
concerned taking the necessary measures to assure -
It may be added that there may be cases where the Alvaran was named instead.
the safety of the witnesses of the prosecution." Thus, fear, objectively viewed, may, to some individuals, -The date when the crime was said to have been
the issue of a change of venue has become moot and be less than terrifying, but the question must always committed was changed from September 30, 1974 to
academic. be the effect it has on the witnesses who will testify. September 25, 1974.
The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution - Again Judge Granados conducted a preliminary
ISSUE must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should investigation and on November 18, 1974, he issued
WON the bail bonds should be cancelled be resolved in favor of a change of venue. As a an order for the arrest of Bulanadi, Gorospe and
matter of fact, there need not be a petition of this Alvaran and fixed their bail at P15,000.00 each.
HELD character filed before this Court. Such a plea could -Bulanadi and Gorospe posted the requisite bail.
YES have been done administratively. In this particular Alvaran remained at large.
Ratio Whether the motion for bail of a defendant case, however, there is justification for the procedure -The second stage of the preliminary investigation
who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in followed in view of the fact that along with the was set on February 5, 1975, but on that day, neither
a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular change of venue, the cancellation of the bail bonds Bulanadi or Gorospe appeared for which reason,
trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to was also sought. Judge Granados declared that they had waived their
present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence Dispositive The assailed order of Judge Gasataya right thereto and elevated the case to the CFI of
that it may desire to introduce before the court granting bail to private respondents is nullified, set Bulacan.
should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the aside, and declared to be without force and effect. - March 19, 1975: Provincial Fiscal Pascual C.
criminal case involved in the instant special civil Exec. Judge Alfonso Baguio of the CFI of Negros Kliatchko filed with the CFI of Bulacan an Information
action, the prosecution should be denied such an Occidental, to whose sala the cases had been for forcible Abduction with Rape against Gorospe and
opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural transferred is directed forthwith to hear the petitions Bulanadi. But said information was later on amended.
due process, and the order of the court granting bail for bail of private respondents, with the prosecution -Judge Nelly L. Romero Valdellon started the trial of
should be considered void on that ground. (People v being duly heard on the question of whether or not the case on October 15, 1975.
San Diego) the evidence of guilt against the respondents is -The accused and their counsel de parte had long
Reasoning strong. This decision is immediately executory. No been notified that the case was to be tried on that
- Bail was granted to the accused without hearing the costs. day but they did not appear so the former were tried
prosecution in absentia.
-Justice Cardozo: "The law, as we have seen, is PEOPLE v FELICIANO GOROSPE and -After hearing part of the testimony of Anastacia de
sedulous in maintaining for a defendant charged with Jesus, the complainant, Judge Valdellon was
RUFINO BULANADI
crime whatever forms of procedure are of the transferred to Metro Manila and she was replaced by
essence of an opportunity to defend. Privileges so 129 SCRA 233 Judge Fidel P. Purisima who finished the trial.
fundamental as to be inherent in every concept of a ABAD SANTOS; May 15, 1984 -But Judge Purisima inhibited himself from deciding
fair trial that could be acceptable to the thought of the case because J. Granados is his first cousin by
reasonable men will be kept inviolate and inviolable, FACTS affinity (to make sure that the decision to be
however crushing may be the pressure of - In a verified Complaint filed on October 8, 1974 with rendered in this case shall be above suspicion)
incriminating proof. But justice, though due to the the Municipal Court of Pulilan, Bulacan, Anastacia de -So it was Judge Jesus R. de Vega who decided the
accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of Jesus (14 yrs old) accused Gerardo Fajardo, Rufino case
fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe of the crime of –CFI: found Gorospe and Bulanadi guilty beyond
filament. We are to keep the balance true." Forcible Abduction with Rape. reasonable doubt of Rape committed against
- It does not suffice that the questions asked by the - The crime was said to have been committed on Anastacia de Jesus as charged in the information;
municipal judge before bail was granted could be September 30, 1974, starting in Plaridel, Bulacan, sentenced each of the accused to suffer 2 perpetual
characterized as searching. That fact did not cure an thru Pulilan, and thence to Talavera, Nueva Ecija (in penalties of reclusion perpetua to be served in
infirmity of a jurisdictional character. a hut where she was detained for 9 days and accordance with Art. 70 of the RPC, with all the
On change of venue sexually abused during the night. She was made to accessory penalty of the law; to indemnify de Jesus in
- 1973 Constitution: The Supreme Court could order lose her consciousness first by waiving a hankerchief the amount of P40,000.00 for actual exemplary and
"a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a on her face before they abducted her and eventually moral damages, and to pay the costs.
miscarriage of justice." taking her to said place.)
ISSUES
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 59 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

1. WON there was error in filing the complaint since it and after investigation of fiscal, information was Petition for certiorari to annul orders of the City Court
was not filed in Plaridel, Bulacan or Talavera, Nueva lodged. Case was docketed and Judge issued arrest of San Carlos
Ecija but in Pulilan, Bulacan (and if yes, then WON an warrant.
error was by the CFI of Bulacan in hearing the said Petitioner’s counsel filed motion asking fiscal to FACTS
case and not by the CFI of Nueva Ecija) furnish clerk of court w/ testimony of witnesses who - October 19, 1980: Respondents entered the store
2. WON Judge Vega had authority to hear the case testified at preliminary investigation. Fiscal opposed. and dining room of the Pacita Tandoc without her
(***there are other issues but no longer related to - Counsel for petitioner put in motion that should his permission. There was an altercation between
the topic “venue” so I didn’t include them anymore ~ first motion be acted upon adversely, that Court itself Tandoc and respondent, Arnold Payopay, regarding
eoc) conduct the investigation under Sec 4 of Rule 108. the stoning of the store and house. Payopay picked
Fiscal opposed. up stones and struck Tandoc but instead her helper,
HELD - Petitioner’s counsel asked that warrant of arrest be Bonifacio Menor, was hit and suffered physical
1. NO cancelled and the court conduct preliminary injuries which according to the medico-legal
- The Municipal Court of Pulilan had jurisdiction investigation. Judge denied motions and the MFRs. certificate will heal in more than 30 days. Beda
because the abductors and their captive passed Hence the instant certiorari and mandamus petition. Acosta, who was behind Arnold Payopay, picked up
Pulilan on their way from Plaridel to Talavera. And the stone and struck Tandoc but her helper, Fred de
the CFI of Bulacan [as well as the CFI of Nueva Ecija] ISSUE la Vega, was hit instead and suffered injuries which
had jurisdiction because essential elements of the WON in prelim investigation by fiscal, accused is injury will heal in less than 9 days.
offense took place in Bulacan [and also in Nueva entitled to be informed of substance of testimony - 19 October 1980: a criminal complaint was lodged
Ecija]. and evidence against him with the Office of the City Fiscal with the charges of
Reasoning Abduction is a persistent and continuing Serious Physical Injuries, filed by Bonifacio Menor
offense. (U.S. vs. Bernabe, 23 Phil. 154 [1912]). HELD against Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay; Slight Physical
- Hence it may be "tried in the court of the NO Injuries, filed by Fred de la Vega against Beda
municipality or province wherein the offense was - Prelim investigation by fiscal is not within purview Acosta, and Trespass to Dwelling, filed by Pacita
committed or any one of the essential ingredients of Sections 13 and 11 of Rule 108. Sec 13 deals with Tandoc against Arnulfo Payopay, Beda Acosta,
thereof took place." (Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. transmission of records requirements and Sec 11 Manuel Cancino, Nadong Fernandez and Arturo
14[a]). deals with prelim investigation by justices of peace Syloria.
2. YES. and judges for purpose of issuance of warrant. - 2 December 1980: Arnulfo Payopay and his father
- Judge de Vega had the power to decide the case. - Sec 2, Act No 612: In cases triable only in CFI, Conrado Payopay, Sr., together with Manuel Cancino,
Reasoning "Where a court of first instance is divided defendant shall have speedy trial, but shall not be also filed a complaint with the Office of the City
into several branches, each of the branches is not a entitled as of right to a prelim investigation where Fiscal, against Pedro Tandoc, Pacita Tandoc, Rudy
court distinct and separate from the others. prosecuting attorney, after investigation, shall have Diaz, Fred Menor, Rogelio Ercella, Juan Rosario and
Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judges, presented an information against him. Fred de la Vega, with the charges of Trespass to
so that when a complaint or information is filed - THE RIGHT TO A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS Dwelling, Serious Oral Defamation, Grave Threats
before one branch or judge, jurisdiction does not STATUTORY, NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Its purpose is to and Physical Injuries
attach to said branch or judge alone, to the exclusion secure the innocent against hasty prosecutions and - 10 December 1980: the investigating fiscal found
of the others. Trial may be had or proceedings may protect him from public accusation, and also to reasonable ground to believe that respondents
continue by and before another branch or judge." protect the State from useless prosecutions. Arnulfo Payopay, Beda Acosta, Manuel Cancino,
[Lumpay, et al. vs. Moscoso, 105 Phil. 968 (1959)]. - This investigation is called preliminary, to be Nadong Fernandez and Arturo Syloria committed the
Dispositive The judgment of the Court a quo is followed by trial proper. Investigating judge or crimes charged. Informations were filed with the City
hereby affirmed in all respects. prosecuting officer acts upon probable cause and Court.
reasonable belief, not upon proof beyond reasonable - With respect to the criminal complaint filed by
HASHIM v CITY FISCAL OF MANILA doubt. Arnulfo Payopay and Manuel Cancino against
- In this case, to ask for abstract of testimony at that petitioners for Serious Oral Defamation, Grave
71 Phil 216
stage for no other purpose than to scrutinize the Threats and Physical Injuries, the Office of the City
LAUREL; January 13, 1941 same is, in effect, to ask for another prelim Fiscal recommended the dropping of said charges
investigation. because they "were found to be in the nature of a
NATURE counter charge, the same having been filed after
Certiorari and mandamus
TANDOC v RESULTAN more than 1 month from the date of the alleged
incident." However, as to the charge of Trespass to
FACTS 175 SCRA 37
Dwelling filed by Conrado Payopay, Sr. against Pedro
- Hashim was caught in possession of counterfeit PADILLA; July 5, 1989 Tandoc, a prima facie case was found by the
treasury certificates, but was released upon filing of investigating fiscal. Thus, an information was filed
bond. Complaint was filed with Office of City Fiscal NATURE with the City Court.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 60 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- 28 July 1981: Arnulfo Payopay, Conrado Payopay, investigation proper conducted by the City Fiscal not place the person against whom it is taken in
Sr. and Manuel Cancino, directly lodged with the City could have been dispensed with. Neither did the jeopardy.
Court of San Carlos City the following criminal earlier order of dismissal of the complaints by the - Under Section 10, Rule 112 of the 1964 Revised
complaints: (1) against Pedro Tandoc, Rogelio investigating fiscal bar the filing of said complaints Rules of Criminal Procedure, in cases falling within
Ercella, Rudy Diaz, Juan Rosario and Fred Menor for with the city court on the ground of double jeopardy. the exclusive jurisdiction of an inferior court, as well
Serious Physical Injuries, filed by Arnulfo (Arnold) - The prescriptive period of a crime depends upon as in cases within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
Payopay; (2) against Rudy Diaz, Juan Rosario and the penalty imposed by law. The penalties for the city courts or municipal courts with Courts of First
Fred Menor for Trespass to Dwelling, filed by Conrado crimes charged are: arresto mayor for Trespass to Instance, the accused was not entitled to be heard in
Payopay, Sr.; (3) against Pedro Tandoc, Rudy Diaz, Dwelling, Grave Threats and Less Serious Physical a preliminary investigation proper. The reason
Juan Rosario and Fred dela Vega for Less Serious Injuries; and arresto mayor in its maximum period to behind this rule is as follows: " The loss of time
Physical Injuries, filed by Manuel Cancino; (4) against prision correccional in its minimum period for Serious entailed in the conduct of preliminary investigations,
Pedro Tandoc, Rudy Diaz, Rogelio Ercella, Juan Physical Injuries. The prescriptive period of offenses with the consequent extension of deprivation of the
Rosario & Fred Menor for Grave Threats to Kill, with punishable by arresto mayor is 5 years, while crimes accused's liberty, in case he fails to post bail, which
Arnulfo Payopay as private complainant. punishable by correctional penalties prescribe in 10 at times outlasts the period of the penalty provided
- 13 August 1981: City Court, after conducting a years. The complaints were filed with the City Court by law for the offense, besides the mental anguish
preliminary examination of the 4 aforementioned only 9 months from said occurrence. suffered in protracted litigations, are eliminated with
cases, found reasonable ground to believe that the - The re-investigation sought by petitioners applies the assurance of a speedy and expeditious trial for
offenses charged may have been committed by the only to instances where a case is cognizable by the the accused, upon his arraignment (without having to
herein petitioners and that the latter were probably Court of First Instance but filed with the City Court for undergo the second stage of the preliminary
guilty thereof. purposes of preliminary investigation only and investigation), and of a prompt verdict on his guilt or
- The issuance of warrants of arrest was ordered thereafter dismissed by the latter on the ground that innocence. On the other hand, the so-called first
against them, although said warrants were later no prima facie case exists. However, for cases stage of preliminary investigation or the preliminary
suspended upon motion of the petitioners. cognizable by inferior courts and filed with the same examination, conducted by the duly authorized
- A motion for reconsideration was denied. not only for purposes of preliminary investigation but officer, as borne out by the examination and sworn
- Petitioners moved for a re-investigation of the cases for trial on the merits, the Office of the City Fiscal has written statement of the complainants and their
by the Office of the City Fiscal. The court a quo no authority to re-investigate. witnesses, generally suffices to establish the
denied said motion. Petitioners sought a On Preliminary Investigation: existence of reasonable ground to charge the
reconsideration of said order, but it was likewise - Purpose: to protect the accused from the accused with having committed the offense
denied. inconvenience, expense and burden of defending complained of."
himself in a formal trial unless the reasonable - The result of a preliminary investigation can neither
ISSUE probability of his guilt shall have been first constitute nor give rise to the defense of double
WON the city court has the power and authority to ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a jeopardy in any case, because such preliminary
conduct a new a preliminary examination of charges, competent officer; and to protect the state from investigation is not and does not in itself constitute a
which were previously the subject of a preliminary having to conduct useless and expensive trials. trial or even any part thereof. In order that the
investigation conducted by the Office of the City - Stages: (1) the preliminary examination of the defense of jeopardy may lie, there must be a former
Fiscal and thereafter dismissed by the latter. complainant and his witnesses prior to the arrest of judgment, either of acquittal or of conviction,
the accused to determine whether or not there is rendered by a court competent to render the same,
HELD ground to issue a warrant of arrest; (2) preliminary not only by reason of the offense committed, which
YES investigation proper, wherein the accused, after his must be the same or at least comprised within it, but
Ratio As long as the offense charged has not arrest, is informed of the complaint filed against him also by reason of the place where it was committed.
prescribed, the city court has the power and and is given access to the testimonies and evidence Dispositive Petition dismissed.
authority to conduct a preliminary examination and presented, and he is also permitted to introduce
proceed with the trial of the case properly within its evidence in his favor. The purpose of this stage of UNITED STATES v MARFORI
jurisdiction. investigation is to determine whether or not the
35 Phil 666
Reasoning accused should be released or held before trial.
- The offenses charged against petitioners for - Nature: merely inquisitorial, and is often the only CARSON; December 9, 1916
Trespass to Dwelling, Grave Threats and Physical means of discovering the persons who may be
Injuries were all within the jurisdiction of the City reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal FACTS
Court. The complaints could be filed directly with the to prepare his complaint or information; not a trial of - CASIANO MARFORI was convicted of the crime of
City Court which is empowered to conduct a the case on the merits and has no purpose except injurias graves (aggravated slander), and sentenced
preliminary examination for purposes of issuance of that of determining whether a crime has been to six months and one day of destierro (banishment)
warrants of arrest, and thereafter to proceed with the committed and whether there is probable cause to for a distance of 25 kilometers from the municipality
trial of the cases on the merits. The preliminary believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does where the crime was committed, to pay a fine of P65,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 61 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

together with subsidiary destierro as prescribed by accused is prejudicial error, in that it subjects the This is an appeal by the offended party, Petra Flores,
law on failure to pay this fine and to pay the costs. accused to the loss of life, liberty or property without from the order of the Court of First Instance of
The complaint charges him of having spoken of the due process of law. Laguna.
complainant in a manner which reflected adversely Reasoning The accused was brought to trial, over
upon her virtue and good name in the presence of his objection without having been committed or FACTS
several witnesses. remanded for trial by an investigating magistrate. - ORDER OF CFI:"The provincial fiscal having filed a
- The complaint was originally filed in the court of a The justice of the peace who held the preliminary motion in the above entitled case praying for the
justice of the peace who held a preliminary investigation dismissed the original complaint dismissal of the case, and the court having found
investigation and discharged the accused on the against the accused, being of opinion that there was meritorious the reasons alleged therein, add case is
ground that he was not guilty of the crime with which no probable cause to believe him guilty of the hereby dismissed, as prayed, with costs de oficio,
he was charged. offense; and although a so-called “report of the and the bond filed for the temporary release of the
- A report of the proceedings was forwarded to the proceedings” was forwarded to the fiscal and accused is hereby ordered cancelled. It is so
provincial fiscal by the justice of the peace. The doubtless submitted to the trial judge, original ordered."
complaining witness renewed the complaint in the jurisdiction to commit the accused for trial as result
CFI. An information was filed in that court and Marfori of those proceedings was vested exclusively in the ISSUE
was brought to trial without further proceedings. justice of the peace before whom they were had. WON the provincial fiscal has authority to conduct
- Upon arraignment, when Marfori was called upon to - The order of the justice of the peace discharging another preliminary investigation and thereafter ask
plead, his counsel declined to proceed on the ground the accused did not operate as a final acquittal, and the Court of First Instance to dismiss the criminal
that the court was without jurisdiction to bring was not a bar to re-arrest and prosecution for the case remanded by the justice of the peace, after the
Marfori to trial, no order remanding him for trial offense originally charged. If the fiscal was not latter had conducted the preliminary investigation
having been issued by a competent magistrate as a satisfied with the action of the justice of the peace, and issued an order to the effect that there was
result of a preliminary trial (old term for PI, I think) he could have secured the arrest of the accused probable cause to prosecute the offense charged
held in accordance with law. upon a new complaint, and sought an order which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First
- The trial judge overruled the objections of counsel, remanding the accused for trial in a second Instance."
and ordered the parties to proceed with the trial on preliminary investigation had before either the
the ground that the report of the proceedings had at justice of the peace who held the first investigation HELD
the preliminary trial held by the justice of the peace or before the judge of the CFI in the exercise of his After a criminal case has been remanded by the
disclosed a reasonable probability that the crime functions as a committing magistrate. (Act 1627, justice of the peace to the Court of First Instance
charged had been committed and that the accused Sec. 37) which has jurisdiction to try it on the merits, and
had committed it; that the justice of the peace had - But it would manifestly defeat the end sought to be before the provincial fiscal has filed the necessary
erred in discharging the accused; and that he should attained by the provisions of law for the holding of information, the latter not only has the power but
have remanded the accused for trial. preliminary investigations if either the fiscal, or the also the duty to investigate the facts upon which the
- Marfori’s counsel then exempted to the ruling and trial judge, or both acting together were permitted to complaint filed in the justice of the peace court was
insisted on the right to a preliminary trial. Marfori make use of the record of the proceedings had based, to examine the evidence submitted to the
refused to enter a plea so that the court was before a justice of the peace at a preliminary trial, as justice of the peace and such other evidence as the
compelled to direct the entry of a plea of not guilty in a result of which the accused was discharged, for the parties may deem proper to submit on their own free
his behalf. purpose of bringing the accused to trial despite the will or on demand of the fiscal, for the purpose of
order of discharge and over his objection based on determining whether there is at least prima facie
ISSUE the ground that he has not been remanded for trial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused and
WON the trial court erred in bringing the accused to as a result of a preliminary trial. overcoming the presumption of innocence in his
trial, over his objection, in the absence of an order Dispositive Judgment convicting and sentencing the favor. If after he has done all this and
remanding him for trial based upon a preliminary accused REVERSED with the costs of both instances considering all the circumstances of the case,
trial held in accordance with the provisions of law de officio and the record REMANDED to the court the fiscal believes that the evidence is not
below for further proceedings. sufficient to establish prima facie the guilt of
HELD the accused, he should submit to the court
YES. PEOPLE v OVILLA before which the case is pending the
Ratio The right of an accused not to be brought to corresponding motion for dismissal. The
65 Phil 722
trial except when remanded as the result of a provincial fiscal of Laguna complied with all these
preliminary examination before a committing VILLA-REAL; June 27, 1938 requirements before asking for the dismissal of the
magistrate or, within the city of Manila, not to be present case, thereby keeping within the powers
brought to trial except in pursuance of like NATURE conferred upon him by section 1687 of the Revised
proceeding or the proceeding substituted by law, is a Administrative Code.
substantial one. Its denial, over the objection of the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 62 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Dispositive Finding no merit in the sole error Atilano and two other unidentified persons,
assigned by the appellant, the offended party in this ISSUE Richard Doe and John Doe. The prosecution also
case, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed,' WON the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the case certified under oath that they conducted a
with costs against the appellant. for want of preliminary investigation preliminary investigation of the case… Upon
arraignment, Jesus Atilano, Prudencio Cichon
PEOPLE v VELOSO HELD and Lorenzo Delantar pleaded not guilty.
NO 3.
112 SCRA 173 Criminal Case No. 3088.-- Estafa thru
Reasoning
PER CURIAM; February 25, 1982 falsification of public/official documents was filed
- When Judge Templo set the case for preliminary
in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City
investigation to afford the accused occasion to
NATURE against Prudencio Cichon and Paulino Duma,
confront the witnesses against him, the accused
Automatic review of CFI decision imposing the capital Also has certification of the State Prosecutors
instead filed a manifestation waiving his right to
penalty of death on accused Veloso for the crime of that they had conducted a preliminary
present evidence at the second stage of the
robbery with homicide and double serious physical investigation in the case… The two accused
preliminary investigation. When the case was
injuries pleaded not guilty.
forwarded to the CFI, the accused entered his plea
without raising the question of lack of preliminary 4. Criminal Case No. 3128.-- Prudencio Cichon,
FACTS investigation. The aforesaid constitute waiver of the Jesus F Atilano and Pedro Cuento were charged
- Veloso and others entered the Odiamar’s house and accused’s right to preliminary investigation. It is well- with Estafa thru falsification of public/official
robbed them around 7:30 in the evening. They stole settled that the right to preliminary investigation is documents. No certification that a preliminary
money, tear gas gun, jewelry, old coins. not a fundamental right and that the same may be investigation of the case had been made by the
- Hermenegildo Odiamar was shot and killed during waived expressly or by silence. Such waiver carried prosecutors. So District Judge himself made the
the robbery, while the Odiamar spouses sustained with it the waiver of any procedural error or preliminary investigation and once satisfied that
serious physical injuries. irregularity that may have attended the preliminary a prima facie case against the three accused
- Veloso, among others, was charged for robbery investigation. existed, issued warrants for their arrest on the
with homicide and double serious physical injuries Dispositive The judgment under review is hereby same day. At the arraignment, all the accused
- July 5, 1970 (the case says july but I think it’s a affirmed pleaded not guilty.
typo… probably june) : Judge Templo conducted - On June 22, 1966, the accused in the four (4) cases,
preliminary examination thru their counsel, filed a MOTION TO DECLARE
PEOPLE v GOMEZ
- June 22, 1970 – Judge Templo set the case for INFORMATIONS AND WARRANTS OF ARREST null and
preliminary investigation to afford the accused the 117 SCRA 72 void on the ground that the prosecution failed to
occasion to confront the witnesses against him and RELOVA; September 30, 1982 observe the provisions of Section 13 and 14 of Rule
to present his own evidence 112 of the New Rules of Court regarding preliminary
- instead of availing himself of this opportunity, he FACTS investigation and prayed the court to cancel the
filed a manifestation stating that he “Waives his right - In 1962, four (4) informations were filed by the warrants of arrest issued.
to present evidence at the second stage of the prosecuting fiscals before the Court of First Instance - On September 27, 1966, the lower court, for lack of
preliminary investigation.” of Zamboanga City. They were as follows: merit, denied the aforesaid motion.
- the case was forwarded to the CFI, and it appears 1. Criminal Case No. 3083.-- Edilberto Gomez, - Upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the
that accused entered his non-guilty plea without accused, thru counsel, the lower court, on November
Prudencio N. Cichon, Cesar V. Castillo, Pedro
raising the question of lack of preliminary 2, 1966, reversed its former ruling and ordered the
Cuento and John Doe charged with Estafa thru
investigation. dismissal of all the four (4) cases against them,
falsification of public/official documents. The
Petitioners' Claim without prejudice to the refiling of the same.
prosecuting officers certified under oath that
(1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the case
they had conducted a preliminary investigation
for want of preliminary investigation ISSUE
of the case in accordance with law; and that
(2) the extrajudicial confession he executed was WON the trial court erred in dismissing these cases
they believed that the offense charged had been
obtained through force and intimidation and, on the ground that the preliminary investigations
committed and the accused were probably guilty
therefore, inadmissible in evidence, and conducted therein were not in accordance with
thereof. The corresponding warrant of arrest for
(3) in the absence of adequate proof that it was he Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112, in relation to Rule
each of the accused was accordingly issued. The
who killed the deceased Hermenegildo Odiamar, he 144 of the Revised Rules of Court.
accused Pedro Cuento and Cesar Castillo
should be held guilty of the offense of robbery only,
pleaded not guilty.
and not of the complex crime of robbery with HELD
homicide and double serious physical injuries. 2. Criminal Case No. 3084.-- Estafa thru YES
falsification of public/official documents against Ratio The preliminary investigations in these four (4)
Lorenzo Delantar, Prudencio Cichon, Jesus F. cases were terminated in 1962, or before the New
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 63 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964. Rules -petitioners the City Fiscal of Butuan City and his -The primary requirement for the issuance of a
112 and 113 thereof cannot, therefore, apply to assistants filed in the City Court of Butuan certain warrant of arrest is the existence of probable cause
these cases at bar. informations and certified them as follows: “that a (Sec. 3, Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution). P.D. No. 911
Reasoning The government prosecutors certified preliminary examination has been conducted by me authorizes the fiscal or state prosecutor to determine
under oath that they had conducted a preliminary in this case, having examined the complainant and the existence of probable cause.
investigation in said cases. And, in Criminal Case No. his witnesses; that on the basis of the sworn - There is thus no dispute that the judge may rely
3128, it was District Judge Gregorio Montejo who statements and other evidence submitted before this upon the fiscal's certification of the existence of
conducted the preliminary investigation and, finding Office, there is reasonable ground to believe that the probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
the existence of a prima facie case, ordered the crime charged has been committed and that herein warrant of arrest. But this does not bind the judge to
arrest of the defendant. It is clear, therefore, that the accused is probably guilty thereof.” issue a warrant
required investigations were complied with. -respondent judge set a hearing to determine the - Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court::
- But then, assuming that the informations did propriety of issuing warrants of arrest. After hearing, "Warrant of arrest, when issued. - If the judge be
not contain the requisite certificates regarding judge issued orders requiring petitioners to submit to satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted
the Fiscal's having held a preliminary the court the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses by him or by the investigating officer that the offense
investigation, the omissions are not necessarily and other documentary evidence in support of the complained of has been committed and that there is
fatal. The absence of preliminary investigations informations to aid him in the exercise of his power reasonable ground to believe that the accused has
does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by committed it, he must issue a warrant or order for his
case. Nor do they impair the validity of the petitioners arrest."
information or otherwise render it defective. If -petitioners filed two separate motions for -the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of
there were no preliminary investigations and the reconsideration stating that they were authorized to probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of
defendants, before entering their plea, invite the determine the existence of probable cause ni a arrest. If on the face of the information the judge
attention of the court to their absence, the court, preliminary investigation and that their findings finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
"instead of dismissing the information, should constitute sufficient basis for the issuance of fiscal's certification and require the submission of the
conduct such investigation, order the fiscal to warrants of arrest. affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so -respondent justifies his order as an exercise of his conclusion as to the existence of a probable cause.
that the preliminary investigation may be judicial power to review the fiscal's findings of Without the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses
conducted." (People vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478). The probable cause. He further maintains that the failure and other evidence which, as a matter of long-
defendants in these cases did not question the of petitioners to file the required affidavits destroys standing practice had been attached to the
validity of the informations on the ground of the presumption of regularity in the performance of informations filed in his sala, respondent found the
defective certifications or the right to preliminary petitioners' official duties, particularly in the light of informations inadequate bases for the determination
investigations before they entered the plea of not the long standing practice of the Office of the City of probable cause
guilty. They filed the motion to declare informations Fiscal of Butuan of attaching to the informations filed -Also, Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases,
and warrants of arrest null and void only after more with the court the affidavits of prosecution witnesses is applicable to some of the crimes in the said
than one (1) year thereafter. Consequently, when and other documentary evidence presented during informations. This rule requires that the “complaint
they entered a plea of not guilty, they thereby the preliminary investigation or information must be accompanied by the
waived all objections that are grounds for a motion to -judge denied motion. And asked the submission of affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses in
quash, except lack of jurisdiction or failure of the documents earlier asked for. such number of copies as there are defendants plus
information to charge an offense. Thus, they waived *eventually, petitioners submitted the documents two (2) copies for the court's files”
the right to a preliminary investigation when they rendering the case mute (haha) and academic. But -judge also did not commit grave abuse of discretion
failed to invoke it prior to, or at least at, the time of the Court decided to tackle the issue nonetheless. in remanding some of the cases to the City Fiscal for
the entry of their plea in the Court of First Instance. Some warrants were granted, some were remanded further investigation. From the informations and
Dispositive ACCORDINGLY, the order dated to affidavits presented to him, he found the charges
November 2, 1966 of the Court of First Instance of patently without basis or merit. For respondent to
Zamboanga is set aside and the said court is hereby ISSUE issue the warrants of arrest and try the accused
ordered to proceed with the trial of the said criminal WON the respondent city judge may, for the purpose would only expose the latter to unnecessary
cases. of issuing a warrant of arrest, compel the fiscal to harrassment, anxiety and expense. And as already
submit to the court the supporting affidavits and pointed out, under the Rule on Summary Procedure
PLACER v VILLANUEVA other documentary evidence presented during the in Special Cases, the respondent judge has the power
preliminary investigation to order the outright dismissal of the charge if, from
126 SCRA 463
the information and the affidavits attached thereto,
ESCOLIN; December 29, 1983 HELD he finds the same to be patently without basis or
NO. merit
FACTS
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 64 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

GO v CA (PELAYO) 5. Go filed an urgent EX-PARTE MOTION FOR Respondents’ Comments: Go had been validly
SPECIAL RAFFLE in order to expedite action on the arrested because the crime had been committed 6
206 SCRA 138
bail recommendation. The cash bond was days before he was arrested.
FELICIANO; February 11, 1992 approved and Go was released from jail. - Invoking Umali vs. Ramos where the Court upheld
- July 16, 1991: that a warrantless arrest was valid 14 days after the
NATURE 6. Prosecutor filed a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO crime was committed.
Petition for review on certiorari from the decision of CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION and - The prosecutor proceeded under the erroneous
the Court of Appeals prayed that the court proceedings be suspended supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicable
momentarily. and required petitioner to waive the provisions of
FACTS 7. The trial court granted LEAVE to conduct Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition
- July 2, 1991 – Eldon Maguan entered a one-way preliminary investigation and cancelled the for carrying out a preliminary investigation. Go was
street (Wilson St.) from the opposite direction arraignment scheduled on August 15, 1991. entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right
(counterflow), heading towards P. Guevarra St. In so - July 19, 1991: should have been accorded him without any
doing, he nearly collided with the car of accused 8. Go contended through a PETITION FOR conditions.
Rolito Go. Go got out of his car and shot Maguan. CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS that
- A security guard of a nearby bake shop witnessed the information was null and void because no ISSUES
the event and was able to note the plate number of preliminary investigation had been conducted. 1. WON the warrantless arrest was lawful
the petitioner. The car was eventually traced to an - July 23, 1991 – Go surrendered to the police and the 2. WON the accused Go had waived his right to
Elisa Ang Go, wife of the accused. judge set the arraignment on August 23. preliminary investigation
- The police were informed that the petitioner had a - August 23, 1991:
meal at the bake shop where his credit card was 9. Respondent judge issued a commitment order HELD
used to pay for the transaction. Police were able to for Go. Upon arraignment, a plea of not guilty was 1. NO, the warrantless arrest was not lawful
identify the card owner as the accused Go and when entered because Go refused to enter a plea. Ratio Rule 112, Sec. 7 states that a complaint for
his picture was shown to the security guard who 10. Go filed a PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS and information can be filed sans preliminary
positively identified him as the supposed assailant. the CA issued the writ. The petition for habeas investigation when a person has been lawfully
Police then launched a manhunt for Go. corpus was consolidated with the petition for arrested without a warrant except than an affidavit
- July 8, 1991 – Go presented himself in the San Juan certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. should be executed by the person who was
police station with his two lawyers in tow to verify - September 19, 1991 – The trial started and the responsible for the arrest. But the person arrested
reports that he was being hunted down by the police. prosecution presented its first witness. This was can ask for preliminary investigation by the proper
1. The police detained Go and a COMPLAINT for followed by three more witnesses on October 3, officer before the complaint or information can be
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE was filed against him. 1991. filed. In this case, the person arrested must waive
2. Asst. Prov. Prosecutor Villa Ignacio informed Go, - September 23, 1991 – The CA dismissed the the provisions of A125, RPC with the assistance of
in the presence of his lawyers, of his right to avail petition for habeas corpus and the petition for counsel (a lawyer or another person of his choice if a
of preliminary investigation but in so doing, Go had certiorari, prohibition and mandamus on the lawyer is not available). He may also apply for bail
to waive the provisions in Art. 125, RPC. Go following grounds, among others: despite the waiver and the investigation must
refused. a) Validity of the warrantless arrest because the terminate within 15 days.
- July 9, 1991 – Maguan died as a result of his crime had been “freshly committed.” He was Reasoning
gunshot wounds before an INFORMATION could be positively identified by the witness and his identity - Umil vs. Ramos only applies to continuing crimes so
filed. had been established when he came to the police it does not apply in the case at bar. Murder is not a
- July 11, 1991: station. continuing crime because it happens in one place at
3. The prosecutor filed an INFORMATION for b) Waiver of the right to preliminary investigation a particular point in time and ends there as well.
murder, instead of an information for frustrated when he did not invoke it properly and waiver of - The warrantless arrest does not follow the
homicide. The prosecutor stated that no any irregularity in his arrest when accused posted requisites in Rule 113, Sec. 5 because:
preliminary investigation was conducted because bail. >The “arrest” took place 6 days after Maguan was
Go refused to waive provisions of Art. 125, RPC. c) Validity of the information against the accused shot whereas the RoC provide that the crime
4. Go’s counsel filed an OMNIBUS MOTION FOR precluded the grant of the petition for habeas should have been just committed, is about to be
IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND PROPER PRELIMINARY corpus committed or is being committed.
INVESTIGATION with the allegations that an illegal Petitioners’ Claim: Go contends that the crime had >None of the arresting officers had personal
warrantless arrest had been effected and that no not been “just committed” because of the 6-day knowledge of the facts indicating that Go was the
preliminary investigation had been conducted and disparity. gunman as required in the RoC. The information
prayed that Go be released on bail. - None of the police officers who arrested him had that the police had was derived from eyewitness
- July 12, 1991: any “personal knowledge” of the crime. accounts.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 65 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- When Go walked into the police station 6 days after petitioner was already before the Court of Appeals on - Meantime, petitioner is hereby ORDERED released
Maguan was shot, he did not surrender (so as not to certiorari, prohibition and mandamus precisely forthwith upon posting of a cash bail bond of One
imply that he committed the crime) nor was he asking for a preliminary investigation before being Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). This
arrested but he placed himself in the disposal of the forced to stand trial. release shall be without prejudice to issue, should
police authorities. - Go’s act of posting bail cannot be deemed to be a the any lawful order that the trial court Office of the
2. NO, Go had not waived his right to preliminary waiver of his right to preliminary investigation. Go Provincial Prosecutor move for cancellation of all at
investigation. asked for release on recognizance or on bail and for the conclusion of the preliminary investigation.
Ratio The rule is that the right to preliminary preliminary investigation in one omnibus motion. He
investigation is waived when the accused fails to had thus claimed his right to preliminary SEPARATE OPINION
invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at investigation before respondent Judge approved the
arraignment. cash bond posted by petitioner and ordered his
CRUZ [concurring]
Reasoning release.
- There was no waiver of the right to preliminary
- The right to have a preliminary investigation Obiter
investigation even if Go freely participated in his trial
conducted before being bound over to trial for a - However, contrary to petitioner's contention, the
and his counsel even cross-examined the prosecution
criminal offense and hence formally at risk of failure to accord preliminary investigation, while
witnesses.
incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere constituting a denial of the appropriate and full
- Go had from the start demanded a preliminary
formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. measure of the statutory process of criminal justice,
investigation and that his counsel had reluctantly
- The nature of the crime demanded that a did not impair the validity of the information for
participated in the trial only because the court
preliminary investigation be conducted. Go did ask murder nor affect the jurisdiction of the trial court.
threatened to replace him with a counsel de oficio if
for a preliminary investigation from the start. On the - In the case at bar, a trial for merits had already
he did not. The petitioner was virtually compelled to
day the information for murder was filed, he also commenced and the prosecution had already
go to trial. Such compulsion and the unjustified
filed an OMNIBUS MOTION for IMMEDIATE RELEASE presented 4 witnesses.
denial of a clear statutory right of the petitioner
and PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. The Court is not > This, however, still entitles the accused to
vitiated the proceedings as violative of procedural
ready to ignore that act by Go and consider it as a preliminary investigation. Trial on the merits
due process.
waiver based simply on the contention of the SolGen should be suspended or held in abeyance and a
- It appears that the trial court has been moved by a
that the motion should have been filed with the trial preliminary investigation should accorded to
desire to cater to public opinion to the detriment of
court and not the prosecutor. petitioner, even if eventually, the prosecutor may
the impartial administration of justice. The petitioner
- According to Crespo vs. Mogul: The preliminary or may not find probable cause. The point is that
as portrayed by the media is not exactly a popular
investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose Go was not accorded his proper rights.
person. Nevertheless, the trial court should not have
of determining whether a prima facie case exists > As for bail, Go is still entitled to be released on
been influenced by this irrelevant consideration,
warranting the prosecution of the accused is bail as a matter of right. Should the evidence
remembering instead that its only guide was the
terminated upon the filing of the information in the against the accused be strong, the bail can then be
mandate of the law.
proper court. Should the fiscal find it proper to cancelled.
conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, > To hold that the rights of Go were obliterated by
the permission of the Court must be secured. After the presentation of evidence in the proceedings in GUTIERREZ [concurring]
such reinvestigation the finding and the trial court would be to legitimize the - The need for a trial court to follow the Rules and to
recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted deprivation of due process. be fair, impartial, and persistent in getting the true
to the Court for appropriate action. Dispositive ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to facts of a case is present in all cases but it is
- However, in the case at bar, Go’s omnibus motion GRANT the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The particularly important if the accused is indigent;
asked for a PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION not Order of the trial court dated 17 July 1991 is hereby more so, if he is one of those unfortunates who seem
REINVESTIGATION as discussed in Crespo vs. Mogul. SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED, and the Decision of the to spend more time behind bars than outside.
The Prosecutor also filed a MOTION for LEAVE TO Court of Appeals dated 23 September 1991 hereby
CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION so the REVERSED. GRIÑO-AQUINO [dissenting]
omnibus motion of Go was, in effect, filed in the trial - The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is hereby - After 4 witnesses have already testified, among
court. Go did ask for a preliminary investigation on ORDERED to conduct forthwith a preliminary them an eyewitness who identified the accused as
the very day that the information was filed without investigation of the charge of murder against the gunman and a security guard who identified the
such preliminary investigation, and that the trial petitioner Go, and to complete such preliminary plate number of the gunman's car, there is no need
court was 5 days later apprised of the desire of the investigation within a period of fifteen (15) days from to conduct a preliminary investigation the sole
petitioner for such preliminary investigation. commencement thereof. The trial on the merits of purpose of which would be to ascertain if there is
- There was no waiver of the right to preliminary the criminal case in the Regional Trial Court shall be sufficient ground to believe that a crime was
investigation because Go had vigorously insisted on SUSPENDED to await the conclusion of the committed (which the petitioner does not dispute)
his right to preliminary investigation before his preliminary investigation. and that he (the petitioner) is probably guilty thereof
arraignment. At the time of his arraignment,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 66 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

(which the prosecutor, by filing the information against petitioner, Quintin Doromal, a former Ombudsman. The petitioner’s right to a preliminary
against him, presumably believed to be so). commissioner of the Presidential Commission on investigation of the new charge is secured to him by
- This case did not suffer from a lack of previous Good Government for violation of the Anti-Graft and Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
investigation. Diligent police work, with ample media Corrupt Practices Act in connection with his That right of the accused is substantial and its denial
coverage, led to the identification of the suspect shareholdings and position as president and director over his opposition is a prejudicial error in that it
who, 7 days after the shooting, appeared at the San of the Doromal International Trading Corporation subjects the accused to loss of life, liberty, or
Juan police station to verify news reports that he was which submitted bids to supply equipment to the property without due process of law. Since the right
the object of a police manhunt. There witnesses DECS and the National Manpower and Youth Council. belongs to the accused, he alone may waive it. If he
identified him to be the assailant. - January 25, 1988, Special Prosecution Officer filed demands it, the State may not withhold it. However,
- It should be remembered that as important as is the in the Sandiganbayan an information against as the absence of a preliminary investigation is not a
right of the accused to a preliminary investigation, it petitioner. ground to quash the complaint or information, the
is not a constitutional right. Its absence is not a - The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and proceedings upon such information in the
ground to quash the information. It does not affect prohibition in the SC questioning the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan should be held in abeyance and the
the court's jurisdiction, nor impair the validity of the the Tanodbayan to file the information without the case should be remanded to the office of the
information, nor constitute an infringement of the approval of the Ombudsman after the effectivity of Ombudsman for him or the Special Prosecutor to
right of the accused to confront witnesses. the 1987 Constitution. conduct a preliminary investigation.
- The petitioner's motion for a preliminary - June 30, 1988, the SC annulled the information 2. NO
investigation is not more important than his - Upon the annulment of the information against the - Since the petitioner is an incumbent public official
application for release on bail, just as the conduct of petitioner, the Special Prosecutor sought clearance charged in a valid information with an offense
such preliminary investigation is not more important from the Ombudsman to refile it punishable under the Constitution and the laws, the
than the hearing of the application for bail. The - The Ombudsman granted clearance but advised law’s command that he “shall be suspended from
court's hearing of the application for bail should not that some changes be made in the information office” pendent lite must be obeyed. His approved
be subordinated to the preliminary investigation of previously filed leave of absence should not be a bar to his
the charge. The hearing should not be suspended, - A new information was filed in the Sandiganbayan preventive suspension for, as indicated by the
but should be allowed to proceed because the parties - Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information Solicitor General, and approved leave, whether it be
will have an opportunity to show not only: (a) for being invalid because there had been no for a fixed of indefinite period may be cancelled or
whether or not there is probable cause to believe preliminary investigation and defective because the shortened at will by the incumbent. However, since
that the petitioner killed Eldon Maguan, but more facts alleged do not constitute the offense charged. the preventive suspension has exceeded the
importantly (b) whether or not the evidence of his - The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash reasonable maximum period of ninety days provided
guilt is strong. The judge's determination that the - The Special Prosecutor filed a motion to suspend in Section 42 of the Civil Service Decree of the
evidence of his guilt is strong would naturally accused pendente lite. Over the objection of the Philippines, it should now be lifted.
foreclose the need for a preliminary investigation to accused the Sandiganbayan ordered his suspension Dispositive Petition for certiorari and prohibition is
ascertain the probability of his guilt. pendente lite from his position as PCGG granted.
- Go was indeed arrested by the police. Arrest is the Commissioner and from any other office he may be
taking of a person into custody in order that he may holding. ALLADO v DIOKNO
be bound to answer for the commission of an
232 SCRA 192
offense. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of ISSUES
the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the 1. WON the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse BELLOSILLO; May 5, 1994
custody of the person making the arrest of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash
the information NATURE
Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a
DOROMAL v SANDIGANBAYAN 2. WON the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse
of discretion in suspending the petitioner from office temporary restraining order
(OMBUDSMAN and SPECIAL
despite the President’s having previously approved
PROSECUTOR) his indefinite leave of absence until final decision in FACTS
177 SCRA 1989 the case - Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L.
Mendoza, alumni of the College of Law, University of
GRINO-AQUINO; September 7, 1989
HELD the Philippines, are partners of the Law Firm of
1. YES Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. In the practice of
NATURE
- A new preliminary investigation of the charge their profession, and on the basis of an alleged
Petition for Certiorari
against the petitioner is in order not only because extrajudicial confession of a security guard (Umbal),
the first was a nullity but also because the accused they have been accused of the heinous crime of
FACTS
demands it as his right. Moreover, the charge kidnapping with murder of a German national named
- October 1987, the Special Prosecution Officer
against him had been changed as directed by the Van Twest by the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission
conducted a preliminary investigation of the charge
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 67 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

(PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by highly improbable, if not ridiculous. A human body preliminary investigation proper which ascertains
respondent judge. cannot be pulverized into ashes by simply burning it whether the offender should be held for trial or
- Petitioners filed this petition and principally with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an open released. Even if the two inquiries be conducted in
contended that respondent judge acted with grave field. Even crematoria use entirely closed the course of one and the same proceeding, there
abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in incinerators where the corpse is subjected to intense should be no confusion about their objectives. The
"whimsically holding that there is probable cause heat. Thereafter, the remains undergo a process determination of probable cause for the warrant is
against petitioners without determining the where the bones are completely ground to dust. made by the judge. The preliminary investigation
admissibility of the evidence against petitioners and - Strangely, if not awkwardly, after Van Twest's proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to
without even stating the basis of his findings," and in reported abduction which culminated in his believe that the accused is guilty of the offense
"relying on the Resolution of the Panel and their decimation by cremation, his counsel continued to charged and therefore, whether or not he should be
certification that probable cause exists when the represent him before judicial and quasi-judicial subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment
certification is flawed." Petitioners maintain that the proceedings. Hence, even Asst. Solicitor General of trial is a function of the prosecutor.
records of the preliminary investigation which Estoesta believes that counsel of Van Twest doubted - ALLADO DOCTRINE: If upon the filing of the
respondent judge solely relied upon failed to the latter's death. information in court, the trial judge, after reviewing
establish probable cause against them to justify the - Verily, respondent judge committed grave abuse of the information and the document attached thereto,
issuance of the warrant of arrest. Petitioners likewise discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of finds that no probable cause exists, he must either
assail the prosecutors' "clear sign of bias and petitioners it appearing that he did not personally call for the complainant and the witnesses
partiality." examine the evidence nor did he call for the themselves or simply dismiss the case. There is no
- On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor complainant and his witnesses in the face of their reason to hold the accused for trial and further
General argues that the determination of probable incredible accounts. Instead, he merely relied on the expose him to an open and public accusation of the
cause is a function of the judge who is merely certification of the prosecutors that probable cause crime when no probable cause exists.
required to personally appreciate certain facts to existed. For, otherwise, he would have found out that Dispositive Petition granted
convince him that the accused probably committed the evidence thus far presented was utterly
the crime charged. insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioners. ROBERTS v CA
- In Soliven v. Makasiar, we said that the judge (a)
254 SCRA 307
ISSUE shall personally evaluate the report and the
WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse supporting documents submitted by the fiscal DAVIDE, JR; March 5, 1996
of discretion in the preliminary inquiry which regarding the existence of probable cause and, on
determines probable cause for the issuance of a the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or, (b) if FACTS
warrant of arrest on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, may - Several thousand holders of “349” Pepsi crowns in
disregard the fiscal's report and require the connection with the Number Fever Promotion filed
HELD submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City
- In the Order of respondent judge, it is expressly aid him in arriving at a conclusion on the existence of complaints against the petitioner officials of PEPSI.
stated that "[t]his court after careful evaluation of probable cause. - The petitioners filed with the Office of the City
the evidence on record, believes and rules that - In People v. Inting, we emphasized the important Prosecutor a motion for the reconsideration of the
probable cause exists; and therefore, a warrant of features of the constitutional mandate: (a) The Joint Resolution and with the DOJ a Petition for
arrest should be issued." However, we are unable to determination of probable cause is a function of the Review. The petitioners also Motions to Suspend
see how respondent judge arrived at such ruling. We judge; it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor Proceedings and to hold in Abeyance Issuance of
have painstakingly examined the records and we to ascertain. Only the judge and the judge alone Warrants of Arrest on the ground that they had filed
cannot find any support for his conclusion. On the makes this determination; (b) The preliminary inquiry the aforesaid Petition for Review.
contrary, we discern a number of reasons why we made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. It - Respondent Judge Asuncion issued the challenged
consider the evidence submitted to be insufficient for merely assists him in making the determination of order (1) denying the petitioners’ Motion to Suspend
a finding of probable cause against petitioners. probable cause. The judge does not have to follow Proceedings and to Hold In Abeyance Issuance of
- The PACC relies heavily on the sworn statement of what the prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the Warrants of Arrest and the public prosecutor’s Motion
Security Guard Umbal who supposedly confessed his prosecutor's certification of probable cause is to Defer Arraignment and (2) directing the issuance
participation in the alleged kidnapping and murder of ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the of the warrants of arrest “after and setting the
Van Twest. For one, there is serious doubt on Van transcript of stenographic notes (if any), and all other arraignment on 28 June 1993.
Twest's reported death since the corpus delicti has supporting documents behind the prosecutor's - The petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a
not been established, nor have his remains been certification which are material in assisting the judge special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with
recovered. Umbal claims that Van Twest was in his determination of probable cause; and, (c) application for a temporary restraining order. They
completely burned into ashes with the use of Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the contended therein that respondent Judge Asuncion
gasoline and rubber tires from around ten o'clock in preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
the evening to six o'clock the next morning. This is for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 68 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

aforementioned order. for the filing of the information, or both, would suffice
- The Court of Appeals then issued a resolution in the judicial determination of probable cause for ISSUE
denying the application for a writ of preliminary the issuance of a warrant of arrest. WON the CA erred in finding that no probable cause
injunction. - In the present case, nothing accompanied the exists to merit the filing of charges against private
information upon its filing with the trial court. Clearly, respondent Billy Cerbo
ISSUE when respondent Judge Asuncion issued the assailed
WON public respondent Judge Asuncion order directing, among other things, the issuance of
committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering warrants of arrest, he had only the information,
the issuance of warrants of arrest without amended information, and Joint Resolution as bases HELD
examining the records of the preliminary thereof. He did not have the records or evidence YES
investigation. supporting the prosecutor’s finding of probable - The petition is meritorious.
cause. And strangely enough, he made no specific - The determination of probable cause during
HELD finding of probable cause; he merely directed the preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to
YES. issuance of warrants of arrest. It may, however, be the public prosecutor. It is an executive function.
- Section 2, Article III of the present Constitution argued that the directive presupposes a finding of - The public prosecutor has the quasi-judicial
provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest probable cause. But then compliance with a authority to determine whether or not a criminal case
shall issue except upon probable cause to be constitutional requirement for the protection of must be filed in court.
determined personally by the judge after individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition, - The primary objective of a preliminary investigation
examination under oath or affirmation of the conjecture, or even convincing logic. is to free respondent from the inconvenience,
complainant and the witnesses he may produce. expense, ignominy, and stress of defending
- The determination of probable cause is a function of PEOPLE v CA (CERBO) himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until
the Judge. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or the reasonable probability of his or her guilt in a
(Republic v CA in page 5 of the outline)
Prosecutor nor the Election Supervisor to ascertain. more or less summary proceeding by a competent
Only the Judge and the Judge alone makes this 301 SCRA 475 office designated by law for that purpose.6
determination. PANGANIBAN; January 21, 1999 - Secondarily, such summary proceeding also
- The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does protects the state from the burden of the
not bind the Judge. It merely assists him to make the NATURE unnecessary expense of an effort in prosecuting
determination of probable cause. The Judge does not Petition for Review alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from
have to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. false, frivolous, or groundless charges.7
By itself, the Prosecutor’s certification of probable FACTS - The determination of probable cause to hold a
cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the - Private Respondent Jonathan Cerbo shot, at person for trial must be distinguished from the
transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all pointblank range, Rosalinda Dy in the presence and determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of
other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s at the office of his father private respondent Billy arrest, which is a judicial function.
certification which are material in assisting the Judge Cerbo. - A judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of
to make his determination. - An information for murder was filed against arrest if he or she deems that there is no probable
- The teachings of the cases of Soliven3, Inting4, Lim5, Jonathan Cerbo. cause for doing so.
Allado, and Webb reject the proposition that the - The daughter of the victim executed an affidavit- - Corrollarily, the judge should not override the public
investigating prosecutor’s certification in an complaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of prosecutor’s determination of probable cause to hold
information or his resolution which is made the basis conspiracy in the killing. an accused for trial, on the ground that the evidence
- Accordingly, the prosecution filed an amended presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest
3 information including Billy Cerbo in the murder case. warrant was insufficient, as in the present case.
The Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and
his witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a A warrant for his arrest was later issued. - Therefore, if the information is valid on its face, and
commissioner for the taking of the evidence. However, there should be - Billy Cerbo filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest there is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of
a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscal’s bare
certification. All of these should be before the Judge.
arguing that the same was issued without probable discretion and prejudice on the part of the public
4 cause. prosecutor, the trial court should respect such
The supporting documents may consist of, viz., “the affidavits, the
transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting
- The respondent judge issued an order dismissing determination.
documents behind the Prosecutor’s certification which are material in the case against Billy Cerbo and recalling the warrant Dispositive Reversed.
assisting the Judge to make his determination of probable cause for his arrest.
5
The issuance of the warrants of arrest by a judge solely on the basis - The Court of Appeals debunked the petitioner’s CASTILLO v VILLALUZ
of the prosecutor’s certification in the information that there existed assertion that the trial judge committed grave abuse
probable cause, without having before him any other basis for his of discretion and that the evidence presented thus
personal determination of the existence of a probable cause, is null
and void.
far did not substantiate the charge.. Hence this 6
Ledesma v. CA, 278 SCRA 657, Sept. 5, 1997.
petition. 7
Id.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 69 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

171 SCRA 39 112 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure no longer FERNANDO; May 13, 1981
authorizes RTC Judges to conduct PIs. [b] The
NARVASA; March 8, 1989
assignment of PI function to judges of inferior courts NATURE
and to a very limited extent to courts of first instance Writ of Certiorari
NATURE
was dictated by necessity and practical
Petition for certiorari and prohibition
considerations, and the consequent policy, was that FACTS
wherever there were enough fiscals or prosecutors to -Counsel for Reynaldo Rodil who was charged with
FACTS
conduct preliminary investigations, courts were to murder, asks to recall witnesses for the prosecution
- In July 1971, a complaint and a Joint Affidavit were
leave that job which is essentially executive to them. to enable such counsel to cross-examine them, on, to
filed directly by Renato Montes and Jose de Silva
It follows that the conclusions derived by a judge quote his words, "clarificatory and amplificatory
against Manuel Laconico. The complaint charged the
from his own investigation cannot be superior to and matters" which was denied by Municipal Judge
latter with estafa in the amount of P1K. Preliminary
conclusively binding on the fiscal or public Segundo M. Garcia of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque.
investigation (now in question) was conducted by
prosecutor, in whom that function is principally and -What is prayed for is not only that such order
respondent Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court, and
more logically lodged. denying counsel's request to recall government
thereafter issued a warrant of arrest. He ordered
2. YES witnesses be set aside and nullified, but also that bail
Provincial Fiscal to file the corresponding information
The power to conduct PI is lodged in the fiscal. It is be granted petitioner, a petition to that effect having
against the respondent before the court of
grave abuse of discretion on a judge to seek to been denied with a subsequent motion for
competent jurisdiction within 24 hours from receipt
foreclose the fiscal's prerogative to conduct his own reconsideration still undecided.
of said order.
preliminary investigation to determine for himself the -Respondents were required to comment and the
- Provincial Fiscal failed to file the information
existence or non-existence of probable cause, and to Court likewise issued a temporary restraining order.
required within the time appointed, or at any time
require him to show cause for not filing the Such a comment was submitted on behalf of
thereafter. Consequently, he was directed by His
information within 24 hours, on the sole basis of the respondents by the Solicitor General seeking the
Honor to explain within 10 days "why he should not
Judge's conclusions. The fiscal has the duty to satisfy dismissal of the petition on the ground that the
be punished for contempt of court for delaying the
himself of the existence of probable cause, and could right to cross-examine in a preliminary
speedy administration of justice for disobeying a
not shirk or be made to evade it by an unreasoning investigation is not a right granted an accused
lawful order of the Court." Fiscal filed a MFR, but was
and indiscriminate reliance on the judge's and that the exercise of discretion by
denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari and
investigation. respondent Judge considering the evidence of
prohibition was presented by petitioner Fiscal,
Dispositive: Petition GRANTED. Challenged Orders record sufficed to justify denial of the
seeking annulment of the aforesaid orders.
annulled and set aside. application for bail.
ISSUES -An examination of the record, as well as the
1.WON respondent judge had no jurisdiction to SEPARATE OPINION pertinent doctrines, makes evident that the
conduct preliminary investigations, because the law jurisdictional issue posed arises from the
creating Circuit Criminal Courts, R.A. 5179, did not CRUZ [concurring] failure to accord petitioner a hearing on his
confer on said courts the power to conduct - The fiscal prevails over the judge only in the application for bail.
preliminary investigations determination of the existence of a prima facie case -A resolution of that question in the sense of
2. WON judge erred in compelling fiscal under to justify the filing of a complaint or information. This respondent Judge affording petitioner his day in court
sanction of contempt, to file an information in court task is executive. is equally decisive of the other issue, whether or not
without conducting his own preliminary investigation - But the determination of probable cause to justify counsel for petitioner could recall witnesses for the
the issuance of a search warrant or a warrant of prosecution for the purpose of asking clarificatory
HELD arrest is the constitutional prerogative of the judge questions. That he could very well do when they
1. YES and may not be withdrawn from him or even only testify to prove evidence of guilt is strong. Under
Ratio: The conduct of a preliminary investigation is limited by statute or ROC. This task is judicial. The the present state of the law, it cannot be said
not a judicial function but part of the fiscal’s job, a findings of fiscal in the PI do not control or foreclose that the right to cross-examine is guaranteed
function of the executive. Wherever there are the exercise of the power conferred personally on the an accused at the stage of preliminary
enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminary judge under Sec. 2 the Bill of Rights. That power is investigation.
investigations, courts are counseled to leave this job his alone.
which is essentially executive to them, and the fact ISSUE
WON counsel for petitioner could recall witnesses for
that a certain power is granted does not necessarily BALGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN
mean that it should be indiscriminately exercised. the prosecution for the purpose of asking clarificatory
[SUPRA, PAGE 34] questions (that he could very well do when they
Reasoning: [a] Sec. 37 of BP. 129 reiterated the
removal from Judges of Metropolitan Trial Courts in testify to prove evidence of guilt is strong)
the National Capital Region of the authority to RODIL v GARCIA
conduct preliminary investigations and Sec 2 of Rule 104 SCRA 362 HELD
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 70 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

YES. Counsel could recall the witnesses. sound discretion of the Judge or investigating was on its way to another place, Lalabuan, also in
- The Judge issued the denial for bail on the basis officer concerned (People v. Ramilo, \Dequito v. Masiu, had been ambushed
of the motion of petitioner that he be granted Arellano, Bustos v. Lucero) it could still be argued - The next day, a lawyer (Atty. Batuampar) of one of
such right and the opposition filed by the First that the judge is not a ministerial officer the widows filed a letter-complaint with the fiscal,
Assistant Provincial Fiscal without conducting reduced to recording what takes place and asking for a “full blast preliminary investigation”. The
any hearing on such motion. Clearly, he acted what witnesses say in the examination. Above letter adverted to the possibility of innocent persons
on the mistaken belief that the presentation of all, his is the great responsibility of being implicated by the parties involved on both
evidence by the prosecution for the purpose of safeguarding the accused from groundless or sides none of whom was, however, identified and
the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the vindictive prosecution. If the justice of the peace promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be
preliminary examination proper, suffices for is to ascertain, as he must, whether a crime has been filed. Immediately the Provincial Fiscal addressed a
the denial of the plea for bail. In the latest case committed and, if so, whether there is probable "1st indorsement" to the respondent Judge,
on the subject, People v. Sola, decided on March 17, cause that the accused committed it, his authority transmitting Atty. Batuampar's letter and requesting
1981, this Court relying on People v. San Diego, cannot be confined as in a straight jacket to the that "all cases that may be filed relative .. (to the
nullified an order of a municipal judge named stiffness of medieval and outmoded technicalities of incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 27,
respondent in that case as he granted bail to the practice. It thus appears clearly that in the exercise 1985," be forwarded to his office, which "has first
accused without hearing the prosecution. The of his discretion respondent Judge could have taken cognizance of said cases.
present case is much stronger; it is the granted the request and thus avoided the necessity - On August 10, 1985, a criminal complaint for
accused himself, the explicit beneficiary of the of a petition of this character having to be filed. The multiple murder was filed. On the same day,
constitutional right, who was not heard. interest of a more speedy and a more efficient respondent Judge examined personally the 3
- There was misapprehension on the part of administration of justice would be best served witnesses. Thereafter, the Judge approved the
respondent Judge of the import of the ruling in if there is a greater awareness on the part of complaint and issued a warrant of arrest against the
Ocampo v. Bernabe citing that “The regular trial judges that in addition to safeguarding the 14 petitioners (who were named by the witnesses)
is, to a limited extent at least, anticipated. express rights of an accused person, a matter and 50 "John Does.
While the guilt or innocence of the accused is mandated by the Constitution or the Rules of - On Aug 14, 1985, an ex-parte motion was filed by
not to be determined, the quantity and Court, they should likewise exercise their Atty. Batuampar seeking recall of the warrant of
character of the proofs on this point are, for discretion in such a way that the purpose of a arrest and subsequent holding of a "thorough
the special purpose in hand, necessarily preliminary investigation, the avoidance of investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial
considered. Occasionally much time is thus groundless or vindictive prosecutions, could be investigation had been "hasty and manifestly
consumed, and the court's attention is attained in as fair and objective manner as haphazard" with "no searching questions" having
correspondingly diverted from other business. But possible. been propounded. The respondent Judge denied the
these objections cannot avail against a positive Dispositive WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is motion for "lack of basis;" hence the present petition.
constitutional command; if the Constitution requires granted. The order of respondent Judge denying bail
the court to determine for itself whether or not the is set aside. He, or whoever is now the Municipal ISSUE
proof is evident or presumption great in a given case, Judge of Santa Cruz, Marinduque, must set forthwith WON the respondent Judge had the power to issue
all considerations of expediency or convenience, the hearing on the application for bail of petitioner, the warrant of arrest without completing the entire
however potent they might be at the common law, to be conducted in accordance with the requirements prescribed procedure for preliminary investigation
must give way.'" This is so because the procedure of the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and this
to be followed in the hearing on an application opinion. No costs. HELD
for bail, while summary in character, is not to YES.
be a mere sham or pretense. It must not be an PANGANDAMAN v CASAR - What the Rule provides is that no complaint or
exercise in futility. The accused is not to be information for an offense cognizable by the Regional
159 SCRA 599
denied his day in court. Trial Court may be filed without completing that
- While it could be said that that the refusal of the NARVASA; April 14, 1988 procedure. Sec. 6 of Rule 112 clearly authorizes the
Justice of the Peace to allow the defense to MTC to issue a warrant even before opening the
cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses FACTS second phase.
presented prior to petitioner's arrest, cannot - On July 27, 1985, a shooting incident occurred in - This was equally true under the former rules, where
be utilized as argument for the contention that Pantao, Masiu, Lanao del Sur, which left at least five the first phase of the investigation was expressly
the prosecution should not have been allowed persons dead and two others wounded. What in fact denominated "preliminary examination" to
to cross-examine the defense witnesses and transpired is still unclear. According to one version, distinguish it from the second phase, or preliminary
that an accused is not entitled to cross- armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao, investigation proper
examine the witnesses presented against him Masiu, with both attackers and defenders suffering - Sec 3 of rule 112 consists of 2 phases:
in the preliminary investigation before his casualties. Another version has it that a group that - The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into
arrest, this being a matter that depends on the the sufficiency of the complaint and the affidavits
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 71 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

and other documents offered in support thereof. And Ratio 3 conditions must concur for the issuance of
it ends with the determination by the Judge either: SAMULDE v SALVANI the warrant of arrest. The investigating judge must:
(1) that there is no ground to continue with the (a) have examined in writing and under oath the
165 SCRA 734
inquiry, in which case he dismisses the complaint complainant and his witnesses by searching
and transmits the order of dismissal, together with GRIÑO-AQUINO: September 26, 1988 questions and answers;
the records of the case, to the provincial fiscal; or (2) (b) be satisfied that a probable cause exists; and
that the complaint and the supporting documents NATURE (c) that there is a need to place the respondent
show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry Appeal from the decision of the RTC under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the
and this ushers in the second phase. ends of justice.
- This second phase is designed to give the FACTS Reasoning The mandatory provision that the
respondent notice of the complaint, access to the - Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigating judge "must issue a warrant of arrest" if
complainant's evidence and an opportunity to submit investigation upon a complaint for robbery. After he finds probable cause that the respondent
counter-affidavits and supporting documents. At this making a preliminary investigation based on the committed the crime charged, found in all previous
stage also, the Judge may conduct a hearing and affidavits of the complainant and her witnesses and rules of criminal procedure, from General Orders No.
propound to the parties and their witnesses counter-affidavits of the respondent and his 58 down to Rule 112 of the 1964 Revised Rules of
questions on matters that, in his view, need to be witnesses, Judge Samulde transmitted the records of Court, is absent in Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on
clarified. The second phase concludes with the Judge the case to Provincial Fiscal Salvani with his finding Criminal Procedure. It is not obligatory, but merely
rendering his resolution, either for dismissal of the that "there is prima facie evidence of robbery as discretionary, upon the investigating judge to issue a
complaint or holding the respondent for trial, which charge in the complaint". The fiscal returned the warrant for the arrest of the accused, for the
shall be transmitted, together with the record, to the records on the ground that Judge Samulde failed to determination of whether a probable cause exists
provincial fiscal for appropriate action. include the warrant of arrest against the accused as and whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in
- The argument, therefore, must be rejected that the provided in Sec 5, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on order not to frustrate the ends of justice, is left to his
respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of Criminal Procedure. Judge Samulde sent back the sound judgment or discretion. In this particular case,
discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest against records to Fiscal Salvani. He pointed out that under since the robbery charge was the offshoot of a
petitioners without first completing the preliminary Sec 6, Rule 112, he may issue a warrant of arrest if boundary dispute between two property owners, the
investigation in accordance with the prescribed he is satisfied "that a probable cause exists and that investigating judge did not believe there was any
procedure. The rule is and has always been that such there is a necessity of placing the respondent under danger of the accused absconding before the filing of
issuance need only await a finding of probable cause, immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends the information against him by the fiscal, hence, he
not the completion of the entire procedure of of justice, " implying that, although he found that a found no need to place him under immediate
preliminary investigation probable cause existed, he did not believe that the custody.
- Also without appreciable merit is petitioners' other accused should be immediately placed under Dispositive The appealed decision is SET ASIDE.
argument that there was scarcely time to determine custody. Hence, he refused to issue a warrant of
probable cause against sixty-four persons (the arrest. TANDOC v RESULTAN
fourteen petitioners and fifty "Does") within a matter - A special civil action of mandamus was filed in the
[SUPRA, PAGE 43]
of hours on a Saturday when municipal trial courts RTC by Provincial Fiscal Salvani against Judge
are open only from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Nothing in Samulde to compel the latter to issue a warrant of
the record before this Court belies or discredits those arrest. The RTC dismissed the petition but LIM vFELIX
affirmations which have, besides, the benefit of the nevertheless ordered Judge Samulde to issue a 194 SCRA 292
legal presumption that official duty has been warrant of arrest, and to transmit the warrant to the GUTIERREZ; February 19, 1991
regularly performed. Provincial Fiscal for appropriate action. He further
- Insofar, however, as said warrant is issued against advised the Municipal Judge "that henceforth he NATURE
fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses adheres to the same rule in similar cases where he Review for certiorari.
to the complaint could or would Identify, it is of the conducts a preliminary investigation with a finding of
nature of a general warrant, one of a class of writs a prima facie or probable cause." Unconvinced, Judge FACTS
long proscribed as unconstitutional and once Samulde appealed to this Court. - March 17, 1989: at the vicinity of the airport road of
anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the Masbate Domestic Airport (Masbate, Masbate),
the subject." Clearly violative of the constitutional ISSUE Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr. and his security
injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly WON a judge may be compelled to issue a warrant of escorts, namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes,
describe the person or persons to be seized, the arrest upon a finding of probable cause Gaspar Amaro, and Artemio Fuentes were attacked
warrant must, as regards its unidentified subjects, be and killed by a lone assassin. Dante Siblante, another
voided. HELD security escort of Congressman Espinosa, Sr.
Dispositive Warrants against petitioners upheld; NO survived the assassination plot, although, he himself
warrants against John Does denied suffered a gunshot wound.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 72 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- For the purpose of preliminary investigation, the - What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive
designated investigator, Harry O. Tantiado, TSg ISSUE and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to
(Legaspi) filed an amended complaint with the WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In
Municipal Trial Court of Masbate accusing, among bail by simply relying on the prosecution's doing so, the judge is not required to personally
others, Vicente Lim, Sr., Mayor Susana Lim of certification and recommendation that a probable examine the complainant and his witnesses.
Masbate, Jolly T. Fernandez, Florencio T. Fernandez, cause exists. Following established doctrine and procedures, he
Jr., Nonilon A. Bagalihog, Mayor Nestor C. Lim and shall:
Mayor Antonio Kho of the crime of multiple murder HELD (1) personally evaluate the report and the
and frustrated murder in connection with the airport NO supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
incident. Ratio A Judge is not precluded from relying on the regarding the existence of probable cause and,
- July 31, 1989: after the preliminary investigation evidence earlier gathered by responsible officers. on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
court released an order stating after that a probable The extent of the reliance depends on the (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable
cause has been established for the issuance of a circumstances of each case and is subject to the cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and
warrant of arrest of named accused in the amended Judge's sound discretion. However, the Judge abuses require the submission of supporting affidavits of
complaint. that discretion when having no evidence before him, witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion
- August 29, 1989: records of the case were he issues a warrant of arrest. as to the existence of probable cause.
transmitted to Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate. Reasoning - Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise
Respondent Acting Fiscal Antonio C. Alfane was - Respondent Judge committed a grave error when judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary
designated to review the case. On September 22, he relied solely on the Prosecutor's certification and examinations and investigation of criminal
1989, Fiscal Alfane issued a Resolution which issued the questioned Order dated July 5, 1990 complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and
affirmed the finding of a prima facie case against the without having before him any other basis for his deciding cases filed before their courts.
petitioners but differed in the designation of the personal determination of the existence of a - The determination of probable cause for the
crime (he said it should be MURDER for each case, probable cause. If a Judge relies solely on the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge. The
with serious physical injuries). Fiscal Alfane filed with certification of the Prosecutor as in this case where preliminary investigation proper - whether or not
the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, four (4) separate all the records of the investigation are in Masbate, he there is reasonable ground to believe that the
informations of murder against the twelve (12) or she has not personally determined probable accused is guilty of the offense charged and,
accused with a recommendation of no bail. cause. The determination is made by the Provincial therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to
- Respondents Lims filed a verified petition for a Prosecutor. The constitutional requirement has not the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial - is
change of venue. Court granted the petition. The been satisfied. The Judge commits a grave abuse of the function of the Prosecutor.
case was raffled to Judge Nemesio Felix. discretion. - The power to make a preliminary examination for
- Lims then prayed for the following: - The records of the preliminary investigation the purpose of determining whether probable cause
1. An order be issued requiring the transmittal of conducted by the Municipal Court of Masbate and exists to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest (or
the initial records of the preliminary inquiry or reviewed by the respondent Fiscal were still in search warrant) has been and remains vested in
investigation conducted by the Municipal Judge Masbate when the respondent Fiscal issued the every judge by the provisions in the Bill of Rights in
Barsaga of Masbate for the best enlightenment of warrants of arrest against the petitioners. There was the 1935, the 1973 and the present [1987]
this Honorable Court in its personal determination no basis for the respondent Judge to make his own Constitutions securing the people against
of the existence of a probable cause or prima facie personal determination regarding the existence of a unreasonable searches and seizures, thereby placing
evidence as well as its determination of the probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest it beyond the competence of mere Court Rule or
existence of guilt, pursuant to the mandatory as mandated by the Constitution. He could not Statute to revoke.
mandate of the constitution that no warrant shall possibly have known what transpired in Masbate as - The problem lies with warrants of arrest especially
issue unless the issuing magistrate shall have he had nothing but a certification in metropolitan or highly urban areas. If a Judge has
himself been personally convinced of such probable - Art. III, Sec. 2. (Constitution) to personally question each complainant and witness
cause. The right of the people to be secure in their or go over the records of the Prosecutor's
2. Movants be given ample opportunity to file persons, houses, papers and effects against investigation page by page and word for word before
their motion for preliminary investigation as a unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever he acts on each of a big pile of applications for arrest
matter of right; nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and warrants on his desk, he or she may have no more
- In another manifestation, the Lims reiterated that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall time for his or her more important judicial functions.
the court conduct a hearing to determine if there issue except upon probable cause to be Dispositive Petition is granted.
really exists a prima facie case against them in the determined personally by the judge after
light of documents which are recantations of some examination under oath or affirmation of the STONEHILL v DIOKNO
witnesses in the preliminary investigation. The complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
20 SCRA 383
respondent court issued an order denying for lack of and particularly describing the place to be searched
merit. and the persons or things to be seized. CONCEPCION; June 19, 1967
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 73 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Procedure: specific offense had been alleged in said


NATURE -March 22, 1962: SC issued the writ of preliminary applications. It was impossible for the judges who
Original action in the SC. Certiorari, prohibition, injunction prayed for in the petition. issued the warrants to have found the existence of
mandamus, injunction. -June 29, 1962: the writ was partially lifted or probable cause, which presupposes the introduction
-Petitioners: Harry S. Stonehill, Robert P. Brooks, John dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and of competent proof that the party against whom it is
J. Brooks and Karl Beck; accused in certain things seized from the offices of the corporations sought has performed particular acts, or committed
deportation cases above mentioned are concerned; but, the injunction specific omissions in violation of a given penal
-Respondents-prosecutors: DOJ Sec Jose W. Diokno, was maintained as regards the papers, documents provision.
NBI Acting Director Jose Lukban, Special Prosecutors and things found and seized in the residences of -General search warrants are outlawed because they
Pedro D. Cenzon, Efren I. Plana and Manuel Villareal, petitioners. place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of
Jr. and Manila City Asst. Fiscal Maneses G. Reyes NOTE: The ponencia splits the documents, papers, communication and correspondence at the mercy of
-Repondents-judges: Judge Amado Roan of the and things seized under the alleged authority of the the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.
Municipal (now City) Court of Manila, Judge Roman warrants in question into two (2) major groups: (a) -To prevent the issuance of general search warrants,
Cansino of the Municipal (now City) Court of Manila, those found and seized in the offices of the SC amended Sec. 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules
Judge Hermogenes Caluag of CFI Rizal Quezon City aforementioned corporations, and (b) those found of Court by providing in the Revised Rules of Court
Branch, Judge Eulogio Mencias of CFI Rizal, Pasig and seized in the residences of petitioners. that "no search warrant shall issue for more than one
Branch, and Judge Damian Jimenez of the Municipal specific offense."
(now City) Court of Quezon City. ISSUES -Search warrants authorizing the seizure of books of
1. As regards the first group, WON petitioners have a accounts and records pertaining to all business
FACTS cause of action transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of
-Upon application of the respondents-prosecutors, 2. As regards the second group, WON the search whether the transactions were legal or illegal
respondents-judges issued a total of 42 search warrants in question, and the searches and seizures contravene the explicit command of the Bill of Rights
warrants against petitioners and/or the corporations made under the authority thereof, are valid (and, that the things to be seized should be particularly
of which they were officers, directed to the any WON said documents, papers and things may be described and defeat its major objective of
peace officer, to search the persons above-named used in evidence against petitioners) eliminating general warrants.
and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses -SC resolved to adopt the doctrine in Mapp v Ohio
and/or residences, and to seize and take possession HELD (1961) and to finally abandon the 1948 ruling in
of “books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, 1. NONE. Moncado vs. People's Court, 80 Phil. 1.
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, -The legality of a seizure can be contested only by (*The latter case (citing Wigmore) held that illegally seized
portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, evidence is admissible, as long as it is relevant, but without
documents and/or papers showing all business and that the objection to an unlawful search and prejudice to the criminal liability of the peace officers who
made the seizure, for violation of domicile or under any
transactions including disbursements receipts, seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of other provision of the Penal Code. Justices Perfecto,
balance sheets and profit and loss statements and by third parties. -Petitioners may not validly object to Bengzon, Briones & Paras dissented from the majority
Bobbins (cigarette wrappers)” as "the subject of the the use in evidence against them of the documents, opinion. ~marge~*)
offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits papers and things seized from the offices and -The exclusionary rule is the only practical means of
of the offense," or "used or intended to be used as premises of the corporations, since the right to object enforcing the constitutional injunction against
the means of committing the offense" of "violation of to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs unreasonable searches and seizures.
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized -The non-exclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the
Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code." effects belong, and may not be invoked by the letter, but also, to the spirit of the constitutional
Petitioners claim that the aforementioned search corporate officers in proceedings against them in injunction against unreasonable searches and
warrants are null and void, as contravening the their individual capacity. seizures. If there is competent evidence to establish
Constitution and the Rules of Court; that the 2. NO. probable cause of the commission of a given crime
searches and seizures made in pursuance thereof are -1935 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1, par. 3) provides by the party against whom the warrant is intended,
illegal; and that evidences obtained therein are (a) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable then there is no reason why the applicant should not
consequently inadmissible. cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner comply with the requirements of the fundamental
Respondents/prosecutors’ comments (1) that set forth in said provision; and (b) that the warrant law. If he has no such evidence, then it is not
the contested search warrants are valid and have shall particularly describe the things to be seized. possible for the Judge to find that there is probable
been issued in accordance with law; (2) that the -Search warrants, issued upon applications stating cause, and, hence, no justification for the issuance of
defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by that the natural and juridical person therein named the warrant. The only possible explanation (not
petitioners' consent; and (3) that, in any event, the had committed offenses as abstract as "violation of justification) for its issuance is the necessity of
effects seized are admissible in evidence against Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal fishing evidence of the commission of a crime. But,
herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code" do not then, this fishing expedition is indicative of the
of the aforementioned searches and seizures. satisfy the constitutional requirements because no absence of evidence to establish a probable cause.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 74 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Foreign references cited to support this contention (b) ownership and/or control or possession – actual or
1. Judge Learned Hand: “Only in case the prosecution CASTRO [concurring and dissenting] constructive -- of premises searched gives
which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that -Reasoning that the petitioners have not in their "standing"; and
it cannot profit by their wrong will that wrong be pleadings satisfactorily demonstrated that they have (c) the "aggrieved person" doctrine where the search
repressed.” legal standing to move for the suppression of the warrant and the sworn application for search warrant
2. Weeks v US (1914): “The efforts of the courts and documents, papers and effects seized in the places are "primarily" directed solely and exclusively
their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, other than the three residences adverted to above, against the "aggrieved person," gives "standing."
praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the the opinion written by the Chief Justice refrains from -An examination of the search warrants in this case
sacrifice of those great principles established by expressly declaring as null and void the such will readily show that, excepting three, all were
years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted warrants served at such other places and as illegal directed against the petitioners personally. In some
in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the the searches and seizures made therein, and leaves of them, the petitioners were named personally,
land.” "the matter open for determination in appropriate followed by the designation, "the President and/or
3. Mapp v Ohio (1961): “all evidence obtained by cases in the future." General Manager" of the particular corporation. The
searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution -It is with this position that Justice Castro is not in three warrants excepted named three corporate
is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a State accord. defendants. But the
court. -He says that All the search warrants, without "office/house/warehouse/premises" mentioned in the
*Without that rule the freedom from state invasions exception, in this case are admittedly general, said three warrants were also the same as those
of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly blanket and roving warrants and are therefore declared to be owned by or under the control of the
severed from its conceptual nexus with the freedom admittedly and indisputably outlawed by the petitioners in all the other search warrants.
from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to Constitution; and the searches and seizures made -Thus, the petitioners have full standing to move for
permit this Court's high regard as a freedom “implicit were therefore unlawful. the quashing of all the warrants regardless whether
in the concept of ordered liberty.” -He argues that assuming that the petitioners have these were directed against residences in the narrow
*The exclusion of the evidence which an accused had no legal standing to ask for the suppression of the sense of the word, as long as the documents were
been forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure papers, things and effects seized from places other personal papers of the petitioners or (to the extent
is the most important constitutional privilege. than their residences, this cannot in any manner that they were corporate papers) were held by them
*The purpose of the exclusionary rule to "is to deter affect, alter or otherwise modify the intrinsic nullity in a personal capacity or under their personal
-- to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in of the search warrants and the intrinsic illegality of control.
the only effectively available way -- by removing the the searches and seizures made thereunder. -SC, at all events, should order the return to the
incentive to disregard it." Whether or not the petitioners possess legal standing petitioners all personal and private papers and
*We can no longer permit that right to remain an the said warrants are void and remain void, and the effects seized, no matter where these were seized,
empty promise, to be revocable at the whim of any searches and seizures were illegal and remain illegal. whether from their residences or corporate offices or
police officer who, in the name of law enforcement -He insists that, upon the pleadings submitted to SC, any other place or places. The uncontradicted sworn
itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment. Our the petitioners have the requisite legal standing to statements of the petitioners in their, various
decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the move for the suppression and return of the pleadings submitted to this Court indisputably show
individual no more than that which the Constitution documents, papers and effects that were seized from that amongst the things seized from the corporate
guarantees him to the police officer no less than that places other than their family residences. offices and other places were personal and private
to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to -Since our constitutional provision on searches and papers and effects belonging to the petitioners.
the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the seizures was derived almost verbatim from the -If there should be any categorization of the
true administration of justice. Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, documents, papers and things which where the
Obiter in the many years of judicial construction and objects of the unlawful searches and seizures, I
-In their MFR, petitioners further alleged possession interpretation of the said constitutional provision, our submit that the grouping should be: (a) personal or
of and control over the records, papers and effects courts have invariably regarded as doctrinal the private papers of the petitioners, and (b) purely
found in the offices of the corporation, and the pronouncement made on the Fourth Amendment by corporate papers belonging to corporations.
alleged "personal" nature thereof. federal courts, especially the Federal Supreme Court
-SC disposed of them by saying that this new theory and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. LUNA v PLAZA
was advanced, not in their petition or amended -The U.S. doctrines and pertinent cases on standing 26 SCRA 310
petition, but in the MR. At any rate, it is best to leave to move for the suppression or return of documents,
the matter open for determination in appropriate ZALDIVAR; November 29, 1968
papers and effects which are the fruits of an unlawful
cases in the future. search and seizure, may be summarized as follows:
Dispositive Writs granted in part and denied in part; FACTS
(a) ownership of documents, papers and effects gives
MR denied. - A criminal action was commenced by T-Sgt.
"standing;"
Candido Patosa, PC investigator against Simon Luna,
by filing with respondent Municipal Judge Lorenzo M.
SEPARATE OPINION
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 75 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Plaza, of the Municipal Court of Tandag, charging the waiver of the right to question the validity of the court, under the rules and precedents, must be
petitioner, with the crime of murder. arrest. deemed final and binding upon this Court.
- Supporting the complaint were sworn statements of - The CFI of Surigao del Sur ruled that respondent 2. YES.
the witnesses for the prosecution, in the form of Municipal Judge had substantially complied with - As provided in Republic Act No. 3828 Before a
questions and answers taken by T-Sgt. Patosa, and Republic Act No. 3828, and consequently denied the municipal judge may issue a warrant of arrest, the
subscribed and sworn to before the respondent Judge at application for the writ of habeas corpus, and following conditions must first be fulfilled: (1) he
the time of the filing of the complaint. dismissed the case. must examine the witnesses personally; (2) the
- The respondent Judge examined the prosecution - Hence the appeal. examination must be under oath; (3) the
witnesses by reading to them "all over again the Petitioner’s Claim Republic Act No. 3828 imposes examination must be reduced to writing in the form
questions and answers" in their statements in on a municipal judge, before he can issue a warrant of searching questions and answers.
writing, and the witnesses-affiants declared before of arrest, two specific duties, to wit: (1) personally - The first condition was fulfilled. The trial court found
said Judge that the questions were propounded by T- examine the complainant and witnesses with as a fact that "the respondent judge personally
Sgt. Candido Patosa, and that the answers were "searching questions and answers," which means examined the witnesses for the prosecution; that
made by them. that the judge must cross-examine them in case their respondent judge adopted as his own personal
- The affiants signed their respective affidavits in the affidavits are presented; and (2) said examination examination the questions asked by T-Sgt. Patosa as
presence of the respondent Judge, who also signed must be reduced to writing and form part of the appearing in the written statements, which he read
after the usual procedure of administering the oath. records of the case. The record of the instant case, over again to the witnesses together with the
- Considering the answers of the affiants to the, does not show that said examination was performed answers given therein, asking the witnesses whether
questions contained in their sworn statements, by respondent Judge notwithstanding his testimony said answers were theirs, and whether the same
together with the postmortem and autopsy report on to the effect that he adopted the questions answers were true, to which the witnesses answered
the dead body of the victim Jaime Diaz Ng, the propounded to each of the prosecution witnesses by in the affirmative. Republic Act No. 3828 does not
certificate of death, the sketch showing the position T-Sgt. Patosa. And assuming that the adoption of the prohibit the municipal Judge from adopting the
of the victim and the accused, the respondent Judge questions made by T-Sgt. Patosa constituted questions asked by a previous investigator.
opine that there was reasonable ground to believe substantial compliance with the requirement that the - The second condition was also fulfilled. The trial
that the crime of murder had been committed and judge should examine the witnesses by asking court found that the complaint was "supported by
the amused was probably guilty thereof. searching questions, still the second requirement, statements of the witnesses under oath." The record
- Respondent Judge issued the order and warrant of that of reducing to writing the said procedure of also shows there were documents to have been
arrest, specifying therein that no bail should be adoption, has not been compiled with; and so, subscribed and sworn to before respondent Judge.
accepted for the provisional release of the accused. Republic Act No. 3828 was still violated, and the - The third condition was likewise fulfilled. The
- Upon motion of petitioner upon the ground that the issuance of the warrant of arrest was in violation of examination of the witnesses was written down, in
evidence of guilt was not strong, respondent Judge said Act and the Constitution and constituted denial the form of searching questions and answers. The
issued an order, granting bail,; which order, however, of due process. term “searching questions and answers" means only,
respondent Judge later revoked, and petitioner was taking into consideration the purpose of the
denied bail. ISSUES preliminary examination which is to determine
- The case was subsequently remanded to the CFI of 1. WON the trial court erred in giving absolute "whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that
Surigao del Sur, after petitioner filed a waiver of his credence to the testimony of respondent Municipal an offense has been committed and the accused is
right to preliminary investigation. Judge. probably guilty thereof so that a warrant of arrest
- Respondent Provincial Fiscal filed an information 2. WON the requirements of Republic Act No. 3828 may be issued and the accused held for trial," such
charging petitioner with the crime of murder. The was satisfied. questions as have tendency to show the commission
petitioner was detained in the provincial jail. 3. WON the issuance of the warrant of arrest was a of a crime and the perpetrator thereof. What would
- Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus violation of the Constitution and of procedural due be searching questions would depend on what is
with the CFI of Surigao del Sur, claiming that he was process. sought to be inquired into, such as: the nature of the
being deprived of liberty without due process of law, 4. WON the trial court erred in denying the writ of offense, the date, time, and place of its commission,
on the ground that the imprisonment and detention habeas corpus. the possible motives for its commission; the subject,
was the result of a warrant of arrest issued by his age, education, status, financial and social
respondent Judge in violation of Republic Act No. HELD circumstances, his attitude toward the investigation,
3828, and praying for the annulment of the order for 1. NO social attitudes, opportunities to commit the offense;
his arrest and his discharge from confinement. - As a general rule, the lower court's findings, as to the victim, his age, status, family responsibilities,
- Respondents filed their answer, alleging that the credibility of witnesses will not be interfered with financial and social circumstances, characteristics,
Republic Act Nor. 3828 had been substantially by appellate courts. Since petitioner appealed etc. The points that are the subject of inquiry may
complied with; that a motion to quash, and not a directly to this Court he must, raise only questions of differ from case to case.
petition for habeas corpus was the proper remedy, law and he has thereby waived the right to raise any - The questions, therefore, must to a great degree
and that petitioner's application for bail constituted a question of fact, and the findings of facts of the trial depend upon the Judge making the investigation. At
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 76 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

any rate, the court a quo found that respondent validity of the warrant of arrest for allegedly having - September 29: While this case was pending, the
Judge was "satisfied that the questions and answers been issued in violation of Republic Act No. 3828 Provincial Fiscal filed an information against Rosario,
contained in the sworn statements taken by T-Sgt. which was found to be untenable. private respondent, for double physical injuries;
Patosa partake of the nature of his searching - The remedy available to the petitioner herein, double less serious physical injuries; and damage to
questions and answers as required by law," so the under the circumstances stated in this opinion, is not property thru reckless imprudence, in CFI Urdaneta.
respondent Judge adopted them. a petition for a writ of habeas corpus but a petition to - Rosario was prosecuted and convicted by the trial
3. NO quash the warrant of arrest or a petition for a court in the criminal case. CA acquitted him from the
- The Constitution, in Section 1 (3), Article III, reinvestigation of the case by the respondent crime charged on the ground that his guilt has not
provides that no warrant shall issue but upon Municipal Judge or by the Provincial Fiscal. been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
probable cause, to be determined by the judge after - The Court stressed that what has been stated in the - April 3, 1972: Respondents filed a "Request for
examination under oath or affirmation of the opinion was not intended to sanction the return to Admission" in the civil case, requesting petitioners to
complainant and the witnesses he may produce. the former practice of municipal judges of simply admit the truthfulness of the facts set forth as well as
- The constitutional requirement of examination of relying upon affidavits or sworn statements that are the correctness and genuineness of the documents
witnesses under oath was, as shown above, fulfilled. made to accompany the complaints that are filed attached.
The existence of probable cause depended to a large before them, in determining whether there is a - May 5,1972: Petitioners filled a "Manifestation",
degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of admitting the allegations in the "Request for
conducting the examination. Respondent Judge found arrest. - Admission" with some qualifications. Later, both
that there was a probable cause, as stated in his - That practice is precisely what is sought to be parties submitted their respective memoranda.
order of arrest. voided by the amendment of Section 87 (c) of - December 28, 1972: On the basis of the testimonies
- Preliminary examination is not an essential part of Republic Act 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948) which and evidence submitted by the petitioners, as well as
due process of law. Preliminary examination may be requires that before a municipal judge issues a the records of the criminal case attached in the
conducted by the municipal judge, prior to the warrant of arrest he should first satisfy himself that "Request for Admission" of the private respondents,
issuance of the warrant of arrest, either in the there is a probable cause by examining the CFI Manila rendered a decision, dismissing the
presence, or in the absence, of the accused. witnesses personally, and that the examination must complaint of the petitioners against private
- The record shows that herein petitioner waived the be under oath and reduced to writing in the form of respondents as well as the counterclaim of private
preliminary investigation before respondent searching questions and answers. respondents against the petitioners.
Municipal Judge, and instead, he riled a petition for - It is obvious that the purpose of this amendment is - February 13, 1978: CA affirmed
bail. This conduct of petitioner indicates that he had to prevent the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Petitioners’ Version Bernabe Castillo was driving
waived his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the a person based simply upon affidavits of witnesses his jeep on the northbound lane of the McArthur
preliminary examination conducted by respondent who made, and swore to, their statements before a Highway with his wife, father, and child at the rate of
Judge prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest. person or persons other than the judge before whom 25 kph. Just past San Nicolas bridge, he noticed, from
4. NO the criminal complaint is filed. a distance of 120 meters more or less, a speeding
- Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides Dispositive The decision of the trial court appealed oncoming car along the same lane he was driving,
in part, as follows: from, was affirmed. Costs against petitioner- overtaking a cargo truck ahead of it.
"Sec. 4 When writ not allowed or discharge appellant. - He switched on his headlights to signal the car to
authorized. If it appears that the person alleged to be return to its own right lane as the way was not clear
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer for it to overtake the truck. The signal was
CASTILLO v CA (ROSARIO)
under process issued by a court or judge ... and that disregarded, as the car proceeded on its direction.
the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the 176 SCRA 591 - To evade the collision, he swerved his jeep to the
process ... or make the order, the writ shall not be FERNAN; August 21, 1989 right towards the shoulder and applied on the
allowed ... " brakes, leaving his feet on it, even, immediately after
- All the conditions, in the afore-quoted Section 4, set NATURE the impact. The car rested on the shoulder of the
forth to deny the writ, are present in the instant Petition for review on certiorari right lane. The jeep's rear left wheel was on the road,
case. leaving short tire marks behind it; while the car left
- Petitioner is detained and is in the custody of the FACTS long tire marks, specially its left rear wheel.
respondent Provincial Warden by virtue of the order - May 2, 1965: Parties figured in a vehicular accident Respodents’ Version Juanito Rosario who was
of arrest and the order of respondent Judge, to which caused injuries to their persons and damage to driving the car, with his wife and daughter, were
confine petitioner in the provincial jail. It is not their respective vehicles. They had conflicting along MacArthur Highway going southwards. They
disputed by petitioner that respondent Judge had versions of the accident. saw ahead of them a big heavily loaded cargo truck.
jurisdiction to issue the warrant of arrest and the - June 30: Petitioners instituted a civil case for the The truck was moving very slowly because of its
order of commitment under the provisions of Section recovery of damages for the injuries sustained and heavy load so that Rosario decided to overtake it.
47, Republic Act No. 409, as amended by Republic for the damage to the vehicle in CFI Manila. But before doing so, he first saw to it that the road
Act No. 1201, although petitioner did question the was clear and as additional precautionary measure,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 77 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

he blew his horn several times at the time he was contractual. The same negligence causing damages counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the
overtaking the truck. may produce civil liability arising from a crime under witnesses.
- As the car was about to overtake the slow moving the Penal Code, or create an action for quasidelictos Dispositive Petition denied
cargo truck, the car's front left tire suddenly burst or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code.
due to pressure causing the car to swerve to the left Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the criminal CALLANTA v VILLANUEVA
and naturally making steering and control difficult. case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case.
77 SCRA 377
- Because of the tendency of the car to veer towards - But this rule is not without exception. Thus, Section
the left due to the blown out tire, the driver steered 2 (c) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides: FERNANDO; June 20, 1977
the car towards the direction where he could find a Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
safe place to park and fix the tire. He finally brought extinction of the civil, unless the extinction NATURE
the car to a halt at the left shoulder of the road. proceeds from a declaration from a final judgment Original petitions in the Supreme Court, certiorari
- Just as he was about to get off to fix the flat tire, the that the fact from which the civil action might arise with preliminary injunction
car was suddenly bumped by the jeep which came did not exist.
from the opposite direction - In a previous case, CA-G.R. No. 07684-CR, People v. FACTS
Rosario, the CA after a painstaking analysis of. (a) - Judge Villanueva of Dagupan refused to grant the
ISSUE the testimonial evidence; (b) the relative positions of motions to quash two complaints for oral defamation
WON petitioners were deprived of due process the two vehicles as depicted in the sketches; (c) the against Callanta.
because their civil action was decided on the basis of distance of each of the two vehicles from the - Callanta’s counsel argued that there was an issue
private respondent Juanita Rosario's acquittal in the cemented edge of the road; (d) the point of impact; with regard to the validity of Villanueva’s issuance of
criminal case for reckless imprudence (e) the visible tire marks, and (f) the extent of the the warrants of arrest on the ground that it should
damage caused upon each of the two vehicles, ruled have been the City Fiscal who conducted the
HELD that it was the driver of the jeep and not the accused preliminary investigation.
NO driver of the car who was negligent and accordingly - After the warrants were issued (with bail pegged at
Ratio Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are acquitted the latter. P600), Callanta posted the required bail bonds and
conclusive on the parties and on the Supreme Court, - Negligence, being the source and foundation of was granted her provisional liberty.
unless (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded actions of quasi-delict, is the basis for the recovery of - The City Fiscal had manifested his intent to
entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; damages. In the case at bar, the CA found that prosecute the case.
(2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) collision was not due to the negligence of Rosario but - February 25, 1965 – After the Court had conducted
there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment rather it was Castillo's own act of driving the jeep to preliminary investigation and had acquired
is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the Court the shoulder of the road where the car was, which jurisdiction over the case, the Court referred the case
of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and was actually the proximate cause of the collision. to the Fiscal.
its findings are contrary to the admission of both With this finding, the CA exonerated Rosario from - March 4, 1965 – The arraignment was postponed
appellant and appellee; (6) the findings of facts of civil liability on the ground that the alleged because the Fiscal was still doing his investigation.
the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial negligence did not exist. - In the proceedings of April 20, 1965, the Fiscal
court; (7) said findings of facts are conclusions - During the trial of the case before the CFI, entered his appearance for the government and
without citation of specific evidence on which they respondents were not present because they were manifested that he was ready for trial.
are based; (8) the facts set forth in the petition as abroad. Their counsel introduced as part of their
well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are evidence, the records in the criminal case, in ISSUE
not disputed by the respondent; and (9) when the accordance with Section 41, Rule 130 of the Rules of WON Callanta can contest the validity of his arrest
finding of facts of the Court of Appeals is premised Court. These records, mostly composed of transcripts
on the absence of evidence and is contradicted by of the hearing in the criminal case, were attached to HELD
evidence on record. their "Request for Admission" and were substantially NO
Reasoning admitted by petitioners. Petitioners raised, as one of Ratio Posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of
- The subject action for damages, being civil in their objections, the propriety and correctness of any irregularity attending the arrest of a person and
nature, is separate and distinct from the criminal admitting and adopting these transcripts as part of estops him from discussing the validity of his arrest.
aspect, necessitating only a preponderance of the record in the civil case. According to them, this is Reasoning
evidence. a violation of Section 41, Rule 130, on the ground - In the case of Luna vs. Plaza, the Court held that
- A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal that petitioners were not given the opportunity to where petitioner has filed an application for bail and
institution under the Civil Code, with a substantively cross-examine. We disagree. A careful reading of the waived the preliminary investigation proper, he
all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and transcripts would reveal that counsel for petitioners waived his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the
independent from a delict or crime. A distinction actively participated during the proceedings of the preliminary examination conducted, prior to the
exists between the civil liability arising from a crime criminal case. He raised various objections, in the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra- course of the trial. Petitioners, therefore, thru
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 78 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- This doctrine has been upheld in a number of cases Evangelista. The text of both affidavits reads as that the books (etc) relating to the activities of . . . as
including People vs. Olandar, Zacarias vs. Cruz, follows: "Victor D. Villamiel… having taken the oath usurer, are being kept and concealed in the house. . .
Bermejo vs. Barrios, People vs. La Caste, Manzano vs prescribed by law, appears and states: that he has all of which is contrary to the statute of law."
Villa and People vs. Obngayan which stated that and there is just and probable cause to believe and
where the accused has filed bail and waived the he does believe that the books, lists, chits, receipts, ISSUE
preliminary investigation proper, he has waived documents, and other papers relating to the WON the search warrant and the seizure were illegal
whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary activities of Juan Evangelista, as usurer, are being
examination conducted prior to the issuance of the kept and concealed in the house of said Juan HELD
warrant of arrest. Evangelista situated at Lucena, Tayabas, all of which YES
- The city fiscal had been quite active in the is contrary to the statute of law." -Reason 1: it appears that the affidavits, which
investigation and in the prosecution of the accused. -The justice of the peace of the provincial capital served as the exclusive basis of the search warrants,
It was he who manifested his readiness to appear in issued the two search warrants against the are insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the
the trial. petitioners (see original for the wording of the manner in which the oaths were made and,
Obiter warrant) therefore, it is hereby held that the search warrants
- With regard to the issue of whether or not the only -Villamiel, with other agents and a constabulary in question and the subsequent seizure of the
person vested with authority to conduct a soldier, executed the warrants, went to the documents and papers are illegal and do not in any
preliminary investigation is the city fiscal, the Charter residences of the petitioners, searched them and way warrant the deprivation to which the petitioners
of the City of Dagupan provides that “the City Court seized documents and papers belonging to were subjected.
of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary petitioners. Villamiel issued a receipt to each of the -The oath required must refer to the truth of
investigation for for any offense, without regard to petitioners, without specifying the documents and the facts within the personal knowledge of the
the limits of punishment and may release or commit papers seized by him, which were taken to his office petitioner or his witnesses, because the
any person charged with such offense to secure his in Manila, keeping them there until he was ordered purpose thereof is to convince the committing
appearance before the proper court. by the CFI to deposit them in the office of the clerk of magistrate, not the individual making the
Dispositive WHEREFORE, these petitions for court. affidavit and seeking the issuance of the
certiorari are dismissed. The restraining order issued -Petitioners filed a petition praying that the search warrant, of the existence of probable cause.
by this Court is lifted and set aside. Costs against warrants be declared null and void and illegal; that The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to
petitioner. Villamiel be punished for contempt of court for warrant issuance of a search warrant is
having conducted the searches and for having seized whether it has been drawn in such a manner
SEPARATE OPINION the documents and papers without issuing detailed that perjury could be charged thereon and
receipts and for not having turned them over to the affiant be held liable for damages caused.
court, and that said documents and papers be -Sec 1, par 3, of Art III, Constitution: "The right of the
AQUINO [concurring]
ordered returned to the petitioners. people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
- Sec. 77 of the Dagupan City charter expressly
-the CFI found Villamiel guilty of contempt of court and effects against unreasonable searches and
empowers its city court (formerly municipal court) to
and fined him P10. The court declared the search seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
conduct preliminary investigation for any offense,
warrants and the seizure of the documents and issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by
without regard to the limits of punishment.
papers VALID, authorizing the agents of the Anti- the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
- Every justice of the peace, municipal judge
Usury Board to examine them and retain those that of the complainant and the witnesses he may
(meaning city judge), city or provincial fiscal, shall
are necessary and material to whatever criminal produce, and particularly describing the place to be
have authority to conduct preliminary examination or
action they may wish to bring against the petitioners. searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
investigation in accordance with these rules of all
-Petitioners appealed. They contend that the search Sec 97 of General Orders No. 58: "A search warrant
offenses alleged to have been committed within his
warrants issued by the court are illegal because they shall not issue except for probable cause and upon
municipality, city or province, cognizable by the
have been based on the affidavits of special agent application supported by oath particularly describing
Court of First Instance (Sec. 87 of the Judiciary Law
Villamiel wherein he affirmed and stated that he the place to be searched and the person or thing to
and Sec. 2, Rule 112).
had no personal knowledge of the facts that be seized."
were to serve as basis for the issuance of the - Both provisions require that there be not only
RODRIGUEZ v VILLAMIEL search warrants, but merely confined himself probable cause before the issuance of a search
65 Phil 230 to asserting that he believed and there was warrant but that the search warrant must be based
IMPERIAL; DEC 23, 1937 probable cause to believe that the documents upon an application supported by oath of the
and papers were related to the activities of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. In its
FACTS petitioners as usurers. As has been seen, the broadest sense, an oath includes any form of
-Victor Villamiel, special agent for the Anti-Usury special agent's affirmation in this respect consisted attestation by which a party signifies that he is
Board, made two affidavits for the purpose of merely in the following: "that he has and there is just bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and
obtaining search warrants against Rodriguez and and probable cause to believe and he does believe truthfully.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 79 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

-Reason 2: At the hearing of the case, it was shown which the premises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project 3, Project 6, Quezon City and 784 Units C & D, RMS
that the documents and papers had really been 6, Quezon City, business address of Metropolitan Mail Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. Objection is
seized to enable the Anti-Usury Board to conduct an newspaper, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, interposed to the execution of Search Warrant No.
investigation and later use all or some of them as Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business address of 20-82[b] at the latter address on the ground that the
evidence against the petitioners in the criminal cases the "We Forum" newspaper were searched. two search warrants pinpointed only one place where
that may be brought against them. The seizure of - office and printing machines, equipment, petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was allegedly keeping and
books and documents by means of a search paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used concealing the articles listed therein, i.e., No. 19,
warrant, for the purpose of using them as in the printing, publication and distribution of the Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City.
evidence in a criminal case against the person said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, > although the warrants were directed against Jose
in whose possession they were found, is documents, books and other written literature Burgos, Jr. alone, articles belonging to his co-
unconstitutional because it makes the warrant alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioners Jose Burgos, Sr., Bayani Soriano and the J.
unreasonable, and it is equivalent to a petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Burgos Media Services, Inc. were seized.
violation of the constitutional provision Forum" newspaper, were seized. > real properties were seized under the disputed
prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to - The questioned search warrants were issued by warrants.
testify against himself Therefore, it appearing respondent judge upon application of Col. Rolando N. > that documents relied on by respondents could not
that the documents and papers were seized for the Abadilla, Intelligence Officer of the P.C. Metrocom. have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a
purpose of fishing for evidence to be used against The application was accompanied by the Joint probable cause upon which a warrant may validly
the petitioners in the criminal proceedings for Affidavit of Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U. issue in accordance with Section 3, Article IV of the
violation of the Anti-Usury Law which might be Tango, members of the Metrocom Intelligence and 1973 Constitution
instituted against them, this court holds that the Security Group under Col. Abadilla which conducted
search warrants issued are illegal and that the a surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of ISSUES
documents and papers should be returned to them. the application for the search warrants on December WON the two search warrants are:
- Definition and rationale of search warrant: 7, 1982. 1. defective for stating only one and the same place
A search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the - Respondents aver that the case should be to be searched
name of the People of the Philippine Islands, signed dismissed on the ground that petitioners had come 2. null and void for including properties not owned by
by a judge or a justice of the peace, and directed to a to SC without having previously sought the quashal the person named in the warrants
peace officer, commanding him to search for of the search warrants before the issuing judge. But 3. null and void for including real properties
personal property and bring it before the court. this procedural flaw notwithstanding, SC took 4. null and void for being violative of the constitution,
Of all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness thus encroaching on petitioners' fundamental rights
importance or more essential to his peace and and urgency of the constitutional issues raised, not
happiness than the right of personal security, and to mention the public interest generated by the
that involves the exemption of his private affairs, search. HELD
books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny - Respondents likewise urge dismissal of the petition 1. NO
of others. While the power to search and seize is on ground of laches, since said search warrants were - The defect pointed out is a typographical error. Two
necessary to the public welfare, still it must be issued on December 7, 1982, but the instant petition search warrants were applied for and issued because
exercised and the law enforced without transgressing impugning the same was filed only on June 16, 1983. the purpose and intent were to search two distinct
the constitutional rights of citizens, for the However, SC found that the extrajudicial efforts premises. The addresses of the places sought to be
enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance exerted by petitioners quite evidently negate the searched were specifically set forth in the
to justify indifference to the basic principles of presumption that they had abandoned their right to application, and since it was Col. Abadilla himself
government. the possession of the seized property, thereby who headed the team which executed the search
refuting the charge of laches against them. warrants, the ambiguity that might have arisen by
BURGOS SR v CHIEF OF STAFF Petitioners' Claims reason of the typographical error is more apparent
> Petitioners fault respondent judge for his alleged than real.
133 SCRA 800
failure to conduct an examination under oath or - In the determination of whether a search warrant
ESCOLIN; December 26, 1984 affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses, as describes the premises to be searched with sufficient
mandated by the constitution as well as Sec. 4, Rule particularity, it has been held "that the executing
NATURE 126 of the Rules of Court. However, SC found that as officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in
Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with petitioners themselves conceded during the hearing the warrant is relevant. This would seem to be
preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction on August 9, 1983, that an examination had indeed especially true where the executing officer is the
been conducted by respondent judge of Col. Abadilla affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued,
FACTS and his witnesses, this issue is moot and academic. and when he knows that the judge who issued the
- December 7, 1982 Judge Ernani Cruz-Paño CFI Rizal > Search Warrants No. 20-82[a] and No. 20-82[b] warrant intended the building described in the
[Quezon City], issued two search warrants under were used to search two distinct places: No. 19, Road affidavit. And it has also been said that the executing
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 80 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

officer may look to the affidavit in the official court thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not Masamlok to join the NPA. He later attended an NPA
file to resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to the the individual making the affidavit and seeking the seminar where Burgos, the first speaker, said very
place to be searched." issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable distinctly that he is an NPA together with his
2. NO cause." companions, to assure the unity of the civilian. That
- Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, - the search warrants are in the nature of general he encouraged the group to overthrow the
enumerates the personal properties that may be warrants. government. To prove illegal possession, a person in
seized under a search warrant. The rule does not - As a consequence of the search and seizure, the charge of firearms and explosives of the PC HQ in
require that the property to be seized should be premises were padlocked and sealed, with the Davao testified that accused was not among the list
owned by the person against whom the search further result that the printing and publication of said of firearm holders
warrant is directed. It may or may not be owned by newspapers were discontinued. Such closure is in the - On the other hand, accused-appellants claims that
him. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent he was taken to the PC barracks and when he denied
it is sufficient that the person against whom the to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the ownership of the gun, he was beaten, tortured,
warrant is directed has control or possession of the fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of mauled and subjected to physical agony. He was
property sought to be seized. petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print. forced to admit possession or ownership of the gun.
3. NO Dispositive Search Warrants Nos. 20-82[a] and 20- 2 witnesses as well as Ruben’s wife Urbana, were
- Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code , "machinery, 82[b] issued by respondent judge on December 7, presented by the defense in support of the accused’s
receptables, instruments or implements intended by 1982 are null and void. All articles seized denial of the charge against him. Urbana claimed
the owner of the tenement for an industry or works thereunder are ordered released to petitioners. that it was Masamlok who left the firearm there.
which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of - The RTC after considering the evidences presented
land and which tend directly to meet the needs of PEOPLE v BURGOS by both prosecution and defense convicted accused
the said industry or works" are considered Ruben Burgos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
144 SCRA 1
immovable property. Petitioners do not claim to be crime of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance
the owners of the land and/or building on which the GUTIERREZ; Sept.4, 1986 of subversion. The RTC justified the warrantless
machineries were placed. This being the case, the arrest as falling under one of the circumstances
machineries in question, while in fact bolted to the NATURE when arrests may be validly made without a warrant,
ground remain movable property susceptible to Appeal from RTC decision convicting Ruben Burgos of under Rule 113 Sec.6 of the Rules of Court. It stated
seizure under a search warrant. the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms in that even if there was no warrant for the arrest of
4. YES Furtherance of Subversion Burgos, the fact that “the authorities received an
- Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts urgent report of accused's involvement in subversive
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably FACTS activities from a reliable source (report of Cesar
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense - Prosecution version: Upon obtaining information Masamlok) the circumstances of his arrest, even
has been committed and that the objects sought in from one Cesar Masamlok, who personally and without judicial warrant, is lawfully within the ambit
connection with the offense are in the place sought voluntarily surrendered to the Davao del Sur police of Sec. 6(a) of Rule 113 and applicable jurisprudence
to be searched. And when the search warrant applied HQ stating that accused Ruben Burgos forcibly on the matter.” If the arrest is valid, the consequent
for is directed against a newspaper publisher or recruited him to join the NPA with the use of a search and seizure of the firearm and the alleged
editor in connection with the publication of firearm against his life, a team was dispatched the subversive documents would become an incident to
subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the following day to arrest Burgos. Through the help of a lawful arrest as provided by Rule 126, Sec. 12. “A
application and/or its supporting affidavits must Pedro Burgos, the brother of accused, the team was person charged with an offense may be searched for
contain a specification, stating with particularity the able to locate Ruben Burgos, who was plowing his dangerous weapons or anything which may be used
alleged subversive material he has published or is field at the time. as proof of the commission of the offense.”
intending to publish. Mere generalization will not - When asked about the firearm, the accused denied
suffice. possession of it, but after questioning the accused’s ISSUES
- In mandating that "no warrant shall issue except wife, the police were able to locate and retrieve the 1. WON the arrest was lawful and WON the search of
upon probable cause to be determined by the said firearm, a .38 caliber S & W, buried in the his house and the subsequent confiscation of a
judge, . . . after examination under oath or ground below their house. The police, after accused firearm and documents conducted in a lawful
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he pointed them to the location, were also able to manner.
may produce” the Constitution requires no less than retrieve alleged subversive documents (a notebook 2. WON there is enough evidence to prove his guilt
personal knowledge by the complainant or his and a pamphlet) hidden underground a few meters beyond reasonable doubt.
witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a away from the house.
search warrant may be justified. In Alvarez v. CFI, SC - To prove accused’s subversive activities, Masamlok HELD
ruled that "the oath required must refer to the truth testified that accused came to his house and told him 1. NO
of the facts within the personal knowledge of the to join the NPA or his family will be killed along with Art.III Sec.2 of the Constitution safeguards against
petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose him. The threat to his life and family forced wanton and unreasonable invasion of the privacy
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 81 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

and liberty of a citizen as to his person, papers and they had reasonable ground to believe that the surrendered to the military, certainly his fate
effects. In this case, the arrest was made without accused had truly committed a crime. There is no depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the
warrant and since it does not fall within the showing that there was a real apprehension that the authorities. Otherwise, he would also be charged
exceptions of arrests that can be made without a accused was on the verge of flight or escape. with subversion. Masamlok may be considered as an
warrant, it is unlawful and therefore, the fruit of the Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts interested witness. His testimony cannot be said to
poisonous tree doctrine applies. of the accused were unknown. be free from the opportunity and temptation to be
Reasoning Under Sec.6 (a) of Rule 113, the officer - The basis for the action taken by the arresting exaggerated and even fabricated for it was intended
arresting a person who has just committed, is officer was the verbal report made by Masamlok who to secure his freedom. Moreover, despite the fact
committing, or is about to commit an offense must was not required to subscribe his allegations under that there were other persons present during the
have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense oath. There was no compulsion for him to state alleged NPA seminar who could have corroborated
must also be committed in his presence or within his truthfully his charges under pain of criminal Masamlok's testimony that the accused used the gun
view. There is no such personal knowledge in this prosecution. Consequently, the need to go through in furtherance of subversive activities or actually
case. Whatever knowledge was possessed by the the process of securing a search warrant and a engaged in subversive acts, the prosecution never
arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the warrant of arrest becomes even more clear. The presented any other witness.
information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The arrest of the accused while he was plowing his field is Dispositive Judgment of conviction is REVERSED
location of the firearm was given by Burgos’ wife. At illegal. The arrest being unlawful, the search and and SET ASIDE. Accused Burgos is ACQUITTED on
the time of arrest, Burgos was not in actual seizure which transpired afterwards could not grounds of reasonable doubt.
possession of any firearm or subversive document. likewise be deemed legal as being mere incidents to
Neither was he committing any act which could be a valid arrest. Neither can it be presumed that there ALIH v CASTRO
described as subversive. He was, in fact, plowing his was a waiver, or that consent was given by the
151 SCRA 279
field at the time. accused to be searched simply because he failed to
- The SolGen believes that the arrest may still be object. To constitute a waiver, it must appear first CRUZ; June 23, 1987
considered lawful under Sec.6(b) using the test of that the right exists; secondly, that the person
reasonableness. The SolGen submits that the info involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of NATURE
given by Masamlok was sufficient to induce a the existence of such a right; and lastly, that said Petition for prohibition and mandamus with
reasonable ground that a crime has been committed person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. preliminary injunction and restraining order
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. In The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry
arrests without a warrant under Sec.6(b), however, it into his house does not amount to a permission to FACTS
is not enough that there is reasonable ground to make a search therein. - On November 25, 1984, a contingent of more than
believe that the person to be arrested has committed 2. NO. two hundred Philippine marines and elements of the
a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been Since the extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and home defense forces raided the compound occupied
committed first. That a crime has actually been the alleged subversive documents are inadmissible by the petitioners at Gov. Alvarez street, Zamboanga
committed is an essential precondition. It is not in evidence, the only remaining proof to sustain the City, in search of loose firearms, ammunition and
enough to suspect that a crime may have been charge is the testimony of Masamlok, which is other explosives.
committed. The fact of the commission of the offense inadequate to convict Burgos beyond reasonable - The military operation was commonly known and
must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground doubt. dreaded as a "zona," which was like the feared
applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. In this Reasoning Although it is true that the trial court practice of the kempeitai during the Japanese
case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of found Masamlok’s testimony credible and convincing, Occupation of rounding up the people in a locality,
Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the the SC is not necessarily bound by the credibility arresting the persons fingered by a hooded informer,
authorities to suspect that the accused had which the trial court attaches to a particular witness. and executing them outright (although the last part
committed a crime. They were still fishing for As stated in People v Cabrera (100 SCRA 424): When is not included in the modern refinement).
evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The it comes to question of credibility the findings of the - The initial reaction of the people inside the
subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the trial court are entitled to great respect upon appeal compound was to resist the invasion with a burst of
basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife for the obvious reason that it was able to observe gunfire. The soldiers returned fire and a bloody
cannot make the arrest lawful. If an arrest without the demeanor, actuations and deportment of the shoot-out ensued, resulting in a number of
warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, witnesses during the trial. But We have also said that casualties.
generally nothing that happened or is discovered this rule is not absolute for otherwise there would be - 16 male occupants were arrested, later to be finger-
afterwards can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned no reversals of convictions upon appeal. We must printed, paraffin-tested and photographed over their
tree is necessarily also tainted. More important, We reject the findings of the trial court where the record objection. The military also inventoried and
find no compelling reason for the haste with which discloses circumstances of weight and substance confiscated nine M16 rifles, one M14 rifle, nine rifle
the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. which were not properly appreciated by the trial grenades, and several rounds of ammunition found in
We fail to see why they failed to first go through the court. In the instant case, Masamlok’s testimony was the premises.
process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed totally uncorroborated. Considering that Masamlok
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 82 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- On December 21, 1984, the petitioners came to this searches and seizures. There was no state of hereby declared ILLEGAL and all the articles seized
Court. Their purpose was to recover the articles hostilities in the area to justify, assuming it could, the as a result thereof are inadmissible in evidence
seized from them, to prevent these from being used repressions committed therein against the against the petitioners in any proceedings. However,
as evidence against them, and to challenge their petitioners. the said articles shall remain in custodia legis
finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing as - The record does not disclose that the petitioners pending the outcome of the criminal cases that have
violative of their right against self-incrimination. were wanted criminals or fugitives from justice. At been or may later be filed against the petitioners.
- The petitioners demand the return of the arms and the time of the "zona," they were merely suspected
ammunition on the ground that they were taken of the mayor's slaying and had not in fact even been POSADAS v CA (PEOPLE)
without a search warrant as required by the Bill of investigated for it. As mere suspects, they were
188 SCRA 288
Rights. This is confirmed by the said report and in presumed innocent and not guilty as summarily
fact admitted by the respondents, "but with pronounced by the military. GANCAYCO; August 2, 1990
avoidance. - lacking the shield of innocence, the guilty need the
armor of the Constitution, to protect them, not from NATURE
ISSUE a deserved sentence, but from arbitrary punishment. Petition for review
WON the search of petitioners’ premises was illegal. Every person is entitled to due process. It is no
exaggeration that the basest criminal, ranged FACTS
HELD against the rest of the people who would condemn - Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar, both
YES. him outright, is still, under the Bill of Rights, a members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of
Ratio Even if were assumed for the sake of majority of one. the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the
argument that they were guilty, they would not have - The respondents cannot even plead the urgency of Intelligence Task Force, were conducting a
been any less entitled to the protection of the the raid because it was in fact not urgent. They knew surveillance along Magallanes Street, Davao City on
Constitution, which covers both the innocent and the where the petitioners were. They had every October 16, 1986 at about 10:00 o'clock in the
guilty. opportunity to get a search warrant before making morning. They spotted petitioner carrying a "buri"
Reasoning the raid. If they were worried that the weapons inside bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously
Article IV, Section 3, of the 1973 Constitution: The the compound would be spirited away, they could while they were within the premises of the Rizal
right of the people to be secure in their persons, have surrounded the premises in the meantime, as a Memorial Colleges
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable preventive measure. They approached the petitioner and identified
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for - Conceding that the search was truly themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner
any purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrantless, might not the search and seizure attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon be nonetheless considered valid because it was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance.
probable cause to be determined by the judge, or incidental to a legal arrest? Surely not. If all the They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner
such other responsible officer as may be authorized law enforcement authorities have to do is force their where they found one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson
by law, after examination under oath or affirmation way into any house and then pick up anything they revolver with Serial No. 770196 two (2) rounds of
of the complainant and the witnesses he may see there on the ground that the occupants are live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun a smoke (tear
produce, and particularly describing the place to be resisting arrest, then we might as well delete the Bill gas) grenade, and two (2) live ammunitions for a .22
searched, and the persons or things to be seized. of Rights as a fussy redundancy. caliber gun. They brought the petitioner to the police
Article IV, Section 4(2): Any evidence obtained in - If the arrest was made under Rule 113, station for further investigation. In the course of the
violation of this or the preceding section shall be Section 5, of the Rules of Court in connection same, the petitioner was asked to show the
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. with a crime about to be committed, being necessary license or authority to possess firearms
-The respondents, while admitting the absence of the committed, or just committed, what was that and ammunitions found in his possession but he
required such warrant, sought to justify their act on crime? There is no allegation in the record of such a failed to do so.
the ground that they were acting under superior justification. Parenthetically, it may be observed that - He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office
orders. There was also the suggestion that the under the Revised Rule 113, Section 5(b), the officer and the prohibited articles recovered from him were
measure was necessary because of the aggravation making the arrest must have personal knowledge of indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy the officer then on duty. He
of the peace and order problem generated by the the ground therefor. was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and
assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco. - It follows that as the search of the petitioners' ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao
- Superior orders" cannot, of course, countermand premises was violative of the Constitution, all the City wherein after a plea of not guilty and trial on the
the Constitution. The fact that the petitioners were firearms and ammunition taken from the raided merits a decision was rendered on October 8, 1987
suspected of the Climaco killing did not excuse the compound are inadmissible in evidence in any of the finding petitioner guilty of the offense. (It appearing
constitutional short-cuts the respondents took. proceedings against the petitioners. These articles that the accused was below eighteen (18) years old
- Zamboanga City at the time in question certainly are "fruits of the poisonous tree. at the time of the commission of the offense (Art. 68,
did not excuse the non-observance of the Dispositive WHEREFORE, the search of the par. 2), he was sentenced to an indeterminate
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable petitioners' premises on November 25, 1984, is penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1)
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 83 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

DAY of prision mayor to TWELVE (12) Years, FIVE (5) for example, the officer merely draws aside the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the
months and Eleven (11) days of Reclusion Temporal, curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the search or seizure, the presence or absence of
and to pay the costs. The firearm, ammunitions and public fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle or probable cause, the manner in which the search and
smoke grenade are forfeited in favor of the flashes a light therein, these do not constitute seizure was made, the place or thing searched and
government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby unreasonable search. True, the manning of the character of the articles procured. Clearly, the
directed to turn over said items to the Chief, Davao checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by search in the case at bar can be sustained under the
Metrodiscom, Davao City.) the men in uniform in the same manner that all exceptions heretofore discussed, and hence, the
- The petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
Appeals wherein in due course a decision was the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and searches and seizures has not been violated.
rendered on February 23, 1989 affirming the even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during Dispositive The petition is denied
appealed decision with costs against the petitioner. these abnormal times, when conducted within
Hence, this petition for review, the main thrust of reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an ALLADO v DIOKNO
which is that there being no lawful arrest or search orderly society and a peaceful community.
[supra, page 48]
and seizure, the items which were confiscated from Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to
the possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in thwart plots to destabilize the government in the
evidence against him. interest of public security. In this connection, the MALALOAN v CA (FINEZA)
Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban 232 SCRA 249
ISSUE centers and their suburbs of the insurgency REGALADO; May 6, 1994
WON the warrantless search imposed on the movement, so clearly reflected in the increased
petitioner is valid killings in cities of police and military men by NPA NATURE
"sparrow units," not to mention the abundance of Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA.
HELD unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in
NO lawlessness and violence in such urban centers, not FACTS
Ratio all of which are reported in media, most likely - 1st Lt. Absalon V. Salboro of the CAPCOM Northern
- The argument of the Solicitor General that when the brought about by deteriorating economic Sector (now Central Sector) filed with the Regional
two policemen approached the petitioner, he was conditions ? which all sum up to what one can rightly Trial Court of Kalookan City an application for search
actually committing or had just committed the consider, at the very least, as abnormal times.) warrant. The search warrant was sought for in
offense of illegal possession of firearms and - In this case, the warrantless search and seizure is connection with an alleged violation of P.D. 1866
ammunitions in the presence of the police officers more reasonable considering that unlike in the (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions)
and consequently the search and seizure of the former, it was effected on the basis of a probable perpetrated at No. 25 Newport St., corner Marlboro
contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in cause. The probable cause is that when the St., Fairview, QUEZON CITY. On March 23, 1990,
accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the 1985 petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee respondent RTC Judge of KALOOKAN CITY
Rules on Criminal Procedure is untenable. At the time with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he issued Search Warrant No. 95-90.
the peace officers in this case identified themselves was concealing something illegal in the bag and it - On the same day, at around 2:30 p.m., members of
and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to was the right and duty of the police officers to the CAPCOM, armed with subject search warrant,
flee they did not know that he had committed, or was inspect the same. It is too much indeed to require proceeded to the situs of the offense alluded to,
actually committing the offense of illegal possession the police officers to search the bag in the where a labor seminar of the Ecumenical Institute for
of firearms and ammunitions. They just suspected possession of the petitioner only after they shall have Labor Education and Research (EILER) was then
that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They obtained a search warrant for the purpose. Such an taking place. According to CAPCOM's 'Inventory of
did now know what its contents were. The said exercise may prove to be useless, futile and much Property Seized,' firearms, explosive materials and
circumstances did not justify an arrest without a too late. subversive documents, among others, were seized
warrant. - In People vs. CFI of Rizal, the Court held as follows: and taken during the search. And all the sixty-one
However, there are many instances where a warrant . . . In the ordinary cases where warrant is (61) persons found within the premises searched
and seizure can be effected without necessarily indispensably necessary, the mechanics prescribed were brought to Camp Karingal, Quezon City but
being preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the by the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of most of them were later released, with the exception
"stop and search" without a search warrant at Court must be followed and satisfied. But We need of the herein petitioners, EILER Instructors, who were
military or police checkpoints, the constitutionality or not argue that there are exceptions. Thus in the indicted for violation of P.D. 1866 in Criminal Case
validity of which has been upheld by this Court in extraordinary events where warrant is not necessary No. Q-90-11757 before Branch 88 of the Regional
Valmonte vs. de Villa (to quote: Not all searches and to effect a valid search or seizure, or when the latter Trial Court of Quezon City, presided over by
seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable cannot be performed except without warrant, what respondent Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco.
are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or - On July 10, 1990, petitioners presented a 'Motion for
determined by any fixed formula but is to be seizure becomes purely a judicial question, Consolidation, Quashal of Search Warrant and For
resolved according to the facts of each case. Where, determinable from the uniqueness of the the Suppression of All Illegally Acquired Evidence'
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 84 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

before the Quezon City court; and a 'Supplemental Transitional Rules and Guidelines, certain specified witnesses to and their examination in said places,
Motion to the Motion for Consolidation, Quashal of writs issued by a regional trial court are now with the attendant risk, danger and expense. Also, a
Search Warrant and Exclusion of evidence Illegally enforceable only within its judicial region. further well-founded precaution, obviously born of
Obtained'. - PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS The Court cannot experience and verifiable data, is articulated by the
- On September 21, 1990, the respondent Quezon be blind to the fact that it is extremely difficult, as it court a quo, as quoted by respondent court:
City Judge issued the challenged order, consolidating undeniably is, to detect or elicit information "This court is of the further belief that the possible
subject cases but denying the prayer for the quashal regarding the existence and location of illegally leakage of information which is of utmost
of the search warrant under attack, the validity of possessed or prohibited articles. The Court is importance in the issuance of a search warrant is
which warrant was upheld; opining that the same accordingly convinced that it should not make the secured (against) where the issuing magistrate
falls under the category of Writs and Processes, requisites for the apprehension of the culprits and within the region does not hold court sessions in
within the contemplation of paragraphs 3(b) of the the confiscation of such illicit items, once detected, the city or municipality, within the region, where
Interim Rules and Guidelines, and can be serve not more onerous if not impossible by imposing further the place to be searched is located."
only within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing niceties of procedure or substantive rules of - The foregoing situations may also have obtained
court but anywhere in the judicial region of the jurisdiction through decisional dicta. For that matter, and were taken into account in the foreign judicial
issuing court (National Capital Judicial Region). we are unaware of any instance wherein a search pronouncement that, in the absence of statutory
- Respondent Court of Appeals rendered judgment, warrant was struck down on objections based on restrictions, a justice of the peace in one district of
in effect affirming that of the trial court, by denying territorial jurisdiction. the county may issue a search warrant to be served
due course to the petition for certiorari and lifting the - We do not believe that the enforcement of a search in another district of the county and made returnable
temporary restraining order it had issued on warrant issued by a court outside the territorial before the justice of still another district or another
November 29, 1990 in connection therewith. This jurisdiction wherein the place to be searched is court having jurisdiction to deal with the matters
judgment of respondent court is now impugned in located would create a constitutional question. Nor involved. In the present state of our law on the
and sought to be reversed through the present are we swayed by the professed apprehension that matter, we find no such statutory restrictions both
recourse before us. the law enforcement authorities may resort to what with respect to the court which can issue the search
could be a permutation of forum shopping, by filing warrant and the enforcement thereof anywhere in
ISSUE an application for the warrant with a "friendly" court. the Philippines.
WON a court may take cognizance of an application It need merely be recalled that a search warrant is - NONETHELESS, TO PUT DOUBTS TO REST, THE
for a search warrant in connection with an offense only a process, not an action. Furthermore, the SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING
committed outside its territorial jurisdiction and to constitutional mandate is translated into specifically POLICY GUIDELINES;
issue a warrant to conduct a search on a place enumerated safeguards in Rule 126 of the 1985 1. The Court wherein the criminal case is pending
likewise outside its territorial jurisdiction. Rules on Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a shall have primary jurisdiction to issue search
search warrant, and all these have to be observed warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said
HELD regardless of whatever court in whichever region is case. An application for a search warrant may be
YES importuned for or actually issues a search warrant. filed with another court only under extreme and
- No law or rule imposes such a limitation on search Said requirements, together with the ten-day lifetime compelling circumstances that the applicant must
warrants, in the same manner that no such of the warrant would discourage resort to a court in prove to the satisfaction of the latter court which
restriction is provided for warrants of arrest. The another judicial region, not only because of the may or may not give due course to the application
arguments of petitioners are not inferable by distance but also the contingencies of travel and the depending on the validity of the justification offered
necessary implication from the statutory provisions danger involved, unless there are really compelling for not filing the same in the court with primary
which are presumed to be complete and expressive reasons for the authorities to do so. Besides, it does jurisdiction thereover.
of the intendment of the framers. A contrary seem odd that such constitutional protests have not 2. When the latter court issues the search warrant, a
interpretation on whatever pretext should not be been made against warrants of arrest which are motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall
countenanced. enforceable indefinitely and anywhere although they be resolved by said court, without prejudice to any
- A bit of legal history on his contestation will be involve, not only property and privacy, but persons proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by
helpful. The jurisdictional rule heretofore was that and liberty. the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing
writs and process of the so-called inferior courts - On the other hand, it is a matter of judicial court. All grounds and objections then available,
could be enforced outside the province only with the knowledge that the authorities have to contend now existent or known shall be raised in the original or
approval of the former court of first instance. Under and then with local and national criminal syndicates subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the
the Judiciary Reorganization Act, the enforcement of of considerable power and influence, political or warrant, otherwise they shall be deemed waived.
such writs and processes no longer needs the financial in nature, and so pervasive as to render 3. Where no motion to quash the search warrant
approval of the regional trial court. On the other foolhardy any attempt to obtain a search warrant in was filed in or resolved by the issuing court, the
hand, while, formerly, writs and processes of the the very locale under their sphere of control. Nor interested party may move in the court where the
then courts of first instance were enforceable should we overlook the fact that to do so will criminal case is pending for the suppression as
throughout the Philippines, under the Interim or necessitate the transportation of applicant's evidence of the personal property seized under the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 85 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

warrant if the same is offered therein for said Philippines. Simply put, all courts of justice in the favor of the unlimited power of a court to issue
purpose. Since two separate courts with different Philippines have, for purposes of issuing a search search warrants.
participations are involved in this situation, a motion warrant, jurisdiction over the entire archipelago. - I have serious misgivings on the majority decision
to quash a search warrant and a motion to suppress - I cannot subscribe to this view since, in the first on the matter where another court may, because of
evidence are alternative and not cumulative place, a search warrant is but an incident to a main extreme and compelling circumstances, issue a
remedies. In order to prevent forum shopping, a case and involves the exercise of an ancillary search warrant in connection with a criminal case
motion to quash shall consequently be governed by jurisdiction therefore, the authority to issue it must pending in an appropriate court. To illustrate this
the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that necessarily be co-extensive with the court's exception, the Municipal Trial Court of Argao, Cebu,
objections not available, existent or known during territorial jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would be to may validly issue a warrant for the search of a house
the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may add an exception to the statutory provisions defining in Davao City and the seizure of any property therein
be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress. the territorial jurisdiction of the various courts of the that may have been used in committing an offense in
The resolution of the court on the motion to suppress country, which would amount to judicial legislation. Manila already the subject of an information filed
shall likewise be subject to any proper remedy in the The territorial jurisdiction of the courts is determined with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. I submit
appropriate higher court. by law, and a reading of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 that the exception violates the settled principle that
4. Where the court which issued the search warrant discloses that the territorial jurisdiction of regional even in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the first
denies the motion to quash the same and is not trial courts, metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial court which acquires jurisdiction over the case
otherwise prevented from further proceeding courts and municipal circuit trial courts are confined acquires it to the exclusion of the other. (People vs.
thereon, all personal property seized under the to specific territories. In the second place, the Fernando, 23 SCRA 867, 870 [1968]). This being so,
warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the majority view may legitimize abuses that would it is with more reason that a court which does not
court wherein the criminal case is pending, with the result in the violation the civil rights of an accused or have concurrent jurisdiction with the first which had
necessary safeguards and documentation therefor. the infliction upon him of undue and unwarranted taken cognizance of the case does not also have the
5. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where burdens and inconvenience as when, for instance, an authority to issue writs or processes, including
the same criminal offense is charged in different accused who is a resident of Basco, Batanes, has to search warrants, in connection with the pending
informations or complaints and filed in two or more file a motion to quash a search warrant issued by the case. Moreover, since the issuance of a search
courts with concurrent original jurisdiction over the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in connection with warrants is an incident to a main case or is an
criminal action. When the issue of which court will try an offense he allegedly committed in Itbayat, exercise of the ancillary jurisdiction of a court, the
the case shall have been resolved, such court shall Batanes. court where the main case is filed has exclusive
be considered as vested with primary jurisdiction to - Nor can Stonehill vs. Diokno (20 SCRA 383) be an jurisdiction over all incidents thereto and in the
act on applications for search warrants incident to authoritative confirmation of the unlimited or issuance of all writs and processes in connection
the criminal case. unrestricted power of any court to issue search therewith. Furthermore, instead of serving the ends
Dispositive WHEREFORE, on the foregoing warrants in connection with crimes committed of justice, the exception may provide room for
premises, the instant petition is DENIED and the outside its territorial jurisdiction. While it may be true unwarranted abuse of the judicial process, wreak
assailed judgment of respondent Court of Appeals in that the forty-two search warrants involved therein judicial havoc and procedural complexities which
CA-G.R. SP No. 23533 is hereby AFFIRMED. were issued by several Judges ---- specifically Judges effective law enforcement apparently cannot justify. I
(a) Amado Roan of the City Court of Manila, (b) cannot conceive of any extreme and compelling
SEPARATE OPINION Roman Cansino of the City Court of Manila, (c) circumstance which the court that first acquired
Hermogenes Caluag of the Court of First Instance of jurisdiction over the case cannot adequately meet
Rizal (Quezon City Branch), (d) Eulogio Mencias of within its broad powers and authority.
DAVIDE [concurring and dissenting]
the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig Branch), - In the light of the foregoing, and after re-examining
- The absence of any express statutory provision
and (e) Damian Jimenez of the City Court of Quezon my original view in this case, I respectfully submit
prohibiting a court from issuing a search warrant in
City (Footnote 2, page 387) ---- there is no definite that:
connection with a crime committed outside its
showing that the forty-two search warrants were for 1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a
territorial jurisdiction should not be construed as a
the searches and seizures of properties outside the crime was committed may validly entertain an
grant of blanket authority to any court of justice in
territorial jurisdiction of their respective courts. The application for and issue a search warrant in
the country to issue a search warrant in connection
warrants were issued against the petitioners and connection with said crime. However, in the National
with a crime committed outside its territorial
corporations of which they were officers and some of Capital Judicial Region, Administrative Circulars No.
jurisdiction. The majority view suggests or implies
the corporations enumerated in Footnote 7 have 13 of 1 October 1985, and No. 19 of 4 August 1987
that a municipal trial court in Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, or
addressed in Manila and Makati. (pp. 388-89). Rizal must be observed.
Batanes can validly entertain an application for a
(which includes Makati) and Quezon City both 2. After the criminal complaint or information is filed
search warrant and issue one in connection with a
belonged to the Seventh Judicial District. That with the appropriate court, search warrants in
crime committed in Manila. Elsewise stated, all
nobody challenged on jurisdictional ground the connection with the crime charged may only be
courts in the Philippines, including the municipal trial
issuance of these search warrants is no argument in issued by said court.
courts, can validly issue a search warrant in
connection with a crime committed anywhere in the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 86 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

PEOPLE v CA (CERBO) ISSUE or not that function has been correctly discharged by
WON the Trial Court had the authority to reverse the the public prosecutor is a matter that the trial court
301 SCRA 475
public prosecutor's finding of probable cause to itself does not and may not be compelled to pass
PANGANIBAN; January 21, 1999 prosecute accused and thus dismiss the case filed by upon. It is not for instance permitted for an accused,
the latter on the basis of a motion to quash warrant upon the filing of the information against him by the
NATURE of arrest public prosecutor, to preempt trial by filing a motion
Petition for Review under Rule 45. with the Trial Court praying for the quash or
HELD dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the
FACTS NO evidence upon which the same is based is
- Rosalinda Dy was shot at pointblank range by Ratio The determination of probable cause inadequate. Nor is it permitted, on the antipodal
Jonathan Cerbo in the presence and at the office of during a preliminary investigation is a function theory that the evidence is in truth inadequate, for
his father, Billy Cerbo that belongs to the public prosecutor. It is an the complaining party to present a petition before
- Elsa B. Gumban (eyewitness) identified Jonathan executive function, the correctness of the the Court praying that the public prosecutor be
Cerbo as the assailant. exercise of which is matter that the trial court compelled to file the corresponding information
- The 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Nabunturan- itself does not and may not be compelled to against the accused.
Mawab, Davao, after a preliminary investigation, pass upon. xxx xxx xxx
found "sufficient ground to engender a well-founded - If the information is valid on its face and there is no - Indeed, the public prosecutor has broad discretion
belief" that the crime of murder has been committed showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to
by private respondent Jonathan Cerbo and resolved or prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, charge those whom he or she believes to have
to forward the entire records of the case to the courts should not dismiss it for 'want of evidence,' committed the crime as defined by law. Otherwise
provincial prosecutor at Tagum, Davao. because evidentiary matters should be presented stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to
- After an information for murder was filed against and heard during the trial. The functions and duties determine whether or not a criminal case list be filed
Jonathan Cerbo, petitioner Alynn Plezette Dy, of both the trial court and the public prosecutor in in court.
daughter of the victim Rosalinda Dy, executed an "the proper scheme of things" in our criminal justice - Crespo v. Mogul:
affidavit-complaint charging private respondent Billy system should be clearly understood. It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions
Cerbo of conspiracy in the killing , supported by a Reasoning: either commenced by complaint or by information
supplemental affidavit of Elsa B. Gumban, alleging Executive Determination of Probable Cause shall be prosecuted under the direction and control
that the shooting was done in the office and in the - The Separate (Concurring) Opinion of former Chief of the fiscal. The institution of a criminal action
presence of Billy Cerbo who after the shooting did Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Roberts v. Court of depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He
nothing (did not apply first aid nor bring the victim to Appeals : may or may not file the complaint or information,
the hospital) After a reinvestigation the prosecution xxxthe Court is being asked to examine and assess follow or not follow that presented by the offended
filed an amended information including Billy Cerbo in such evidence as has thus far been submitted by the party, according to whether the evidence, in his
the murder case. A warrant for his arrest was later parties and, on the basis thereof, make a conclusion opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of
issued. as to whether or not it suffices "to engender a well the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reason
- Private respondent Billy Cerbo then filed a motion founded belief that a crime has been committed and for placing the criminal prosecution under the
to quash warrant of arrest arguing that the same was that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent
issued without probable cause. should be held for trial." malicious or unfounded prosecutions by private
Respondent Judge issued the first assailed order - It is a function that this Court should not be called persons.
dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo for lack of upon to perform. It is a function that properly Judicial Determination of Probable Cause
probable cause and recalling the warrant for his pertains to the public prosecutor., one that, as far as - The determination of probable cause to hold a
arrest and ordered the withdrawal of the amended crimes cognizable by a Regional Trial Court are person for trial must be distinguished from the
information and the filing of a new one charging concerned, and notwithstanding that it involves an determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of
Jonathan Cerbo only. adjudicative process of a sort, exclusively pertains, arrest, which is a judicial function. The judicial
- Private Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration by law, to said executive officer, the public determination of probable cause in the issuance of
which was denied by the respondent judge. prosecutor. It is moreover a function that in the arrest warrants has been emphasized in numerous
- The Court of Appeals held that Judge Eugenio Valles established scheme of things, is supposed to be cases.
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in recalling performed at the very genesis of, indeed, prefatorily - The rulings in Soliven, Inting and Lim, Sr. were
the warrant of arrest issued against Private to, the formal commencement of a criminal action. iterated in Allado v. Diokno, where we explained
Respondent Billy Cerbo and subsequently dismissing The proceedings before a public prosecutor, it may again what probable cause means. Probable cause
the Information for murder filed against the private well be stressed, are essentially preliminary, for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the
respondent, because the evidence presented thus far prefatory and cannot lead to a final, definite and existence of such facts and circumstances that would
did not substantiate such charge. authoritative adjudgment of the guilt or innocence of lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to
the persons charged with a felony or crime. Whether believe that an offense has been committed by the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 87 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

person sought to be arrested. Hence, the judge, damaging publicity against him." The rulings in the
before issuing a warrant of arrest, "must satisfy two aforementioned cases cannot apply to it. ISSUES
himself that based on the evidence submitted, there 1. WON the check point was illegal
is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed PEOPLE v USANA and LOPEZ 2. WON the search was valid
and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty 3. WON the accused are guilty of violation of RA 6425
323 SCRA 754
thereof." At this stage of the criminal proceeding, the
judge is not yet tasked to review in detail the DAVIDE; January 28, 2000 HELD
evidence submitted during the preliminary 1. NO
investigation. It is sufficient that he personally NATURE - Not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are
evaluates such evidence in determining probable Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court warranted by the exigencies of public order and are
cause. convicting the two accused together with Julian D. conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are
- As held in Inting, the determination of probable Escano for the violation of R.A. 6425, as amended allowed.
cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different Ratio This Court has ruled that not all checkpoints
from that which is to be made by the judge. Whether FACTS are illegal. Those which are warranted by the
there is reasonable ground to believe that the - On the 5th of April 1995 and during a COMELEC gun exigencies of public order and are conducted in a
accused is guilty of the offense charged and should ban, some law enforcers of the Makati Police were way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For,
be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon. manning a checkpoint at the corner of Senator Gil admittedly, routine checkpoints do intrude, to a
The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a Puyat Ave. and the South Luzon Expressway. They certain extent, on motorists’ right to "free passage
warrant of arrest should be issued against the were checking the cars going to Pasay City, stopping without interruption," but it cannot be denied that, as
accused, i.e., whether there is a necessity for placing those they found suspicious, and imposing merely a a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travelers
him under immediate custody in order not to running stop on the others. At about past midnight, during which the vehicle’s occupants are required to
frustrate the ends of justice. they stopped a Kia Pride car with Plate No. TBH 493. answer a brief question or two. For as long as the
- Verily, a judge cannot be compelled to issue a One of the policemen saw a long firearm on the lap vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants
warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is no of the person seated at the passenger seat, who was subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the
probable cause for doing so. Corollary to this later identified as Virgilio Usana. They asked the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine
principle, the judge should not override the public driver, identified as Escaño, to open the door. PO3 checks cannot be regarded as violative of an
prosecutor's determination of probable cause to hold Suba seized the long firearm, an M-1 US Carbine, individual’s right against unreasonable search. In
an accused for trial on the ground that the evidence from Usana. When Escaño, upon order of the police, fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed
presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest parked along Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., the other area, are even less intrusive.
warrant was insufficient, as in the present case. passengers were search for more weapons. Their - The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance
Inapplicabilty of Allado and Salonga search yielded a .45 caliber firearm which they of the gun ban enforced by the COMELEC. The
- Allado and Salonga constitute exceptions to the seized from Escaño. COMELEC would be hard put to implement the ban if
general rule and may be invoked only if similar - The three passengers were thereafter brought to its deputized agents were limited to a visual search
circumstances are clearly shown to exist. However, the police station Block 5 in the Kia Pride driven by of pedestrians. It would also defeat the purpose for
the present case is not on all fours with Allado and PO3 Nonato. Upon reaching the precinct, Nonato which such ban was instituted. Those who intend to
Salonga. First, Elsa Gumban, the principal eyewitness turned over the key to the desk officer. Since SPO4 bring a gun during said period would know that they
to the killing of Rosalinda Dy, was not a participation de los Santos was suspicious of the vehicle, he only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate their
or conspirator in the commission of the said crime. In requested Escaño to open the trunk. Escaño readily malicious designs.
Allado and Salonga, however, the main witnesses agreed and opened the trunk himself using his key. - The facts adduced do not constitute a ground for a
were the confessed perpetrators of the crimes, They noticed a blue bag inside it, which they asked violation of the constitutional rights of the accused
whose testimonies the court deemed 'tainted'. Escaño to open. The bag contained a parcel wrapped against illegal search and seizure. PO3 Suba
Second, in the case at bar, the private respondent in tape, which, upon examination by National Bureau admitted that they were merely stopping cars they
was accorded due process, and no precipitate haste of Investigation, was found positive for hashish. deemed suspicious, such as those whose windows
or bias during the investigation of the case can be - An information for violation of RA 6425 thereafter are heavily tinted just to see if the passengers
imputed to the public prosecutor. On the other hand, was filed against them. The trial court found the thereof were carrying guns. At best they would
the Court noted in Allado the "undue haste in the three accused guilty of the said crime. merely direct their flashlights inside the cars they
filing of the Information and in the inordinate interest - Accused-appellants assail the manner by which the would stop, without opening the car’s doors or
of the government" in pursuing the case; and in checkpoint in question was conducted. They contend subjecting its passengers to a body search. There is
Salonga, " . . . the failure of the prosecution to show that the checkpoint manned by elements of the nothing discriminatory in this as this is what the
that the petitioner was probably guilty of conspiring Makati Police should have been announced. They situation demands.
to commit the crime, the initial disregard of also complain of its having been conducted in an We see no need for checkpoints to be announced, as
petitioner's constitutioner rights and the massive and arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Also, they the accused have invoked. Not only would it be
question the validity of the search. impractical, it would also forewarn those who intend
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 88 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

to violate the ban. Even so, badges of legitimacy of PUNO; January 22, 1999 committing, or is attempting to commit an
checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed offense;
location and the regularized manner in which they FACTS - Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may
are operated. - Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed,
2. YES (Narcom), received information from two (2) civilian is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
- Escano consented to the search and consented informants (CI) that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal offense."
warrantless search is one of the exceptions from the drug activities in Mandaluyong City. They decided to - In the case, Doria was caught in the act of
warrant requirement. entrap him via a buy-bust operation. committing an offense. When an accused is
Ratio Jurisprudence recognizes six generally -The poseur-buyer, PO2 Manlangit set aside 1600 apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-
accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement: (1) pesos as marked money for the entrapment bust operation, the police are not only authorized but
search incidental to an arrest; (2) search of moving operation, which was then handed to Jun upon duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
vehicles; (3) evidence in plain view; (4) customs transaction. Jun returned an hour later bringing - However, the warrantless arrest, search and seizure
searches; (5) consented warrantless search; and (6) marijuana where he and his associates subsequently of Gaddao is invalid
stop-and-frisk situations. arrested Jun but did not find the marked bills on - Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-
- Even though there was ample opportunity to obtain him. Jun said he left the bills to his associate handed during the buy-bust operation to give
a search warrant, we cannot invalidate the search of “Neneth”. Jun led the police to Neneth’s house. ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule
the vehicle, for there are indications that the search - The police went to Neneth’s house. Standing by the 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary
done on the car of Escaño was consented to by him. door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the to the finding of the trial court, there was no
3. NO dining table. He saw that one of the box's flaps was occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from
- No fact was adduced to link Usana and Lopez to the open and inside the box was something wrapped in the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit."
hashish found in the trunk of the car and there was plastic. The plastic wrapper and its contents 114 In fact, she was going about her daily chores
no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to when the policemen pounced on her.
presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that him by "Jun." His suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit - Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be
they saw the same before it was seized. entered "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box. justified under the second instance of Rule 113.
Ratio Despite the validity of the search, we cannot He peeked inside the box and found that it contained "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without
affirm the conviction of Usana and Lopez for violation ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be dried warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be
of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The following facts marijuana leaves. They also found the marked bills. based upon "probable cause" which means an
militate against a finding of conviction: (1) the car They arrested Jun and Neneth and brought them to "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion."
belonged to Escaño; (2) the trunk of the car was not headquarters. It was only then that the police In case, there was no reasonable suspicion
opened soon after it was stopped and after the learned that "Jun" is Florencio Doria y Bolado while especially as she was arrested solely on the basis
accused were searched for firearms; (3) the car was "Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. of the alleged identification made by her co-
driven by a policeman from the place where it was - The trial court found them guilty. accused
stopped until the police station; (4) the car’s trunk - Doria did not point to appellant Gaddao as his
was opened, with the permission of Escaño, without ISSUES associate in the drug business, but as the person
the presence of Usana and Lopez; and (5) after 1. WON the warrantless arrest of Doria and Gaddao, with whom he left the marked bills. This
arrival at the police station and until the opening of the search of the latter’s person and house, and the identification does not necessarily lead to the
the car’s trunk, the car was in the possession and admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained conclusion that appellant Gaddao conspired with
control of the police authorities. No fact was adduced therefrom is valid her co-accused in pushing drugs as Doria may
to link Usana and Lopez to the hashish found in the 2. WON the marijuana was seized validly for being in have left the money in her house, with or without
trunk of the car. Their having been with Escaño in the plain view of the police officers her knowledge, with or without any conspiracy.
latter’s car before the "finding" of the hashish Save for accused-appellant Doria 's word, the
sometime after the lapse of an appreciable time and HELD Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to
without their presence left much to be desired to 1. YES believe that she was engaged in drug pushing.
implicate them to the offense of selling, distributing, - We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused- - As the arrest was illegal, the search and seizure
or transporting the prohibited drug. In fact, there was appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests is not incidental to the arrest
no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the are allowed in three instances as provided by Section 2. NO
presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal - The marijuana was not in plain view of the police
they saw the same before it was seized. Procedure, to wit: officers and its seizure without the requisite search
Dispositive Accused – appellants are hereby Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A warrant was in violation of the law and the
acquitted. peace officer or a private person may, Constitution as the contents of the box where the
without a warrant, arrest a person: marijuana was partially hidden was not readily
PEOPLE v DORIA (a) When, in his presence, the person to be apparent to PO Manlangit, one of the arresting
arrested has committed, is actually officers.
301 SCRA 668
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 89 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- As a general rule, objects in plain view of arresting happened on the same day (12 Feb 1995), while the are presumed to have regularly performed their duty
officers may be seized without a search warrant but information for illegal possession of drugs was filed in the absence of proof to the contrary.
must follow these requisites: (a) the law enforcement on 15 Feb 1995. -in many cases, drug pushers did sell their prohibited
officer in search of the evidence has a prior - Arraignment: plea of not guilty. articles to prospective customers, be they strangers
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from - Trial: prosecution presented the ff witnesses: police or not, in private as well as in public places, even in
which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery officer who was also poseur-buyer, another officer the daytime. Indeed, some drug pushers appear to
of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is who took part in buy-bust, and NBI chemist who have become exceedingly daring, openly defiant of
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he examined and confirmed the confiscated drugs to be the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or marijuana. familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the
otherwise subject to seizure. Defense presented as witnesses boarders of time and venue of the sale, but the fact of
- However, if it is not plain view of the police officers, Elamparo’s house, saying that Elamparo “was at agreement as well as the act constituting sale and
it may not be seized without a warrant except if the their house when somebody knocked at their door. delivery of prohibited drugs
package proclaims its contents, whether by its His father opened the same and was informed that 2. YES
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its somebody was looking for him. He went out and saw Ratio: The arrest was within the purview of Sec5 (a),
contents are obvious to an observer, then the Spencer with handcuffs and being held by an Rule 113, Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
contents are in plain view and may be seized. arresting officer. When Elamparo persistently Arrest without warrant, when lawful. – A peace officer
- The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos questioned Spencer as to why he was arrested, the or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
of marijuana 137 was found in the house of accused- arresting officers got mad at him prompting them to person:
appellant Gaddao does not justify a finding that she likewise bring him to the police station where he was (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
herself is guilty of the crime charged. detained. The officers demanded P15,000.00 for his has committed, is actually committing, or is
Dispositive the decision of the Regional Trial Court, release which he did not give. On the other hand, attempting to commit an offense;
Branch 156, Pasig City acting as a Special Court in Spencer gave the sum and was released.” Reasoning:
Criminal Case No. 3307-D is reversed and modified - RTC: Guilty, under RA 6425. penalty of reclusion -Elamparo assails the legality of his arrest for failure
as follows: perpetua and fine of P9million. Elamparo appealed. of the apprehending officers to secure a search
1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is warrant.
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua ISSUE: - for warrantless arrests, 2 elements must concur: (1)
and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos 1. WON RTC was correct in the assessment of the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
(P500,000.00). credibility of witnesses indicating the he has just committed, is actually
2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao y Catama is 2. WON the arrest of Elamparo was valid committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
acquitted. 3. WON the penalty imposed was correct (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer. Thus, when he was
PEOPLE v ELAMPARO HELD: seen repacking the marijuana, the police officers
1. YES were not only authorized but also duty-bound to
329 SCRA 404
Ratio: Unless the trial court overlooked substantial arrest him even without a warrant.
QUISUMBING; March 31, 2000 facts which would affect the outcome of the case, we Re: warrantless seizures:
accord the utmost respect to their findings of facts. -However, not being absolute, the right against
NATURE Reasoning: unreasonable searches and seizures is subject to
Appeal from judgment of RTC. -Elamparo contends that it is highly unusual for exceptions. Thus, for example, Sec.12, Rule 126,
arresting officers to act on an ‘information’ of an Rules on CrimPro, provides that a person lawfully
FACTS unknown source without confirming the veracity of arrested may be searched for “dangerous weapons
- Acting on a report by an informant, police officers the report, and that it is incredible that a peddler of or anything which may be used as proof of the
conducted a buy-bust operation (of marijuana) in marijuana would be so brazen as to approach total commission of an offense, without a search warrant.”
Caloocan. They arrested the person who sold them strangers and offer to sell them marijuana. He insists -5 generally accepted exceptions to the right against
the marijuana (Spencer), but the same was able to that he was charged with illegal possession of warrantless searches and seizures have also been
escape. Then: “the ‘buy-bust’ team pursued Spencer, marijuana because he failed to pay the police officers judicially formulated, viz: (1) search incidental to a
who ran inside a bungalow-type house. Having P15,000.00 for his release. lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3)
trapped Spencer inside the house, the police officers - it is well-settled that the assessment of credibility of seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5)
frisked him and recovered the marked money. The witnesses is within the province of the trial court waiver by the accused themselves of their right
officers also found Elamparo repacking 5 bricks of which had an opportunity to observe the witnesses against unreasonable search and seizure.
marijuana inside the house’s sala Elamparo was then and their demeanor during their testimonies. As - this case falls squarely under the plain view
arrested and … were taken to a precinct … and compared to the baseless claims of Elamparo, the doctrine
delivered to an inquest fiscal for further version of the prosecution witnesses appears worthy People v Doria: “Objects falling in plain view of an
investigation.” The buy-bust operation and arrest of belief, coming as it does from law enforcers who officer who has a right to be in the position to have
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 90 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

that view are subject to seizure even without a imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty - January 13, 1995 - TC convicted the accused of
search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. is reclusion perpetua to death. murder
The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following Dispositive Petition AFFIRMED with modification. - February 10, 1995 - both accused appealed to SC
requisites concur: (a) law enforcement officer in where accused questioned TC’s failure
search of the evidence has a prior justification for an PEOPLE v MANES (a) to hear the petition for bail
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a (b) to consider defense of relative in favor of Ramil
303 SCRA 231
particular area; (b) discovery of the evidence in plain Manes and
view is inadvertent; (c) immediately apparent to the PARDO; February 17, 1999 (c) to take note that Sergon Manes was a mere
officer that the item he observes may be evidence of victim of Tamorite's unlawful aggression
a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. NATURE According to the prosecution
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an An appeal taken by accused Sergon Manes and Ramil > June 23, 1991 – 5 in the afternoon, ALAN
initial intrusion or properly be in a position from Manes from the judgment of RTC Iloilo City, Catequista with NICANOR Tamorite and JOSE Cubita,
which he can particularly view the area. In the course convicting them of murder and sentencing them to went to see a basketball game at the barangay
of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently each "suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with plaza. When the game was over, Alan approached
across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. the accessory penalties as provided in Article 41 of and invited Nicanor to go home; at that time, he was
The object must be open to eye and hand and its the Revised Penal Code" and "to indemnify the family still seated. Accused RAMIL Manes approached
discovery inadvertent.” of their victim in the amount of P50,000.00 plus Nicanor and pointed a 38 caliber revolver at him,
- members of the buy-bust team were justified in P21,250.00 as expenses for the burial, wake and saying "It is a bad luck you did not kill me during the
running after Spencer (when he escaped) and other related matter and to pay the costs.” fiesta in Barangay Cabayugan. Now I will be the one
entering the house without a search warrant for they to kill you." Nicanor ran to Alan and used him as a
were hot in the heels of a fleeing criminal. Once FACTS shield from Ramil. At that point, Alan heard a thud
inside the house, the police officers cornered - July 12, 1991, Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo Province and as he looked back, he saw accused SERGON
Spencer and recovered the buy-bust money from filed with RTC Iloilo City, an INFORMATION charging Manes with a gory knife and he also saw Nicanor
him. They also caught Elamparo in flagrante delicto the accused with MURDER: running away, with blood on his back. Ramil Manes
repacking the marijuana bricks which were in full "That on or about the 23rd of June, 1991, in the pursued Nicanor and shot him hitting him at the
view Municipality of Badiangan, Province of Iloilo, back, just above the waistline. Both accused
3. YES Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this continued to chase Nicanor who ran towards the
Ratio: Minority serves as a privileged mitigating Honorable court, the above-named accused, premises of the house of ADING Ablado. Ramil Manes
circumstance to a crime, thus entitling the accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one fired two more shots. It could not be determined
to a reduction of penalty one degree lower than that another to better realize their purpose armed with a whether those shots hit Nicanor as he and the
imposable (by virtue of art.13 (2) RPC) knife and a .38 caliber revolver respectively, with accused were already inside the premises of the
Reasoning: treachery and/or evident premeditation, did then and fence of Ading. Jose who was near Nicanor when the
- contends that if found guilty, the privileged there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assault, two accused chased him did not render assistance to
mitigating circumstance of minority should be attack, stab and shot Nicanor Tamorite with the knife him. After Alan heard the two shots, he and Jose ran
appreciated in his favor. and .38 caliber revolver with which they were then home. Alan told his father and uncle that Sergon
- In drug cases, the quantity of prohibited drugs provided, inflicting upon the said Nicanor Tamorite stabbed Nicanor and that Ramil shot him. Alan, his
involved is determinative of the imposable penalty. stab wounds and gun shot wounds on the different father, uncle, Jose and the mother of Nicanor then
Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by Section parts of his body which caused his death went to where the body of Nicanor was in the
17 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that when the quantity immediately thereafter." downhill portion of the premises of the house of
of indian hemp or marijuana is 750 grams or more, - prosecution recommended NO BAIL for the Ading. Nicanor was lying on his back, with 2 wounds
as in this case, the penalty shall be reclusion provisional liberty of the accused. on the breast, 1 gunshot wound and 1 stab wound.
perpetua to death and fine ranging from five hundred - July 22, 1991 - TC issued a WARRANT OF ARREST According to the accused(Ramil)
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos against the accused > June 23, 1991 – in the afternoon, he was at home
(P10,000,000.00). - October 18, 1991 – TC ordered the case ARCHIVED cooking. At around 5:00 to 5:30, he heard shouts
- Appellant having been born on January 9, 1978, was for failure to locate the two accused coming from the direction of the barangay basketball
only 17 years, 1 month, and 3 days old, at the time - June 24, 1992 - Sergon and Ramil Manes were court, which was about ten (10) meters away from
of the commission of the crime on February 12, ARRESTED in Romblon, Romblon his house. He went to the window to check what it
1995. - September 17, 1992 - Upon ARRAIGNMENT, both was. He saw his younger brother Sergon lying on the
- being a minor over 15 and under 18 at the time of accused pleaded NOT GUILTY to the information concrete pavement and several persons were
the commission, he is entitled to a reduced penalty - August 25, 1992 - accused filed a PETITION FOR ganging up on him, three of whom he identified as
due to the privileged mitigating circumstance BAIL which was opposed by the prosecution. TC did Nicanor, Alan and Jose. They kept on boxing and
- Thus, penalty should be reduced to reclusion not hear the petition for bail. Neither did the accused kicking his brother prompting him to come to the
temporal. No fine is imposable in this case, for it is invoke the right to bail at any stage of the trial. latter's aid. On his way out, he saw a gun on top of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 91 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the table and brought it with him to the basketball not harbor any fear in presenting himself to the ISSUE
court. proper authorities. - WON the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse
> While on his way to the basketball court, Ramil - even though prosecution failed to show evident despite a showing by the prosecutor that there is
fired a warning shot to prevent Nicanor from premeditation, trial court correctly considered strong evidence proving respondent’s guilt for the
stabbing his brother Sergon. Nicanor persisted in the treachery as qualifying the killing of the victim to crime charged.
pursuit of Sergon, with a knife in his hand. Sergon murder.
was about three meters ahead of Nicanor who was Dispositive we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial HELD
about ten meters ahead of the pursuing Ramil. Ramil court convicting accused-appellants Sergon Manes YES
fired another shot that hit Nicanor who,, fell to the and Ramil Manes of murder and sentencing each of - The SC held that the CA and the lower court failed
ground. Meanwhile, Sergon managed to flee. Ramil them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with to mention and include some facts which are
also fled to the direction of the sugarcane field as the accessory penalties of the law and to indemnify significant factors and circumstances which are
soon as he fired the second shot because he saw the the heirs of the deceased Nicanor Tamorite in the strong, clear, and convincing. Consideration of the
group of Alan approaching,, armed with guns .12 amount of P50,000.00, plus P21,250.00, as actual said factors and circumstances would have resulted
Ramil and his brother Sergon went into hiding and damages. in the denial of bail.
only surfaced a year later when they were arrested in Reasoning
Romblon. PEOPLE v CABRAL - Article III, Section 13 of the Bill of Rights
- prosecution’s set of facts was favored by the court provides:
303 SCRA 361
“All persons, except those charged with
ISSUE ROMERO; February 18, 1999 offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
WON petitioner has a right to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before
NATURE conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties,
HELD Special Civil Action or be released on recognizance as may be
NO provided by law. the right to bail shall not be
Ratio When an accused is charged with a capital FACTS impaired even when the privilege of the writ
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion - Roderick Odiamar was charged with the rape of 15 of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive
perpetua, or life imprisonment or death, and year old Cecille Buenafe. In a bid to secure bail shall not be required.”
evidence of guilt is strong, bail must be denied, as it temporary liberty, the accused filed a motion for bail - Section 7 Rule 4 of the Rules of court provides:
is neither a matter of right nor of discretion which was opposed by the petitioner. “No person charged with a capital offense, or an
Reasoning - The lower court grated the motion on the ground offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
- In offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, life that despite the crime alleged to have been imprisonment, when the evidence of guilt is strong,
imprisonment or death, the accused has no right to committed is punishable by reclusion perpetua, the shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of
bail when evidence of guilt is strong. The court must evidence thus far presented is not strong enough to criminal prosecution.”
hear a petition for bail to determine whether the warrant denial of the bail. The judge in concluding - In the case at bar, bail is discretionary and not a
evidence of guilt is strong before deciding to grant or thus cited the fact that the girl went with the matter of right considering that the punishment for
deny bail to the accused. While the accused can offender voluntarily and did not resist during the the offense is reclusion perpetua. the grant of the
apply for bail and have the court hear his application commission of the rape. In addition, the judge quoted bail is dependent on the evidence of the guilt which
summarily and promptly, such right may be waived the medico legal report as not conclusion that rape should which should be strong to justify denial. this
expressly or impliedly. In this case, the trial court was in fact committed consideration that the determination is a matter of judicial discretion.
proceeded to try the case without resolving the lacerations on the victim may have been weeks or - By judicial discretion, the law mandates the
petition for bail that appellants filed. However, the months old when the medical examination was determination of whether proof is evident or the
latter did not call the attention of the trial court to performed six days after the offense occurred. presumption of guilt is strong. Proof evident or
their unresolved application for bail. It was only in - The CA affirmed the decision saying that there was evident proof is this connection, has been held to
the appeal that they raised this issue. Thus, for no abuse of discretion in this case. “There is grave mean clear, strong evidence which leads a well
failure to bring to the attention of the trial Court at abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion
the earliest opportune time, appellants are deemed an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of that an offense has been committed as charged, that
to have waived their right to bail. passion, prejudice, or personal hostility amounting to the accused is the guilty agent, and that he will
- defense of relative: FAILED TO PROSPER because an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to probably be punished capitally if the law is
1) unlawful aggression, the essential element to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in administered. Presumption great exists when the
defense of relative is absent because if it were true contemplation of the law.” The People filed the circumstances testified to are such that the inference
that Sergon was being attacked, he would have appeal on the ground that while the judge had of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong,
suffered injuries. discretion on the grant of bail, he had abused this clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgment and
2) if indeed he acted in defense of his younger discretion. excludes all reasonable probability of any other
brother Sergon who was then under attack, he would conclusion. In other words, the test is not whether
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 92 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable FACTS d) Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only
doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a - Lavides was arrested for child abuse under R.A. after the arraignment to enable this Court to
great presumption of guilt. 7610. His arrest was made without a warrant as a immediately acquire jurisdiction over the accused;
- In the case of an application for bail, the duties of result of an entrapment conducted by the police. - Petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations
the judge are as follows: - Parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported against him. Pending resolution of his motion, he
1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the to the police that their daughter, then 16 years old, asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment
application for bail or require him to submit his had been contacted by petitioner for an assignation scheduled. He then filed a motion in which he prayed
recommendation; that night at petitioner’s room at the Metropolitan that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to
2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail Hotel. This was not the first time the police received P40,000.00 for each case and that the same be done
regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses reports of petitioner’s activities. An entrapment prior to his arraignment.
to present evidence to show that the guilt of the operation was therefore set in motion. The police saw - Trial court denied petitioner’s motions to reduce
accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the him with Lorelie, who was wearing only a shirt and an bail bonds, to quash the informations, and to
court to exercise its discretion underwear, whereupon they arrested him. Based on suspend arraignment.
3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the the sworn statement of complainant and the - Petitioner was arraigned during which he pleaded
accused is strong based on the summary of evidence affidavits of the arresting officers, which were not guilty to the charges against him and then
of the prosecution submitted at the inquest, an information for violation ordered him released upon posting bail bonds in the
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, of Art. III, §5(b) of R.A. 7610 was filed. total amount of P800,000.00, subject to the
discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail - Petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial conditions and the "hold-departure" order. The pre-
bond. Otherwise the petition should be denied. Determination of Probable Cause; (2) For the trial conference was set.
- Based on the duties, the court’s order granting or Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully - Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in CA,
denying bail must contain a summary of the Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest; and (3) assailing the trial court’s orders.
evidence for the prosecution. A summary is defined In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above - While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals,
as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or Incident, Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a two more informations were filed against petitioner,
digest of a test or statement. HENCE, THE SUMMARY Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is bringing the total number of cases against him to 12,
SHOULD NECESSARILY BE A COMPLETE COMPILATION Charged." which were all consolidated.
OR RESTATEMENT OF ALL THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE - Nine more informations for child abuse were filed - CA: a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver
PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING PROPER. The against petitioner by the same complainant, Lorelie of appearance during the trial of these cases. He
Lower court cannot exercise judicial discretion as to San Miguel, and by three other minor children, Mary shall and must always be present at the hearings of
what pieces of evidence should be included in the Ann Tardesilla, Jennifer Catarman, and Annalyn these cases;
summary. Otherwise, the same will be considered Talingting. In all the cases, it was alleged that, on b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his
defective in form and substance which cannot be various dates mentioned in the informations, bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and
sustained or be given a semblance of validity. petitioner had sexual intercourse with complainants forfeited, warrants for his arrest shall be immediately
Dispositive Grant of bail is declared void. The court who had been "exploited in prostitution and . . . issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in
should issue a warrant of arrest of Odiamar if his bail given money [by petitioner] as payment for the said absentia;]
bond has been approved. [acts of] sexual intercourse." - CA invalidated the first two conditions imposed in
- No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner the May 16, 1997 order for the grant of bail to
SEPARATE OPINION filed separate applications for bail in the nine cases. petitioner but ruled that the issue concerning the
- Trial court granted the right to post bail in the validity of the condition making arraignment a
amount of P80,000.00 for each case or a total of prerequisite for the approval of petitioner’s bail
VITUG [dissenting]
P800,000.00 for all the cases under the following bonds to be moot and academic. It noted "that
- The extraordinary remedies under Rule 65 of the
conditions: petitioner has posted the cash bonds; that when
rules of Court are not open when the question is
a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of arraigned, represented by lawyers, he pleaded not
whether the trial judge has erred in the exercise of
appearance during the trial of these cases. He shall guilty to each offense; and that he has already been
sound discretion. These special reliefs are available
and must always be present at the hearings of these released from detention." CA thought that the
only when the judge has committed grave abuse of
cases; aforesaid conditions in the May 16, 1997 order were
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his contrary to Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution which
in his decision or order such as by arbitrarily ignoring
bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and provides that "[a]fter arraignment, trial may proceed
the evidence or completely acting on bias and whim.
forfeited, warrants for his arrest shall be immediately notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided
issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in that he has been duly notified and his failure to
LAVIDES v CA (PISON and PEOPLE) absentia; appear is unjustifiable."
324 SCRA 321 c) The hold-departure Order of this Court dated April - With respect to the denial of petitioner’s motion to
MENDOZA; February 1, 2000 10, 1997 stands; and quash the informations against him, CA held that
petitioner could not question the same in a petition
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 93 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

for certiorari before it, but what he must do was to go accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial but PEOPLE v MARK JIMENEZ
to trial and to reiterate the grounds of his motion to that he must be present at the hearings of the case
G.R. No. 148571
quash on appeal should the decision be adverse to is valid and is in accordance with Rule 114. For
him. another condition of bail under Rule 114, §2(c) is that PANGANIBAN; September 24, 2002
"The failure of the accused to appear at the trial
ISSUE without justification despite due notice to him or his NATURE
WON CA erred in not determining the validity of the bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his Petition for certiorari praying for the lifting of the bail
conditions imposed in the trial court’s order of May right to be present on the date specified in the Order, the cancellation of the bond, and the taking of
16, 1997 for the grant of bail.. notice. In such case, trial shall proceed in absentia." Jimenez into legal custody
- Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials
HELD in absentia allows the accused to be absent at the FACTS
YES trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to - The US gov’t through diplomatic channels sent to
- CA should have determined the validity of the wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of the Phil. gov’t a note requesting the extradition of
conditions imposed in the trial court’s order of May innocence or of guilt,9 [Rule 116, §1(b)] (b) during Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan
16, 1997 for the grant of bail because petitioner’s trial whenever necessary for identification purposes, Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents,
contention is that his arraignment was held in and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted
pursuance of these conditions for bail. for a light offense, in which case the accused may them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate
- Bail should be granted before arraignment, appear by counsel or representative.11 [Rule 120, action, pursuant to Section 5 of the Extradition Law.
otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing §6.] At such stages of the proceedings, his presence
a motion to quash. For if the information is quashed is required and cannot be waived. - Upon learning of the request for his extradition,
and the case is dismissed, there would then be no - Although this condition is invalid, it does not follow Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of
need for the arraignment of the accused. In the that the arraignment of petitioner on May 23, 1997 Manila, which prohibited the DOJ from filing with the
second place, the trial court could ensure the was also invalid. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, RTC a petition for his extradition. The TRO was
presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely the arraignment did not emanate from the invalid assailed byt the Sec. of Justice. Initially, the court
by granting bail and ordering his presence at any condition that "approval of the bail bonds shall be dismissed the petition but after acting upon the
stage of the proceedings, such as arraignment. made only after the arraignment." Even without such motion for reconsideration, it reversed its earlier
Under Rule 114, §2(b) of the Rules on Criminal a condition, the arraignment of petitioner could not decision. It held that Jimenez was bereft of the right
Procedure, one of the conditions of bail is that "the be omitted. In sum, although the condition for the to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of
accused shall appear before the proper court grant of bail to petitioner is invalid, his arraignment the extradition process.
whenever so required by the court or these Rules," and the subsequent proceedings against him are - Finding no more legal obstacle, the US gov’t,
while under Rule 116, §1(b) the presence of the valid. represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC
accused at the arraignment is required. - Petitioner concedes that the rule is that the remedy the appropriate Petition for Extradition. The Petition
- On the other hand, to condition the grant of bail to of an accused whose motion to quash is denied is not alleged that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest
an accused on his arraignment would be to place him to file a petition for certiorari but to proceed to trial warrant issued by the US District Court for the
in a position where he has to choose between (1) without prejudice to his right to reiterate the grounds Southern District of Florida on April 15, 1999. The
filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on invoked in his motion to quash during trial on the warrant had been issued in connection with the
bail because until his motion to quash can be merits or on appeal if an adverse judgment is following charges: (1) conspiracy to defraud the
resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2) rendered against him. However, he argues that this United States and to commit certain offenses; (2) tax
foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he case should be treated as an exception. He contends evasion; (3) wire fraud (4) false statements, and (5)
can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released that the Court of Appeals should not have evaded the illegal campaign contributions.
on bail. These scenarios certainly undermine the issue of whether he should be charged under several - In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition
accused’s constitutional right not to be put on trial informations corresponding to the number of acts of prayed for the issuance of an order for his
except upon valid complaint or information sufficient child abuse allegedly committed by him against each "immediate arrest" pursuant to Section 6 of PD No.
to charge him with a crime and his right to bail. of the complainants. 1069
[Under Art. III, §5 of R.A. 7610, the offenses with Dispositive The decision of the Court of Appeals is - Before the RTC could act on the Petition,
which petitioner is charged are punishable by SET ASIDE and another one is RENDERED declaring Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion the orders dated May 16, 1997 and May 23, 1997 of Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,"which prayed that
perpetua.] the Regional Trial Court, Branch 107, Quezon City to application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing.
- It is the condition in the May 16, 1997 order of the be valid, with the exception of condition (d) in the RTC grantes the motion of Jimenez. In that hearing,
trial court that "approval of the bail bonds shall be second paragraph of the order of May 16, 1997 he manifested its reservations on the procedure
made only after arraignment," which CA should (making arraignment a prerequisite to the grant of adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in an
instead have declared void. The condition imposed in bail to petitioner), which is hereby declared void. extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of
the trial court’s order of May 16, 1997 that the a warrant of arrest. After the hearing, the court a
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 94 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

quo required the parties to submit their respective distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is Art.III Sec 5, par (a), subpar (5) of RA 7610 8 stating
memoranda. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an charged. He should apply for bail before the courts that, “…said Fitzgerald, actuated by lust, and by the
alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should trying the criminal cases against him, not before the use of drugs willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of extradition court. induced complainant “AAA”, a minor, 13 years of
P100,000. The alternative prayer of Jimenez was - Also, we cannot allow our country to be a haven for age, to engage in prostitution by then and there
also set for hearing. Thereafter, the court below fugitives, cowards and weaklings who, instead of showering said “AAA” with gifts, clothes and food
issued its questioned July 3, 2001 Order, directing facing the consequences of their actions, choose to and thereafter having carnal knowledge of her in
the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail run and hide. Hence, it would not be good policy to violation of the aforesaid law and to her damage and
for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. increase the risk of violating our treaty obligations if, prejudice.”
After he had surrendered his passport and posted the through overprotection or excessively liberal - RTC rendered a decision finding respondent Guilty
required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional treatment, persons sought to be extradited are able of Sec 5, par (a), subpar (5) of RA 7610 and
liberty. Hence, this Petition. to evade arrest or escape from our custody. In the sentenced to an indeterminate term of prision mayor
absence of any provision -- in the Constitution, the min (8Y 1D) to prision temporal max (17Y 4M 1D).
ISSUE law or the treaty -- expressly guaranteeing the right Upon completion of his sentence, he shall be
WON he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty to bail in extradition proceedings, adopting the deported immediately and forever barred from entry
while the extradition proceedings are pending practice of not granting them bail, as a general rule, to the Philippines. He was acquitted on the case of
would be a step towards deterring fugitives from rape. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the
HELD coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their court considered the view that the the circumstances
NO prosecutors. > of the accused indicate a probability of flight and that
Ratio. After being taken into custody, potential - The denial of bail as a matter of course in there is undue risk that the accused may commit a
extraditees may apply for bail. Since the applicants extradition cases falls into place with and gives life similar offense, if released on bail pending appeal.
have a history of absconding, they have the burden to Article 14 of the Treaty, since this practice would - On appeal, CA affirmed the conviction, modifying
of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the penalty to imprisonment of prision temporal (14Y
danger to the community; and (b) there exist special, the requesting state to cut short their detention 8M 1D) to reclusion perpetua (20Y 1D)
humanitarian or compelling circumstances. The here. Likewise, their detention pending the resolution - Fitzgerald filed for a Motion for a New Trial and a
grounds used by the highest court in the requesting of extradition proceedings would fall into place with supplemental appeal to the motion on the ground
state for the grant of bail therein may be considered, the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary that new material of evidence not previously
under the principle of reciprocity as a special nature of extradition cases and the need for their available has surfaced. CA granted the motion for
circumstance. In extradition cases, bail is not a speedy disposition. new trial. The original records of the case were
matter of right; it is subject to judicial discretion in Dispositive the Petition is GRANTED. The bail bond remanded to the RTC, which was also directed to
the context of the peculiar facts of each case. posted by private respondent is CANCELLED. The receive new evidence. The motion to transfer the
Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, is worded Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct respondent to the National Penitentiary was denied.
as follows: the extradition proceedings before it, with all - The people file a MFR, while Fitzgerald filed a
Art. III, Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter Motion to fix bail with Manifestation. Both motions
with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as were denied by CA. The bail application was denied
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before well as our Extradition Law. pursuant to Sec.7 Rule 114 ROC. The maximum
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be penalty imposable in accordance with RA 7610 is
released on recognizance as may be provided by PEOPLE v FITZGERALD reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is
law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even strong.
505 SCRA 573
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is - The people filed a petition fro review on certiorari. It
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required." AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; October 27, 2006 was dismissed which became final and executory.
- the constitutional right to bail "flows from the - Fitzgerald filed with CA a Motion for Early
presumption of innocence in favor of every accused NATURE Transmittal of the Records and for the Re-
who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Examination of the Penalty Imposed and a Motion for
as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless resolution of CA which granted the Motion for bail of Bail. CA issued the assailed resolution granting bail.
his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt." It accused-appellant and herein respondent Victor It stated that although the evidence of guilt is strong,
follows that the constitutional provision on bail will Keith Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is of old age and not in the best of health.
not apply to a case like extradition, where the Bail was granted premised not on the grounds stated
presumption of innocence is not at issue. FACTS in the motion for bail, but on substantial justice and
- That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be - An information was filed in the RTC charging considering new trial was granted in the case.
extradited are bailable in the United States is not an Fitzgerald, an Australian citizen, with the violation of
argument to grant him one in the present case. To 8
stress, extradition proceedings are separate and Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 95 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- RTC ordered Fitzgerald’s temporary release upon death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when witnesses for the prosecution; all of the other
filing a cash bond of P100 000.00. evidence of guilt is strong. 9 defendants were present, were duly arraigned,
Petitioner’s Claim - RTC and CA were unanimous in their findings of the pleaded not guilty, and were represented by a
> People filed this petition to annul the CA Resolution existence of strong evidence of guilt. Under Sec 6(b) lawyer; that after the prosecution had closed its case
arguing that the CA erred in granting the Motion for Rule 121, the grant of a new trial allows for reception against all of the said defendants except Rufino
Bail despite the crime charged was punishable by of newly discovered evidence, but maintains Lavarias, the court discovered that Rufino Lavarias
reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is evidence already presented or on record. In the was outside the court room. Upon discovering this
strong. present case, no new evidence had been introduced fact the court ordered the said defendant Rufino
Plaintiff’s Claim negating the earlier findings of the RTC and CA. Bail Lavarias to appear in the court room, and then and
> the grant for new trail negated the previous was not a matter of right but a mere privilege subject there recalled one of the witnesses for the
findings of the existence of strong evidence of guilt. to the discretion of CA. prosecution, Regino Maminta, and proceeded to
The justification for provisional release is on - However, the CA admitted that the bail was based examine him with reference to the part Rufino
humanitarian grounds, citing his deteriorating health on health reasons disregarding the substantive and Lavarias took in the said robbery charged in the
and old age. procedural requirements on bail. complaint, without arraigning the said Rufino
- CA made no specific findings that the respondent Lavarias, reading to him the complaint, or informing
ISSUES suffered from an ailment of such gravity that his him that he had the right to be represented by an
1. WON CA had jurisdiction over the motion to post continued confinement during trial will permanently attorney during the trial, in accordance with the
bail after issuing the resolution granting new trial impair his health or put his life in danger. provisions of sections 16, 17, and 18 of General
2. WON CA erred in allowing bail - Moreover, there is finding on the record on the Orders, No. 58.
potential risk of respondent committing a similar
HELD offense. ISSUE
1. (the ruling on this matter is limited to this specific Dispositive petition is granted and the CA WON the court did not comply with the provisions of
case) When the SC grants new trial, it vacates the resolution annulled and set aside. The bail bond sections 16, 17, and 18 of General Order No. 58
judgment of the TC convicting the accused and posted is cancelled. Let an order of arrest issue
remands the case to the TC for reception of newly- against the person of the accused. HELD
discovered evidence and promulgation of a new YES. Rufino Lavarias was not arraigned.
judgment. US v PALISOC Dispositive The judgment of the court with
- However, when CA grants new trial, reference to Rufino Lavarias is reversed, and the
4 Phil 207
notwithstanding Sec1 Rule 125 ROC providing for the cause is remanded to the CFI Pangasinan for the
uniformity of the procedure between the SC and CA, JOHNSON; February 13, 1905 purpose of a new trial. The court is affirmed as to the
CA may decide questions of fact and of law. When it sentence of Fabiano Diadib and Inocencio Valerio on
grants a new trial pursuant to Sec14 Rule 124 ROC, it FACTS the ground of sufficiency of evidence.
may either a) receive the new evidence under Sec 12 The defendants were charged with the crime of
robbery for entering the house of one Regino
or b) refer the case to the court of origin for PEOPLE v AMBROSIO
reception of such evidence under Sec 15. in either Maminta, all being armed with talibones took and
carried carried away the sum of 20 pesos, Mexican, 56 Phil 801
case, it does not relinquish to the TC jurisdiction over
the case. It retains sufficient authority to resolve the and various pieces of jewelry, all of the value of 120
incidents in the case and decide its merits. pesos, Mexican. PEOPLE v CARIAGA
- Even when CA remanded the case to the TC, CA The said defendants were tried and each of the 64 Phil 1057
retained appellate jurisdiction. CA retained its defendants, Paulino Palisoc, Fabiano Diadib,
CONCEPCION; June 29, 1937
authority to act on the respondent’s bail application. Inocencio Valerio, and Domingo Torres, was
2. The right to bail emanates from the right to be sentenced to be imprisoned for the period of five
NATURE
presumed innocent. It is accorded to a person in the years of presidio correccional; and Rufino Lavarias,
Appeal from the judgment of the CFI of Manila
custody of law who may by reason of the because the court found that he was the leader of
presumption of innocence he enjoys, be allowed the said band of robbers, was sentenced to a period
FACTS
provisional liberty upon filing of a security to of six years of presidio correccional.
- Appellant Deogracias Cariaga was convicted of the
guarantee his appearance before any court, as From this sentence Fabiano Diadib, Inocencio
crime of theft and sentenced to 1 month and 1 day of
required under specific conditions. Valerio, and Rufino Lavarias appealed to this court.
arresto mayor and to indemnify the offended party in
- Bail is a matter of right to an accused person in The record shows that at the beginning of the trial
the sum of P1.50.
custody for an offense not punishable by death, Rufino Lavarias was not present and did not appear
- Cariaga alleges that the court erred in having found
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, but a matter in court until after the fiscal had presented all of the
him guilty of the crime based of the fact that the
of discretion on the part of the court, concerning one appealed judgment states: “Upon arraignment, he
facing an accusation for an offense punishable by 9 entered a plea of guilty.” The appellant without
Sec 4 and 5 Rule 114 ROC, and Sec 13 Art III 1987 Consti
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 96 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

denying the fact in itself, contends that the record a fisherman when the former stole their P80 and on comprehended the meaning, full significance and
does not show when, where or how he was the occasion killed the 2 victims. consequences of his plea.
arraigned. -the 2 were charged with Robbery with Double Dispositive. WHEREFORE, the judgment under
Homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of use automatic review is hereby SET ASIDE and the case
ISSUE of motorized banca as a means for flight or REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
WON the statement in the judgment that the accused concealment, plus recidivism as regards Serna since SO ORDERED.
has been arraigned and pleaded guilty is sufficient he was previously convicted by final judgment in CFI
of Manila, and was sentenced to an imprisonment SEPARATE OPINION
HELD from 10 to 17 years in 1958.
YES -upon arraignment, both pleaded guilty, invoking the
AQUINO [dissenting]
- The statement is in compliance with the provisions mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt. Immediately,
-Serna should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua
of section 16&25 of Gen. Order No. 58, inasmuch as CFI of Samar found the 2 guilty, considering the
because: (1) recidivism not aggravating, the
it may be presumed from said statement that the law mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and the
information not alleging the prior crime for which
has been obeyed by causing the accused to appear aggravating circumstance cited above. Cipriano was
Serna was convicted; (2) use of motorized banca not
before the court, and it is shown thereby that he has sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua (MC offset AC) while
aggravating, it was a means of flight and not for the
really been arraigned, his plea entered personally Serna was sentenced to death (1MC to 2AC),
commission of the crime; (3) treachery generic
being that of guilty. All this is not a mere conclusion therefore sent to SC for automatic review.
aggravating but offset by plea of guilt; (4) fact of
as appellant contends, because the court is of the -the information was read to the appellants in English
more than 1 homicide not aggravating, not
opinion that generally a conclusion is the averment and translated in Samar dialect, thereafter, the 2
enumerated under Art14, RPC.
or denial of a fact deduced from some evidence, or pleaded guilty. After the plea, the Fiscal asked the
-Serna understood his plea because there was no
the averment or denial of a point of view of law plea of guilty to be considered mitigating then asked
improvident plea
derived from a law or a principle of law. In this case, the court to consider the 2 aggravating circumstance
-don’t need to remand, 14 years already passed
however, the court’s averment that the accused was against Serna. The court did not explain the import of
arraigned and that he pleaded guilty, is not a the plea to the 2 accused, did not even bother to ask
deduction or consequence of an evidence, legal if they understood their plea, and just imposed on PEOPLE v TIONGSON
provision or principle of law, but a positive statement Serna the death penalty. 130 SCRA 614
of facts. CONCEPCION; July 25, 1984
- It does not make a difference if the court, after ISSUE
hearing the accused plead guilty upon arraignment, WON the trial court erred in automatically rendering NATURE
stated such facts in the judgment rendered the penalty of death to Serna Mandatory review for imposition of death penalty
immediately, in open court and in the presence of
the accused, or caused said arraignment and plea to HELD FACTS
be stated in the minutes. What is important is that NO. - Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of
the accused be arraigned and that he enters his plea. Ratio. Considering that the appellant was charged Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together with de la Cruz
It is immaterial how or in what manner such facts are with an offense punishable by death, the trial court and Santiago, where they were detained under the
stated. For legal purposes, it makes no difference should have required the prosecution to present its charge of Attempted Homicide. While in the act of
whether they appear in the minutes or in the evidence to prove the extent of his culpability. The escaping, Tiongson killed a member of the police
judgment itself. taking of such testimony is the prudent and proper force who was guarding them and a PC Constable
course to follow for the purpose of establishing not who went in pursuit.
PEOPLE v SERNA only the guilt but also the precise culpability of the - By reason thereof, Tiongson was then charged with
defendant.
130 SCRA 550 Murder, in two separate informations, alleging that
Where a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant, in the commission of the offense was qualified by the
CONCEPCION, July 25, 1984 cases where the capital penalty may be imposed, the circumstance of treachery, and aggravated by the
court should make certain that defendant fully circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt
NATURE understands the nature of the charge preferred of or with insult to the public authorities, nocturnity,
Automatic review to the Supreme Court against him and the character of the punishment committed in an uninhabited place and with abuse of
provided by law before it is imposed. The trial court superior strength.
FACTS should therefore call witnesses for the purposes of - Upon arraignment, the said accused, assisted by
-In Samar during the night of November 28, 1970, establishing the guilt and degree of culpability of the counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to both
Rafael Serna and Antonio Cipriano took away P80 defendant, not only to satisfy the trial judge, but also informations. The trial court did not render judgment
from Romualdo Villones and Leonardo Carlos. The to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the outright, but ordered the prosecution to present its
latter were paying for the fish that they bought from accused really and truly understood and evidence, after which, it sentenced the said accused
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 97 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

to suffer the death penalty in each case, and to - It does not appear how and in what position the MENDOZA; February 2, 2000
indemnify the heirs of the victims. victim was when he was killed so that it cannot be
said for certain that the accused had adopted a NATURE
ISSUES mode or means of attack tending directly to insure or Automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial
1. WON a plea of guilt is always binding upon the facilitate the commission of the offense without risk Court of Oriental Mindoro
accused for all the contents of the information to himself arising from the defense or retaliation
2. WON the killing was qualified by treachery which the victim might put up. FACTS
3. WON there were aggravating circumstances - Pat. Garcia of the Bulalacao police force merely -On April 28, 1996, Oleby and Maricris, assisted by a
present declared that he was in his house, about 15 meters neighbor, Lita Macalalad, told their mother that they
away from the municipal building when the accused had been raped by their father, herein accused-
HELD Rudy Tiongson and his companions escaped from appellant. Thereupon, they went to the police
1. NO. prison, and he did not see the accused shoot Pat. authorities of Naujan and filed a complaint against
Ratio It may be true that a judicial confession of Gelera. Pat. Gelera was already dead when the other accused-appellant
guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the witness saw him. -After preliminary examination, on June 6, 1996, four
information, including the aggravating circumstances - Treachery is also not present in the killing of PC informations charging accused-appellant with rape
listed therein, as stated by the trial judge, yet where Constable since the deceased was actually warned on various dates were filed in the Regional Trial-
there has been a hearing and such circumstances by another PC not to remain standing but seek cover Court, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro.
are disproven by the evidence, they should be because of the known presence of the accused in the -The record shows that at his arraignment on July 23,
disallowed in the judgment. vicinity, but that the said deceased disregarded the 1996, accused-appellant, assisted by Atty. Manolo A.
Reasoning The norm that should be followed where warning. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office, pleaded not
a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant, - Since treachery, which would qualify the killing of guilty to the charges filed against him.
especially in cases where the capital penalty may be Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela to Murder, was -However, on August 5, 1997, after the prosecution
imposed, is that the court should be sure that not present, the crimes may only be punished as had presented Dr. Cynthia S. Fesalbon, accused-
defendant fully understands the nature of the Homicide. appellant pleaded guilty to the crime charged in all
charges preferred against him and the character of 3. NO. the informations.
the punishment provided by law before it is imposed. Reasoning (a) Evident premeditation must be ruled -On August 12, 1997, the prosecution formally
For this reason, the Court requires that in every case out in view of the absence of sufficient proof that a offered its documentary evidence and rested its case
under a plea of guilty, where the penalty may be plan to kill the victims existed, the execution of thereafter.
death, the trial court should call witnesses for the which was preceded by deliberate thought and -Accused-appellant did not present any evidence in
purpose of establishing the guilt and degree of reflection. (b) That the crimes were committed in his defense.
culpability of the defendant and not only to satisfy contempt of or with insult to the public authorities -On August 27, 1997, the trial court rendered
the trial judge but to aid the Supreme Court in cannot be appreciated since they are not persons in judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of four
determining whether accuse understood and authority, but merely agents of a person in authority. counts of rape against his daughters.
comprehended the meaning, full significance and (c) In order that commission of a crime in an -Nadera appealed
consequences of his plea. In the instant case, the uninhabited place may be considered, it is necessary
trial judge required the taking of testimony as to the that the place of occurrence be where there are no ISSUES
circumstances under which the crime was committed houses at all, a considerable distance from the 1. WON the trial court erred when it accepted his
before passing judgment so that the resulting verdict village or town, or where the houses are a great plea of guilty to a capital offense without making a
cannot in any way be branded as deficient. distance apart. (d) Abuse of superior strength must searching inquiry to determine whether he
2. NO. also be ruled out since there is no direct evidence understood the consequences of his plea
Reasoning The circumstances qualifying or that the accused employed it. Dispositive Petition is 2. WON the conviction must be set aside
aggravating the act of killing a human being must be affirmed with the modification that the accused Rudy
proved in an evident and incontestable manner, Tiongson should be sentenced to suffer HELD
mere presumptions or deductions from hypothetical imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of 1. YES
facts not being sufficient to consider them justified. prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years - Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
- According to the RPC, "there is treachery when the and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as provides:
offender commits any of the crimes against the maximum, for each homicide committed by him. The Sec. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense;
person, employing means, methods, or forms in the indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victims is reception of evidence. When the accused
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to hereby increased to P30,000.00 in each case. pleads guilty to a capital offense, the Court
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
from the defense which the offended party might PEOPLE v NADERA voluntariness and full comprehension of the
make." consequences of his plea and require the
324 SCRA 490
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 98 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

degree of culpability. The accused may also warning that the accused faces the supreme their mother, Daisy, and the physician who
present evidence on his behalf. penalty of death is insufficient. For more often conducted the medical examination of the two girls,
-Under this Rule, three things are enjoined than not, an accused pleads guilty upon bad Dr. Cynthia Fesalbon. Certain circumstances
upon the trial court when a plea of guilty to a advice or because he hopes for a lenient present in this case, however, persuade us
capital offense is entered: (1) the court must treatment or a lighter penalty. The trial judge that a remand of this case is necessary.
conduct a searching inquiry into the must erase such mistaken impressions. He -First, a perusal of the decision of the court reveals
voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full must be completely convinced that the guilty that the trial judge failed to state the factual and
comprehension of the consequences thereof; plea made by the accused was not made under legal reasons on which he based accused-appellant's
(2) the court must require the prosecution to duress or promise of reward. The judge must conviction. Except for the narration of the
present evidence to prove the guilt of the ask the accused the manner the latter was prosecution's evidence and a bare recital of R.A. No.
accused and the precise degree of his arrested or detained, and whether he was 7659, amending Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
culpability; and, (3) the court must ask the assisted by counsel during the custodial and there is nothing else to indicate the reason for the
accused if he desires to present evidence on preliminary investigations. In addition, the decision. There is no evaluation of the evidence and
his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. defense counsel should also be asked whether no reason given why the court found the testimonies
-As explained in People v. Alicando, a searching he conferred with the accused and completely of the witnesses credible.
inquiry must focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the explained to him the meaning and the -Second, the cavalier attitude of accused-appellant's
plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of a plea of guilt. Furthermore, counsel, Atty. Manolo A. Brotonel of the Public
consequences of the plea. since the age, educational attainment and Attorney's Office, cannot go unnoticed. It is
-In the case at bar, the record does not show what socio-economic status of the accused may discernible in (a) his refusal to cross examine Oleby
exactly transpired at the re-arraignment of accused- reveal insights for a proper verdict in the case, Nadera; (b) the manner in which he conducted
appellant, for what reason he changed his plea from the trial court must ask questions concerning Maricris Nadera's cross examination; and, (c) his
"not guilty" to "guilty," and whether he fully them. failure not only to present evidence for the accused
understood the consequences of his guilty plea. -In this case, absent any showing that these but also to inform the accused of his right to do so, if
-In its decision, the trial court described the manner questions were put to accused-appellant, a he desires.
in which the accused pleaded guilty, thus: searching inquiry cannot be said to have been Dispositive The appealed decision is set aside.
Upon arraignment, accused, assisted by Atty. Manolo undertaken by the trial court.
A. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office, pleaded -In People v. Sevillano, this Court held that: PEOPLE v NAVARRO
not guilty to the crime charged. However, when …In every case where the accused enters a plea of
75 Phil 516
these cases were called for pre-trial and trial, counsel guilty to a capital offense, especially where he is an
for the accused manifested that the accused, ignorant person with a little or no education, the BENGZON; December 4, 1945
realizing the futility of entering into trial and proper and prudent course to follow is to take such
considering that he actually committed the acts evidence as are available and necessary in support FACTS
complained of, intimated his intention to enter a plea of the material allegations of the information, - Information for arbitrary detention:
of guilty to the above-mentioned charges. The including the aggravating circumstances therein "That from January 27, 1945, and for several days
accused was then asked by this Court if he was enumerated, not only to satisfy the trial judge thereafter, in the municipality of Calapan, Province
aware of the consequences of a plea of guilty to a himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in of Mindoro, Commonwealth of the Philippines, and
capital offense: that for the rape he committed on determining whether the accused really and truly within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said
May 17, 1992 against his daughter, Oleby Nadera, understood and comprehended the meaning, full defendants Juan Navarro and Anacleto Atienza,
who was 9 years old at the time, he would be significance and consequences of his plea. Acting Provincial Governor and Provincial Warden,
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and for the three -Clearly, the plea of guilty of accused-appellant in respectively, both being public officials to whom
other counts of rape committed on April 17 and 24, this case was made improvidently. the custody and responsibility of prisoners were
1995 [both against Oleby Nadera] and on March 3, 2. Yes. entrusted for proper action, without any lawful or
1996 [against Maricris Nadera, 11 years old at the -Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt justifiable cause and without legal grounds
time], he would be sentenced to death by lethal are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of therefor, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
injection. After having been informed of this, he judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and feloniously detain Esteban P. Beloncio in the
insisted that he is willing to enter a plea of guilty to credible evidence to convict the accused, the Provincial Jail of Mindoro which continued for more
the crimes charged and is ready to face the conviction must be sustained, because then it is than fifteen days but less than six months."
consequences thereof. predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the - A pre-trial was held, the Judge asking the parties or
-The warnings given by the trial court in this accused but on evidence proving his commission of their attorneys some questions, which the latter
case fall short of the requirement that it must the offense charged. answered, with the result that admissions were made
make a searching inquiry to determine whether -The prosecution evidence consisted of the to the effect that Esteban P. Beloncio and Juan G.
accused-appellant understood fully the import testimonies of Oleby and Maricris Nadera, the results Beloncio II had been detained for several days after
of his guilty plea. As has been said, a mere of their medical examinations, and the testimonies of January 27, 1945, in the provincial jail of Mindoro by
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 99 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

order of the Commanding General, Western Visayan exigencies of military strategy, or the confusion certificate, thereby directly incriminating or imputing
Task Force, United States Army. Whereupon, usually resulting from the situation. While the to said Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of
defendants' counsel lost no time in filing a motion infringement of constitutional precepts and privileges the crime of bribery."
to quash, upon the ground that the facts charged is not to be tolerated, war necessities and -defendants filed a motion to quash saying that (1)
did not constitute a criminal offense. consequences cannot be overlooked. At any rate, no the facts charged in the information do not constitute
- The judge dismissed the cases. reasons are shown why the irregularity, if any, an offense (because the two crimes cannot be
committed by others, should be visited upon complexed); and (2) the court trying the case has no
ISSUE defendants-appellees. The acts imputed to them, do jurisdiction over the offense charged
WON the motion to quash on the ground that “the not, of themselves, constitute a punishable offense. -CFI granted motion to dismiss agreeing with
facts charged do not constitute and offense” must be Dispositive Appealed decision affirmed. defendants
restricted to the facts charged in the informations -MFR was denied
PEOPLE v ALAGAO -appeal by fiscal before SC
HELD
16 SCRA 879
NO ISSUE
- The section of the rule permitting a motion to quash ZALDIVAR; April 30, 1966 WON the CFI erred in granting motion to quash
on the ground that "the facts charged do not
constitute an offense" omits reference to the facts NATURE HELD
detailed "in the information." Other sections of the This is an appeal by the City Fiscal of Manila from an YES
same rule would imply that the issue is restricted to order of the Court of First Instance of Manila - It is very apparent that by the use of the phrase
those alleged in the information. sustaining the motion to quash the information "thru unlawful arrest" in the information an idea is
- Prima facie, the "facts charged" are those described conveyed that the unlawful arrest was resorted to as
in the complaint, but they may be amplified or FACTS a necessary means to plant evidence in the person of
qualified by others appearing to be additional -City Fiscal of Manila filed an information against the the offended party, thereby incriminating him. From
circumstances, upon admissions made by the defendants-appellees charging them of the complex a reading of the info the SC finds a close connection
people's representative, which admissions could crime of incriminatory machinations thru unlawful between the act of the accused in first unlawfully
anyway be submitted by him as amendments to the arrest, as follows: arresting the offended party and then investigating
same information. "That on or about the 28th day of February, 1961, in him; and it was during that investigation that they
- It would seem to be pure technicality to hold that in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, plated incriminatory evidence against him. SC agrees
the consideration of the motion, the parties and the being then members of the Manila Police with the Solicitor General in his contention that the
judge were precluded from considering facts which Department, conspiring and confederating together accused first had to resort to unlawful arrest in order
the fiscal admitted to be true, simply because they and helping one another, did then and there willfully, to be able to plant the P1.00 bill among the money
were not described in the complaint. Of course, it unlawfully and feloniously incriminate or impute to taken from the offended party. Also the court a quo
may be added that upon similar motions the court one Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of the has jurisdiction to try the accused of the offense
and the fiscal are not required to go beyond the crime by bribery thru unlawful arrest, in the following charged in the information. The crime of unlawful
averments of the information, nor is the latter to be manner, to wit: the said accused, on the aforesaid arrest is punishable with arresto mayor or
inveigled into a premature and risky revelation of his date, without reasonable ground therefor and for the imprisonment of from one month and one day to six
evidence. purpose of delivering said Marcial Apolonio y Santos months, and a fine not exceeding P500.00; 5 and the
- But the Court sees no reason to prohibit the fiscal to the proper authorities, did then and there willfully, crime of incriminatory machinations is punishable
from making, in all candor, admissions of undeniable unlawfully and feloniously arrest said Marcial with arresto mayor, or imprisonment of from one
facts, because the principle can never be sufficiently Apolonio y Santos; that after the said Marcial month and one day to six months.
reiterated that such official's role is to see that Apolonio y Santos had been arrested in the manner Dispositive The order appealed from is reversed
justice is done; not that all accused are convicted, aforestated, and while the latter was supposedly and set aside
but that the guilty are justly punished. Less reason being investigated by the said accused, the said
accused did then and there place on commingle a
can there be to prohibit the court from considering LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE
those admissions, and deciding accordingly, in the marked P1.00 bill together with the money taken
from said Marcial Apolonio y Santos, supposedly [supra, page 41]
interest of a speedy administration of justice.
- The Beloncios were thus deprived of their liberty by given to the latter by one Emerita Calupas de Aresa,
order of the military authorities, a few days after the so that he (Marcial Apolonio y Santos), then an GAMBOA v CRUZ
liberations of Mindoro. Judicial notice may be taken of employee of the Local Civil Registrar's Office of 162 SCRA 642
the fact, that upon military occupation and before Manila, would appear to have agreed to perform an
PADILLA; June 27, 1988
the establishment of the normal processes of civil act not constituting a crime, in connection with the
government the liberties and rights of citizens are performance of his (Marcial Apolonio y Santos)
NATURE
likely to suffer temporary restrictions, what with the duties, which was to expedite the issuance of a birth
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 100 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Peition for certiorari and prohibition to review the Dispositive Petition dismissed. -that illegal possession of firearms and ammunition is
order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Br. 29 still penalized under PD No. 1866 which was not
PEOPLE v ASUNCION repealed by said EO NO. 107 and 222.
FACTS
161 SCRA 490
Petitioner alleges that he was arrested for vagrancy ISSUES
without a warrant of arrest. Thereafter, he was PADILLA; May 24, 1988 1. WON J. Asuncion erred in holding that the
brought to Precinct 2, Manila where he was booked possession of loose firearms and explosives is not
for vagrancy and then detained therein together with NATURE illegal per se during the period covered by EO Nos.
several others. The next day, five detainees, Certiorari 107 and 222
including petitioner, complainant Bernal pointed to 2. WON it was not necessary for the prosecution to
petitioner and said, “that one is a companion.” After FACTS: allege in the information that the firearms and
the identification, the other detainees were brought -Rolando Abadilla, a former colonel of the Armed ammunition, subject matter of this case, were
back to their cell but petitioner was ordered to stay Forces of the Philippines, was charged before the QC brought out of the residence of the accused or were
on. While the complainant was being interrogated by RTC with the offense of Violation of PD No. 1866 used by him in the commission or another offense,
the police investigator, petitioner was told to sit [ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND since these circumstances are not essential
down in front of her. Subsquently, an information for AMMUNITION) --The Information read that he ingredients of the crime of illegal possession of
robbery was filed against petitioner. He was “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his firearms and ammunition
arraigned and thereafter hearings were held. The possession and under his custody and control” rifles, 3. WON under the allegation in the information,
prosecution formally offered its evidence and then pistons, ammunitions and magazines (see orig case prosecution may prove that the accused earned the
rested its case. Petitioner, by counsel, instead of for the list) “without first securing the necessary firearms and ammunition outside of his residence
presenting his defense, manifested in open court that license and/or permit from the lawful authority.”
he was filing a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer to -Upon motion of the accused, Asuncion dismissed HELD
Evidence. Petitioner filed said motion on the ground the Information on the ground that it did not allege 1. EO NO. 107, as amended by EO No. 222, is similar
that the conduct of the line-up without notice to, and sufficient facts to constitute an offense, since the to RA Nos. 4 and 482. SC did NOT give it a different
in the absence of, his counsel violated his possession of loose firearms and explosives is not meaning because there is no basis for such a
constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. illegal per se, in view of Executive Order No. 107 difference.
The respondent court issued an order denying the which gives holders or possessors of unlicensed 2. NO. IT IS NECESSARY TO ALLEGE IT IN THE INFO.
Motion to Acquit. Hence, the instant petition. firearms and ammunition a period of six months 3. NO. The information, in this particular charge
from its effectivity, extended to 31 December 1987 against Abadilla, is fatally defective. It would be
ISSUE by EO No. 222, within which to surrender the fatally defective against any other accused charged
WON the respondent judge acted in excess of same to the proper authorities, without with the same offense. J. Asunction, in dismissing the
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in incurring any criminal liability therefor, except information, committed no reversible error or
issuing the assailed order if the unlicensed firearm or ammunition is grave abuse of discretion.
carried outside of one's residence, not for the Ratio (citing People vs. Austria) the presentation of
HELD purpose of surrendering the same, or used in evidence "cannot have the effect of validating a void
NO the commission of any other offense, and there information, or proving an offense which does not
If a defendant does not move to quash the complaint is no allegation in said information that the legally exist. ... The information was not merely
or information before pleading, defendant is deemed firearms and ammunition enumerated therein defective but it does not charge any offense at all.
to have waived all objections which are grounds for a were carried outside the accused's residence Technically speaking, that information does not exist
motion to quash, except where the complaint or or used in the commission of some other crime. in contemplation of law."
information does not charge an offense, or the court - In support thereof, the respondent judge cited the -Abadilla is regarded with unusual ease and facility
is without jurisdiction of the same. Here, petitioner decision in People vs. Lopez, 79 Phil 658. as the "hit man" of the Marcos regime. But the Court
filed a Motion to Acquit only after the the prosecution -The prosecution filed a MR of said Resolution, but cannot be swayed by appellations for it has a duty,
presented its evidence and rested its case. Since the the motion was denied as a temple of justice, to accord to every man who
exceptions above-stated, are not applicable, -Hence, the present recourse by the prosecution. comes before it in appropriate proceedings the right
petitioner is deemed to have waived objections Petitioner’s Claims to due process and the equal protection of the laws.
which are grounds for a motion to quash. Besides, -nothing is contained in said EOs which legalizes the Reasoning
the grounds relied upon by petitioner in his Motion to possession of firearms and ammunition without a 1. It may be true that there is nothing in EO Nos. 107
Acquit are not among the grounds provided in Sec. 2, permit; and 222 that expressly legalizes the unlicensed
Rule 117 of the Rules of Court for quashing a -that said EOs merely authorized holders or possession of firearms and ammunition, but this
complaint or information. Consequently, the lower possessors of unlicensed firearms and ammunition to Court, applying statutes similar to the executive
court did not err in denying petitioner's Motion to surrender the same within a specified filing period orders in question, and which also provided for a
Acquit. without incurring criminal liability; period within which a holder or possessor of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 101 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

unlicensed firearms and ammunition may surrender and replaced as collector of customs. Office of State
the same to the proper authorities without incurring LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE Prosecutors sustained filing of information against
criminal liability, had ruled that a criminal liability Layosa.
[supra, page 41]
was temporarily LIFTED for mere possession' of - Layosa did not submit memorandum. Respondent
unlicensed firearms and ammunition during the fiscal alleged that petitioner had abandoned
period covered, although such person is not exempt LAYOSA v RODRIGUEZ contention as to lack of jurisdiction. Fiscal stressed
from criminal liability filing within the period 86 SCRA 300 that case had been scheduled for trial at instance of
provided, he carries the firearm and ammunition AQUINO; November 10, 1978 petitioner and that latter manifested his willingness
(unless it is for the purpose of surrendering the to proceed.
same) or he commits any other offense with the use NATURE
of such unlicensed firearm and ammunition. Certiorari from order of CA ISSUE
-People vs. Lopez~ It will be seen that sec 2 (of RA WON trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion
NO 4) excluded from the operation of sec 1 up to FACTS in ordering suspension
August 31, 1946, possession of firearms and - This is about suspension of Layosa, collector of
ammunition so long as they were not used for any customs, who was charged by city fiscal in CFI w/ HELD
purpose other than self-defense or carried for any having violated AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Law NO
purpose other than of surrendering them to the (Republic Act No. 3019). Information was based on - Lower court acquired jurisdiction upon filing of
proper authorities. The Government does not dispute complaint filed by assistant director of District Anti- information. Petitioner was notified of pre-
this interpretation. Although the law does not Smuggling Action Center. It was one of 5 cases filed suspension hearing. His counsel participated.
categorically state that criminal liability was against Layosa, aside from malversation case. Requirements of due process were observed. Public
temporarily lifted for mere possession of filing - Gravamen is that he demanded and received from interest demands a speedy determination of that
firegems and ammunition, that is the only M/V Lady Angelita I 2 to 3 cases of beer & soft drinks question.
construction compatible with the spirit and purposes as consideration for giving preferential berthing - It is true that petitioner was not yet arrested or
of the enactment as revealed by its context. facilities. taken into custody when pre-suspension hearing was
-People vs. Feliciano~ SC ruled that RA No. 482 - Fiscal, pursuant to sec 13 of RA No. 3019, filed held. However, voluntary appearance through
legalized mere unlicensed possession of firearms and motion for Layosa's suspension. Respondent Judge counsel was submission to lower court's jurisdiction.
ammunition for the limited period specified in said granted motion. He found that a valid information (Note that in civil cases, defendant's voluntary
law, and punished only (1) the use of unlicensed had been filed against Layosa. appearance is equivalent to service of summons.)
firearm or ammunition, or (2) the carrying of such - Layosa filed instant petition for certiorari. He - "Where a court has jurisdiction of the offense or
firearm or ammunition on the person, except to prayed that suspension be set aside. He contended subject matter, the objection that it has no
surrender them. The Court said: that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his jurisdiction of the person of the accused may be
-Feliciano ruling was reiterated in People vs. person because no warrant of arrest had as yet been waived. One who desires to object to the jurisdiction
Tabunares: RA No. 482, in effect legalized mere issued when hearing on his suspension was held and of the court over his person must appear in court for
unlicensed on within one year from said date, and the case was not raffled to respondent Judge, that that purpose only, and if he raises other questions,
punished only (1) the use of a or ammunition or (2) the Chief State Prosecutor in a telegram to the fiscal he waives the objection." Layosa waived the
the carriage thereof on the person except for directed that the record of the case be elevated for objection based on lack of jurisdiction over his person
purpose of surrender. Appellant's conviction cannot review, and that respondent Judge gravely abused when, as already noted, he appeared at the pre-
stand, since it is rested solely on unlicensed his discretion. suspension hearing and his counsel cross-examined
possession on or about November 6, 1950. - Because Layosa defied suspension, lower court the prosecution witness.
2. People vs. Lopez~ the Court already ruled that, adjudged him in contempt of court and penalized him
under RA No. 4, the use or the carrying of firearms by imprisonment for 3 mos and fine of P500. Layosa PEOPLE v CITY COURT OF MANILA
and/or ammunition was an ingredient, if not the sole appealed to CA. 121 SCRA 637
ingredient, of the offense; i.e. the very acts which - Respondent Judge explained that, to avoid delay, he
were punished, subject to certain conditions, and RELOVA; April 27, 1983
acted on motion for suspension because case was
hence, should be alleged and proved. filed after raffling between 2 branches of court had
-People vs. Austria~ the Court also ruled that in order been terminated. He was scheduled to hold sessions NATURE
that an information charging illegal possession of and the other Judge was to begin one-month Petition to review the order of the City Court of
firearm and ammunition, under RA No. 482, may be vacation. Judge pointed out that his action was Manila, Branch XI
deemed suffident, it must allege that the accused sanctioned by Administrative Order No. 6 of SC which
was using the unlicensed firearm or carrying it in his empowers Executive Judge to act on interlocutory FACTS
person at the time he was apprehended by the matters prior to raffling. - October 17, 1971: The incident occurred.
authorities with said firearm. Case was eventually raffled to sala of respondent - October 18, 1971: An information for serious
Dispositive Petition is DENIED. Judge. Layosa posted bail bond. He was arraigned physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 102 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

against Francisco Gapay y Mallares, driver of the after the accident and the arrest of the respondent a military viewpoint, it was technically impossible to
truck. On the same day, the victim Diolito de la Cruz Gapay" and that on October 20, 1972, the accused get inside such a cordon." The military investigators
died. was arraigned, pleaded guilty and sentenced reported within a span of three hours that the man
- October 20, 1972: Gapay was arraigned on the accordingly. Thus, jeopardy had attached and no new who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed
charge of serious physical injuries thru reckless fact supervened after the arraignment and conviction to be unknown and was revealed only days later as
imprudence. He pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 1 of the accused. Rolando Galman, although he was the personal
month and 1 day of arresto mayor, and commenced Dispositive Order of dismissal of lower court friend of accused Col. Arturo Custodio who picked
serving sentence. affirmed. him up from his house on August 17, 1983) was a
- October 24, 1972: An information for homicide thru communist-hired gunman, and that the military
reckless imprudence was filed against Gapay SEPARATE OPINION escorts gunned him down in turn.
- November 17, 1972: the City Court of Manila, upon - Marcos was constrained to create a Fact Finding
motion of private respondent, issued an order Board to investigate. Both majority and minority
GUTIERREZ [concurring]
dismissing the homicide thru reckless imprudence reports were one in rejecting the military version as
- Knowing the volume of the caseload in the City
case on the ground of double jeopardy. propounded by the chief investigator, respondent
Court of Manila and the inevitably slow pace of work,
Gen. Olivas, that Rolando Galman was the NPA-hired
it is most surprising that the accused could have
ISSUES assassin, stating that "the evidence shows [to the
been arraigned for the charge of serious physical
WON a person who has been prosecuted for serious contrary] that Rolando Galman had no subversive
injuries only 3 days after the incident, 2 days after
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and affiliations." They were in agreement that "only the
the filing of the information and the death of the
convicted thereof may be prosecuted subsequently soldiers in the staircase with Sen. Aquino could have
victim. The accused does not appear to have been a
for homicide thru reckless imprudence if the shot him;" that Galman, the military's "fall guy" was
detention prisoner necessitating his immediate
offended party dies as a result of the same injuries "not the assassin of Sen. Aquino" and that "the SWAT
arraignment right after the filing of the information.
he had suffered troopers who gunned down Galman and the soldiers
The only sensible conclusion is that the accused was
who escorted Sen. Aquino down the service stairs,
hastily made to plead guilty to serious physical
HELD deliberately and in conspiracy with one another,
injuries to foreclose a charge for homicide even
NO gave a perjured story to us regarding the alleged
before it could be filed. In such a case, there would
Ratio One who has been charged with an offense shooting by Galman of Sen. Aquino and the mowing
be a trifling with the processes of justice and a
cannot be charged again with the same or identical down, in turn, of Galman himself;" in short, that
collusive effort amounting to fraud or deceit to
offense though the latter be lesser or greater than Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military
deprive the State of its authority to prosecute an
the former. However, where after the first conspiracy, not a communist plot. The only
accused for the correct offense.
prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the difference between the two reports is that the
- However, records are inadequate to show that the
defendant is responsible, which changes the majority report found all the 26 private respondents
arraignment, while hasty and surrounded by
character of the offense and, together with the facts headed by then AFP Chief General Fabian Ver
seemingly suspicious circumstances, was tainted by
existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct involved in the military conspiracy while the
fraud, collusion, or other form of chicanery sufficient
offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second chairman's minority report would exclude 19 of them
to sustain a finding that the State was denied due
jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. and limit as plotters "the 6 persons who were on the
process
Reasoning service stairs while Senator Aquino was descending"
- At any rate, I concur in the affirmance of the order
- Respondent court held that above rule does not and "General Luther Custodio because the criminal
of dismissal in line with the many protections that
apply in this case. It based its decision on the ruling plot could not have been planned and implemented
the Constitution and the laws give to the accused in
in People v Buan, which held that Article 365 of the without his intervention."
criminal prosecutions.
Penal Code punishes the negligent state of mind and - As the accused were tried in the Sandiganbayan,
not the resulting injury. The trial court concluded that Marcos through all his recorded public acts and
once prosecuted for and convicted of negligence, the GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN statements from the beginning disdained and
accused cannot again be prosecuted for the same 144 SCRA 43 rejected his own Board's findings and insisted on the
negligence although for a different resulting injury. TEEHANKEE; September 12, 1986 military version of Galman being Ninoy's assassin.
- In his memorandum, the Solicitor General made [Note: His private acts in trying to control the
mention of the fact that on October 21, 1972, the FACTS outcome of the case were to be known much later
City Fiscal filed an Urgent Motion asking that the - Ninoy Aquino was cold-bloodedly killed while under after he was already deposed.]
"hearing and arraignment of this case be held in escort from his plane that had just landed at the - Saturnina Galman and Reynaldo Galman, mother
abeyance for there is information that the victim, Manila International Airport on August 21, 1983. His and son, respectively, of the late Rolando Galman,
Diolito dela Cruz died, and the information would brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into and 29 other petitioners, composed of three former
have to be amended." the back of his head by a murderous assassin, Justices of this Court, five incumbent and former
- Be that as it may, the fact remains that the victim notwithstanding that the airport was ringed by university presidents, a former AFP Chief of Staff,
Diolito dela Cruz died on October 18 "one (1) day airtight security of close to 2,000 soldiers and "from outstanding members of the Philippine Bar and solid
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 103 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

citizens of the community, filed the present action Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the remedy is a direct action to annul the judgment
alleging that respondents Tanodbayan and accused of the crime charged, declaring them where the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff to
Sandiganbayan committed serious irregularities innocent and totally absolving them of any civil establish by clear, competent and convincing
constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of liability. [Note: the word used by the Sandiganbayan evidence the cause of the nullity.
justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights was “innocent” instead of “not guilty”!] - The Supreme Court appointed a three-member
of the petitioners and the sovereign people of the - Respondents submitted that with the commission composed of retired SC Justice Conrado
Philippines to due process of law. They asserted that Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal, the instant case Vasquez, chairman, and retired IAC Justices Milagros
the Tanodbayan did not represent the interest of the had become moot and academic. On February 4, German and Eduardo Caguioa as members, to hear
people when he failed to exert genuine and earnest 1986, the same Court majority denied petitioners' and receive evidence, testimonial and documentary,
efforts to present vital and important testimonial and motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. [Note of the charges of collusion and pressures and
documentary evidence for the prosecution and that that EDSA I happened before the month ended.] relevant matters, upon prior notice to all parties, and
the Sandiganbayan Justices were biased, prejudiced - On March 20, 1986, petitioners filed their motion to to submit their findings to this Court for proper
and partial in favor of the accused, and that their admit their second motion for reconsideration. disposition. The Commission submitted the following
acts "clouded with the gravest doubts the sincerity of The thrust of the second motion for reconsideration recommendation: “Considering the existence of
government to find out the truth about the Aquino was the startling and therefore unknown revelations adequate credible evidence showing that the
assassination." Petitioners prayed for the immediate of Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera as reported in prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the
issuance of a temporary restraining order restraining the March 6, 1986 issue of the Manila Times entitled Justices who tried and decided the same acted under
the respondent Sandiganbayan from rendering a "Aquino Trial a Sham," that the then President had the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be
decision on the merits in the pending criminal cases ordered the respondents Sandiganbayan and beyond their capacity to resist, and which not only
which it had scheduled on November 20, 1985 and Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez and the prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its
that judgment be rendered declaring a mistrial and prosecution panel headed by Herrera to whitewash position and to offer all the evidences which it could
nullifying the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan the criminal cases against the 26 respondents have otherwise presented, but also predetermined
and ordering a re-trial before an impartial tribunal by accused and produce a verdict of acquittal. the final outcome of the case, the Commission is of
an unbiased prosecutor. - Tanodbayan Fernandez claimed he never the considered thinking and belief, subject to the
- The Supreme Court resolved by nine-to-two votes to succumbed to any alleged attempts to influence his better opinion and judgment of this Honorable Court,
issue the restraining order prayed for. But ten days actuations in the premises, having instead that the proceedings in the said case have been
later on November 28, 1985, the Court by the same successfully resisted perceived attempts to exert vitiated by lack of due process, and hereby
nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse, resolved to dismiss pressure to drop the case after preliminary respectfully recommends that the prayer in the
the petition and to lift the temporary restraining investigation and actually ordered the filing and petition for a declaration of a mistrial in
order issued ten days earlier enjoining the prosecution of the two murder cases against private- Sandiganbayan Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 entitled
Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. party respondents. Respondents Justices of the 'People vs. Luther Custodio, et al.,' be granted."
[Hmmm… tsk] Sandiganbayan First Division in their collective
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, comment of April 9, 1986 stated that the trial of the ISSUES
alleging that the dismissal did not indicate the legal criminal cases by them was valid and regular and 1. WON the petition for a declaration of a mistrial in
ground for such action and urging that the case be decided on the basis of evidence presented and the Sandiganbayan Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 entitled
set for a full hearing on the merits because if the law applicable, but manifested that "if it is true that 'People vs. Luther Custodio, et al.,' be granted
charge of partiality and bias against the respondents the former Tanodbayan and the Deputy Tanodbayan, 2. WON a retrial would constitute double jeopardy
and suppression of vital evidence by the prosecution Chief of the Prosecution Panel, were pressured into
are proven, the petitioners would be entitled to the suppressing vital evidence which would probably HELD
relief demanded: The People are entitled to due alter the result of the trial, Answering Respondents 1. YES
process which requires an impartial tribunal and an would not interpose any objection to the reopening Reasoning
unbiased prosecutor. If the State is deprived of a fair of those cases, if only to allow justice to take its - The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial
opportunity to prosecute and convict because certain course." and verdict and travesty of justice to stand
material evidence is suppressed by the prosecution - Respondents-accused opposed the second motion unrectified. The courts of the land under its aegis are
and the tribunal is not impartial, then the entire for reconsideration and prayed for its denial. The courts of law and justice and equity. They would
proceedings would be null and void. Petitioners accused-respondents raised the issue of double have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be
prayed that the Sandiganbayan be restrained from jeopardy, and invoked that the issues had become used as mere tools of injustice, deception and
promulgating their decision as scheduled anew on moot and academic because of the rendition of the duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth, instead
December 2, 1985. Sandiganbayan's judgment of acquittal of all of repositories of judicial power whose judges are
- On December 5, 1985, the Court required the respondents-accused on December 2, 1985, with sworn and committed to render impartial justice to
respondents to comment on the motion for counsels for respondents Ver and Tigas, as well as all alike who seek the enforcement or protection of a
reconsideration but issued no restraining order. Thus, Olivas, further arguing that assuming that the right or the prevention or redress of a wrong, without
on December 2, 1985, as scheduled, respondent judgment of acquittal is void for any reason, the fear or favor and removed from the pressures of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 104 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

politics and prejudice. More so, in the case at bar total absolution as innocent of all the respondents- thereof, judgment is hereby rendered nullifying the
where the people and the world are entitled to know accused. Notwithstanding the laudable efforts of proceedings in respondent Sandiganbayan and its
the truth and the integrity of our judicial system is at Justice Herrera which saw him near the end judgment of acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010
stake. In life, as an accused before the military "deactivating" himself from the case, as it was his and 10011 entitled "People of the Philippines vs.
tribunal Ninoy had pleaded in vain that as a civilian belief that its eventual resolution was already a Gen. Luther Custodio, et al." and ordering a re-trial of
he was entitled to due process of law and trial in the foregone conclusion, they could not cope with the the said cases which should be conducted with
regular civil courts before an impartial court with an misuse and abuse of the overwhelming powers of the deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for the
unbiased prosecutor. In death, Ninoy is the victim of authoritarian President to weaken the case of the requirements of due process, so that the truth may
the "treacherous and vicious assassination" and the prosecution, to suppress its evidence, harass, be finally known and justice done to all.
relatives and sovereign people as the aggrieved intimidate and threaten its witnesses, secure their
parties plead once more for due process of law and a recantation or prevent them from testifying. Fully PEOPLE V. RELOVA
retrial before an impartial court with an unbiased aware of the prosecution's difficulties in locating
148 SCRA 292
prosecutor. The Court is constrained to declare the witnesses and overcoming their natural fear and
sham trial a mock trial - the non-trial of the century - reluctance to appear and testify, respondent FELICIANO; March 6, 1987
and that the predetermined judgment of acquittal Sandiganbayan maintained a "dizzying tempo" of the NATURE
was unlawful and void ab initio. proceedings and announced its intention to Petition for certiorari and mandamus, the People
2. NO terminate the proceedings in about 6 months time or seek to set aside the orders of the respondent Judge
Ratio Double jeopardy cannot be invoked against less than a year, pursuant to the scripted scenario. of the CFI of Batangas in a criminal case, quashing an
this Court's setting aside of the trial courts' judgment The prosecution complained of "the Presiding information for theft filed against private respondent
of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which Justice's seemingly hostile attitude towards (it)" and Manuel Opulencia on the ground of double jeopardy
represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is their being the subject of warnings, reprimand and and denying the petitioner's motion for
denied due process. Where the prosecution is contempt proceedings as compared to the nil reconsideration.
deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove situation for the defense. Herrera likewise FACTS
its case, its right to due process is thereby violated. complained of being "cajoled into producing - CIRCUMSTANCES: On 1 February 1975, members of
The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation witnesses and pressed on making assurances that if the Batangas City Police together with personnel of
of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of given a certain period, they will be able to produce the Batangas Electric Light System, equipped with a
their jurisdiction. Thus, the violation of the State's their witnesses," Herrera pleaded for "a reasonable search warrant issued by a city judge of Batangas
right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional period of preparation of its evidence" and cited other City, searched and examined the premises of the
issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at pending cases before respondent court that were Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold Storage owned
will. Where the denial of the fundamental right of due pending trial for a much longer time where the and operated by the private respondent Manuel
process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard "dizzying tempo" and "fast pace" were not Opulencia. The police discovered that electric wiring,
of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction. maintained by the court. Manifestly, the prosecution devices and contraptions had been installed, without
Reasoning and the sovereign people were denied due process of the necessary authority from the city government,
- Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid law with a partial court and biased Tanodbayan and "architecturally concealed inside the walls of the
indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after under the constant and pervasive monitoring and building" owned by the private respondent. These
arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; pressure exerted by the authoritarian President to electric devices and contraptions were, in the
and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise assure the carrying out of his instructions. A dictated, allegation of the petitioner "designed purposely to
terminated without the express consent of the coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal such as that lower or decrease the readings of electric current
accused. The lower court was not competent as it in the case at bar is a void judgment. In legal consumption in the electric meter of the said electric
was ousted of its jurisdiction when it violated the contemplation, it is no judgment at all. It neither [ice and cold storage] plant." During the subsequent
right of the prosecution to due process. In effect, the binds nor bars anyone. Such a judgment is "a lawless investigation, Manuel Opulencia admitted in a written
first jeopardy was never terminated, and the remand thing which can be treated as an outlaw". It is a statement that he had caused the installation of the
of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial terrible and unspeakable affront to the society and electrical devices "in order to lower or decrease the
before the lower courts amounts merely to a the people. To paraphrase Brandeis: If the readings of his electric meter.
continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not authoritarian head of the government becomes the - CASE: On 24 November 1975, an information
expose the accused to a second jeopardy. lawbreaker, he breeds contempt for the law, he against Manuel Opulencia for violation of Ordinance
- More so does the rule against the invoking of invites every man to become a law unto himself, he No. 1, Series of 1974, Batangas City. Manuel
double jeopardy hold in the cases at bar where as we invites anarchy. Opulencia pleaded not guilty. On 2 February 1976,
have held, the sham trial was but a mock trial where Dispositive Petitioners' second motion for he filed a motion to dismiss the information upon
the authoritarian president ordered respondents reconsideration is granted. The resolutions of the grounds that the crime there charged had
Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and November 28, 1985 dismissing the petition and of already prescribed and that the civil indemnity there
closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure February 4, 1986 denying petitioners' motion for sought to be recovered was beyond the jurisdiction
the predetermined final outcome of acquittal and reconsideration are hereby set aside and in lieu of the Batangas City Court to award. Batangas City
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 105 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of where the second prosecution is for an offense that Petition for certiorari and mandamus is DENIED. Let
prescription, it appearing that the offense charged is different from the offense charged in the first or the civil action for related civil liability be remanded
was a light felony which prescribes two months from prior prosecution, although both the first and second to the CFI of Batangas City for further proceedings.
the time of discovery thereof, and it appearing offenses may be based upon the same act or set of
further that the information was filed by the fiscal acts. The second sentence of Article IV (22) PEOPLE v GROSPE
more than nine months after discovery of the offense embodies an exception to the general
charged in February 1975. proposition: the constitutional protection, against [supra, page 43]
- Fourteen (14) days later, another information double jeopardy is available although the prior
against Manuel Opulencia, this time for theft of offense charged under an ordinance be different CANIZA v PEOPLE (AGLORO)
electric power under Article 308 in relation to from the offense charged subsequently under a 159 SCRA 16
Article 309, paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal national statute such as the Revised Penal Code, FELICIANO; March 18, 1988
Code. Before he could be arraigned thereon, Manuel provided that both offenses spring from the same act
Opulencia filed a Motion to Quash, alleging that or set of acts. NATURE
he had been previously acquitted of the Put a little differently, where the offenses Petition for Prohibition and certiorari directed at 1)
offense charged in the second information and charged are penalized either by different the CFI Order of Nov. 27, 1979 issued by Branch 23
that the filing thereof was violative of his sections of the same statute or by different of CFI of Manila in Criminal Case 46768 and 2) said
constitutional right against double jeopardy. statutes, the important inquiry relates to the court’s Order of March 20, 1980 in the same case
-Respondent Judge granted the accused's Motion to identity of offenses charged: the constitutional denying Caniza’s Motion for Reconsideration
Quash and ordered the case dismissed. An MOR was protection against double jeopardy is available only
denied. where an Identity is shown to exist between the FACTS
- On 1 December 1976, the present Petition for earlier and the subsequent offenses charged. In - March 20, 1974: Assistant City Fiscal of Manila filed
certiorari and mandamus was filed in this Court by contrast, where one offense is charged under a an Information for falsification of public documents
the Acting City Fiscal of Batangas City on behalf of municipal ordinance while the other is allegedly committed on Nov. 5, 1968 by Caniza.
the People. penalized by a statute, the critical inquiry is to - May 24, 1974: Caniza filed Motion to Quash saying
ISSUE the identity of the acts which the accused is said that allegations in the information did not constitute
WON the defense of double jeopardy applies in this to have committed and which are alleged to have an offense, and that the information contained
case. (Yes) given rise to the two offenses: the constitutional averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
HELD protection against double jeopardy is available so excuse or justification
RATIO: Where one offense is charged under a long as the acts which constitute or have given rise - trial court granted Motion to Quash, dismissed case
municipal ordinance while the other is to the first offense under a municipal ordinance are against Caniza
penalized by a statute, the critical inquiry is to the same acts which constitute or have given rise to - Fiscal’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Order
the identity of the acts which the accused is said the offense charged under a statute. was denied
to have committed and which are alleged to have The question of Identity or lack of Identity of offenses - June 13, 1979: a second Information (docketed as
given rise to the two offenses: the constitutional is addressed by examining the essential elements of Criminal Case 46768) was filed charging Caniza with
protection against double jeopardy is available so each of the two offenses charged, as such elements substantially the same offense as that charged under
long as the acts which constitute or have given rise are set out in the respective legislative definitions of the previous information
to the first offense under a municipal ordinance are the offenses involved. The question of Identity of the - Caniza moved to quash this second information on
the same acts which constitute or have given rise to acts which are claimed to have generated liability the grounds that 1) the offense charged had already
the offense charged under a statute. both under a municipal ordinance and a national prescribed, 2)quashal of the first Information had
REASONING: Constitutional provision on double statute must be addressed, in the first instance, by been on the merits, 3)the allegations of the second
jeopardy reads: examining the location of such acts in time and Information did not constitute and offense
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of space. When the acts of the accused as set out in the - Respondent judge issued an order denying the
punishment for the same offense. If an act is two informations are so related to each other in time motion to quash
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or and space as to be reasonably regarded as having - He also denied Caniza’s motion for reconsideration
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to taken place on the same occasion and where those
another prosecution for the same act. (Article IV acts have been moved by one and the same, or a ISSUES
(22), 1973 Constitution) continuing, intent or voluntary design or negligence, 1. WON the offense charged had already prescribed
This case must be examined, not under the terms of such acts may be appropriately characterized as an 2. WON the filing of the second Information has
the first sentence of Article IV (22) of the 1973 integral whole capable of giving rise to penal liability placed the accused in jeopardy of punishment for the
Constitution, but rather under the second sentence simultaneously under different legal enactments (a same offense a second time
of the same section. The first sentence of Article IV municipal ordinance and a national statute).
(22) sets forth the general rule: the constitutional HELD
protection against double jeopardy is not available DISPOSITION 1. NO
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 106 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Reasoning constitutional right against double jeopardy for the - During the trial for the estafa case, Atty. Rodriguez
- 5 years, 4 months, and 16 days had elapsed reason that he effectively prevents the trial court Dadivas, counsel for the accused Devera and
between November 5, 1968 (the date of commission from proceeding to trial on the merits and rendering Machado, orally moved for the inhibition of the
of the alleged offense) and March 20 1974 (date of a judgment of conviction against him presiding Judge Suplico on the ground that he had
filing the first information); 4 years, 2 months and 12 - Application of the aforestated doctrine of waiver, some doubts as to the impartiality of the judge
days had elapsed between April 3, 1975 (date of however, is subject to two (2) sine qua non against whom he and some nineteen (19) other
denial by the trial court of the Fiscal’s motion for conditions: first, dismissal must have been sought or practicing lawyers had filed serious administrative
reconsideration) and June 13, 1979 (date of filing of induced by the defendant, either personally or charges with the President of the Philippines, the
the second information). A total of 9 years, 6 months through counsel; and second, such dismissal must Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Minister
and 28 days had been consumed by the time the not have been on the merits and must not of Justice. Following Atty. Dadivas, Atty. Roberto
second Information was filed in court. necessarily amount to an acquittal. In this respect, Barrios, former private prosecutor, also moved for
- Under Article 90, in relation with Article 172 of the the record shows that petitioner Cañiza moved to the inhibition of the judge for the same reason
Revised Penal Code, the crime of falsification of quash the first Information (Criminal Case No. 16879) alleged by Atty. Dadivas. The presiding judge,
public document committed by a private individual - on grounds that the allegations made therein did not however, ruled Attys. Dadivas and Barrios out of
the offense with which petitioner Cañiza is presently constitute an offense and/or that the first Information order and asked the City Fiscal to present the
charged - prescribes in ten (10) years. In this respect, contained allegations which, if true, constituted a evidence for the prosecution. Thereupon, the City
Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code states further: legal excuse or justification. These grounds, upon Fiscal manifested that he was authorizing the private
- Computation of prescription of offenses. � The which the trial court anchored its 27 November 1974 prosecutor to actively handle the prosecution of the
period of prescription shall commence to run from Order of dismissal, are clearly directed at the case. Atty. Roberto Barrios, however, insisted that
the day on which the crime is discovered by the sufficiency of said information to sustain the the presiding judge should first rule on their previous
offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and conviction of petitioner Caniza and, hence, indicate motion for inhibition. Instead of resolving the motion
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or the absence of the first requisite in double-jeopardy. for inhibition, the presiding judge asked the
information, and shall commence to run again when Furthermore, and more importantly, dismissal of a comments of Atty. Lorenzo E. Coloso, counsel for the
such proceedings terminate without the accused criminal action on this basis is not properly accused Bernabe Que and Amelia Que, and Atty.
being convicted or acquitted, or are justifiably considered as amounting to an acquittal on the Alberto Villarruz, counsel for the accused Paz L.
stopped for any reason not imputable to him. merits; from a legal standpoint, the defendant is Martelino, who both invoked the constitutional right
2. NO deemed as not having been charged with the of their clients to a speedy trial. The presiding judge
Reasoning commission of any offense whatsoever under the asked again the prosecution to present its evidence
- Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court 6 lists deficient information. Consequently, petitioner but the private prosecutor insisted that a ruling be
the following requisites in order that the defense of Cañizas plea of second jeopardy cannot be made by the presiding judge with regard to the
double jeopardy may be successfully invoked by an sustained: he effectively waived his right to assert pending motion for inhibition. As a result, the
accused person: that plea when he moved to quash the first presiding judge issued the order dated November 10,
a. a valid Complaint or Information or other formal Information filed against him. 1986 dismissing this case.
charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a Dispositive Petition for Prohibition and certiorari is - On November 21, 1986, the prosecution filed a
conviction; DISMISSED. The 8 December 1980 Resolution of this motion for reconsideration from the order of
b. a Court of competent jurisdiction; Court giving due course to the Petition is withdrawn dismissal. This was opposed by the defense.
c. that the accused had pleaded to the charge and the disputed Orders dated 27 November 1979 - In the meantime, the case was re-raffled to Judge
against him; and 20 March 1980 issued by respondent judge in Rodrigo Cosico. Judge Cosico in an order dated May
d. that the accused had been convicted, or acquitted, Criminal Case No. 46768 are hereby AFFIRMED. This 22, 1987, granted the prosecution's motion for
or the case against him dismissed or otherwise case is remanded to the court a quo for trial on the reconsideration and caused the case to be reopened.
terminated without his express consent; and merits. The subsequent motion for reconsideration flied by
e. that the second offense charged is the same as the defense was denied in an order dated November
the first, or an attempt to commit the same or a QUE v COSICO 27, 1987.
petition thereof, or that the second offense - G.R. No. 83114 - accused Martelino filed before the
177 SCRA 410
necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the CA a petition for certiorari praying that the order of
first offense charged. GUTIERREZ, JR.; September 8, 1989 Judge Cosico reinstating the case be declared null
- Criminal Case No. 16879 was ordered dismissed by and void on the ground of double jeopardy. CA found
the trial court with the express consent of the FACTS merit in the petition and set aside Judge Cosico's
accused � i.e., upon Motion to Quash filed by - Petitioners in G.R. No. 81861 and private order as "it amounts to double jeopardy on the part
petitioner Cañiza. Generally, a dismissal under such respondent in G.R. No. 83114 all stand as the of the petitioner." The decision of the appellate court
circumstance win not bar another prosecution for the accused in Criminal Case No. C-2152 for estafa thru is based on precedents which discuss the failure of
same offense; the defendant, in having the case falsification of commercial documents which case the prosecution to appear for trial, produce its
against him dismissed, thereby waives his was dismissed but subsequently reinstated. witnesses, or present its evidence.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 107 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- G.R. No. 81861 - the accused Bernabe Que and appears that Atty. Lorenzo Coloso also asked for at with the complex crime of estafa through falsification
Amelia Que filed a petition for certiorari directly with least two (2) postponements. In invoking the right of of two checks of the Philippine National Bank and
this court seeking to declare Judge Cosico's orders the accused to speedy trial, Atty. Coloso is not were found guilty. Sentence for each of the three
dated May 22, 1987 and November 27, 1987 as null therefore coming to this court with clean hands. defendants to suffer in each case a penalty of not
and void and to prohibit respondent from further Considering the two (2) postponements requested by less than 6 years and 1 day and not more than 9
proceeding with the criminal case. Atty. Coloso, the accused in effect waived their right years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, to pay a
to speedy trial." fine of P2,500 and the costs. In addition, they were
ISSUE Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition docketed as sentenced to indemnify the Philip-pine Ryukyus
WON the reinstatement of the criminal case placed G.R. 81861 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Command, the payee of the checks, in the sum of
the accused in double jeopardy. The petition docketed as G. R. No. 83114 is GRANTED P5,417.11 in each of the two cases
and the questioned orders of Judge Cosico dated May - On appeal before the CA, Cruz and Vergara were
HELD 22, 1987 and November 27, 1978 are AFFIRMED. The given reduced penalties. Smason was only found
Ratio the requisites that must concur for legal decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 22, 1988 guilty of committing the crime through gross
jeopardy to attach are, to wit: 1) a valid complaint or is SET ASIDE. imprudence and was accordingly sentenced to 4
information; 2) a court of competent jurisdiction; 3) months of arresto mayor in each of the two cases.
the accused has pleaded to the charge and 4) the SAMSON v CA
accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case ISSUES
103 PHIL 277
dismissed or terminated without the express consent 1. WON the acts done by him, as found by the Court
of the accused. BAUTISTA ANGELO; MARCH 31, 1958 of Appeals constitute gross imprudence
Reasoning The fourth requisite is lacking in the 2. WON he was correctly found guilty of the offense
instant case. The case was dismissed upon motion NATURE estafa through (falsification by) negligence
and with the express consent of the accused. The Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the
accused Bernabe Que, Amelia Que and Paz Martelino Court of Appeals HELD
invoked their constitutional right to a speedy trial 1. YES
when the prosecution refused to present evidence FACTS - Appellant was, or must have been aware that the
until the court had ruled on the motion for inhibition. - On October 2, 1948 Amado L. Cruz asked the help claim was for a sizeable amount, totalling over
It was on their oral motion that the lower court of his former classmate Rufino T. Samson in getting twelve thousand pesos, and ordinary prudence
ordered the case to be dismissed. the checks of the two claimants who were with him required that he should satisfy himself by all proper
There were no oppressive delays on the part of the at Camp Murphy. After being assured twice of the and adequate means of the identity of the persons
prosecution. The prosecution's insistence that Judge identity of the supposed claimants and after claiming said amounts, since they we personally
Suplico rule on the motion to inhibit before further examining their residence certificates attached to unknown to him. The mere assurance of a former
proceedings in the case was not dilatory. There is no the claim papers, Samson accompanied by Cruz and class, mate would certainly not be a satisfactory
reason apparent from the records why Suplico should the supposed claimants went to talk to Lt. Manuel identification to justify disbursement of such a large
vacillate or show anger on a matter that affects the Valencia and requested him to act as guarantor to amount
subsequent course of the trial. He could have easily secure the claimants check. - appellant as a Lieutenant of the Army is sufficiently
granted or denied the motion, giving sound reasons - acting on the assurance of Samson, Valencia intelligent and educated to foresee the possibility
for his ruling. He could have required that the motion helped them secure checks in the name of Rosalinda that the certificates could be forged or stolen
be submitted formally. The subsequent behavior of Perez and Espiridion Lascano. Hese were encashed - appellant cooperated in the commission of the
the former Judge, especially his precipitate dismissal by Mallari again believing Samson. complex offense of estafa through falsification by
of the case shows that his reaction was not mere - Paras didn’t know how to write so she instead reckless imprudence by acts without which it could
impetuousness or pique. It bears the earmarks of placed her thumbmark at the back of the check while not have been accomplished, and this being a fact,
bias and prejudice. As noted by Judge Cosico in his Samson signed as witness. Lascano placed his there would be no reason to exculpate him from
order dated November 27, 1987: signature while Samson signed as last endorser. liability
... A closed scrutiny of the foregoing chronology of - they then proceeded to Aristocrat to eat lunch. Here 2. YES
facts that transpired at the Regional Trial Court does Samson received P300 supposedly to pay the officers - counsel contends that: Samson cannot be convicted
not show that the prosecution deliberately delayed who helped them and P10 for taxi money. of the crime of estafa through falsification by
the prosecution of this case nor does it appear that - two days after, Samson was informed of the imprudence for the reason that the information filed
the prosecution was unprepared to present its possibility that the people who claimed the checks against him charges only a willful act of falsification
evidence. The two (2) postponements requested by weren’t the real people who they claimed to be. This and contains no reference to any act of imprudence
the prosecution appear to be reasonable. Moreover, he was able to verify. Upon knowing of this, Samson on his part; the alleged imprudent act does not
it appears that on November 10, 1986, Mr. Angel Yu, reported the incident to an officer. include or is not necessarily included in the offense
principal witness for the prosecution, was then - Samson, Cruz and Vergara and two others whose charged in the information because a deliberate
present and ready to testify. On the other hand, it names are unknown in two separate informations
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 108 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

intent to do an unlawful act is inconsistent with the that case that while willful crimes are punished “People of the Philippines v. Panfilo Lacson, et al.”
idea of negligence. according to their result in crimes of negligence, pending before Branch 81 of the RTC of Quezon City.
- The rule regarding variance between allegation and what the law punishes is the carelessness itself, the - On May 18, 1995, then PNP Director-General
proof in a criminal case, is: "When there is variance failure to take the precautions that society has a Recaredo Sarmiento II announced, in a press
between the offense charged in the complaint or right to expect will be taken under the circumstances conference, the killing of eleven (11) members of the
information, and that proved or established by the of each case Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) in a shootout with
evidence, and the offense as charged, is included in - that intentional falsification and falsification by police elements near the fly-over along
or necessarily includes the offense proved, the negligence not only differ in seriousness, but in Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City at about 4:00
defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved essence; they are, by their nature, two different A.M. that day.
included in that which is charged, or of the offense offenses altogether. Wherefore, an offender who is - On May 22, 1995, morning papers carried the news
charged included in that which is proved" (Section 4, accused of intentional falsification cannot be held to that SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes had claimed that the
Rule 116 now rule 120. Rules of Court). answer for falsification by negligence, because the killing of the eleven (11) gang members was a “rub-
-"An offense charged necessarily includes that which essential element of the latter offense, the ingredient out” or summary execution and not a shootout.
is proved, when some of the essential elements or that characterizes it and separates it from all other - In an affidavit he executed the following day, delos
ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the offenses, to wit, the criminal negligence or Reyes stated that he was part of a composite police
complaint or information, constitute the latter. And carelessness, is not involved in the elements of the team called the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence
the offense charged is necessarily included in the crime charged. Not only is it not included: it is Task Force Group (ABRITFG) composed of elements
offense proves, when the essential ingredients of the excluded by incompatibility, because malice or intent of the National Capital Region Commandand headed
former constitute or form a part of those constituting cannot co-exist with negligence by Chief Superintendent Jewel Canson; Traffic
the latter" (Section 5, Rule 116, now rule 120) - On the procedural side, the objections to appellant's Management Command, headed by Senior
- conviction for a criminal negligent act can be had conviction of estafa by falsification through Superintendent Francisco Subia, Jr.; Presidential Anti-
under an information exclusively charging the negligence are much more serious. Crime Commission (PACC), headed by Chief
commission of a willful offense, upon the theory that Section 5, Rule 116 (now 120), upon which the Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson; Central Police
the greater includes the lesser offense majority relies as justifying the conviction, expresses District Command, headed by Chief Superintendent
- appellant did not act with criminal intent but merely the following rule: Ricardo de Leon; and Criminal Investigation
failed to take proper and adequate means to assure An offense charged necessarily includes that which Command (CIC), headed by Chief Superintendent
himself of the identity of the real claimants as an is proved, when some of the essential elements or Romeo Acop
ordinary prudent man would do. In other words, the ingredients of the former, as this alleged in the - Delos Reyes claimed that the police team arrested
information alleges acts which charge willful, complaint or information, constitute the latter. the eleven (11) gang members in early morning of
falsification but which turned out to be not willful but (Italic mine) May 18, 1995 at the gang’s safe house in Superville
negligent. This is a case covered by the rule when It is not enough, therefore, that the elements of Subdivision, Parañaque; that after their arrest, the
there is a variance between the allegation and proof the crime for which an accused is convicted should gang members were made to board two vans, their
- Moreover, Section 5, Rule 116 now 120, of the be proved, but then must also be charged or hands tied behind their backs, and brought initially to
Rules of Court does not require that all the essential alleged Camp Crame where a decision to summarily execute
elements of the offense charged in the information them was made, and later to Commonwealth Avenue
be proved, it being sufficient that some of said PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON where they were shot to death by elements of the
essential elements or ingredients thereof be Anti-Bank Roberry Intelligence Task Force Group
G.R. No. 149453
established to constitute the crime proved. This - On May 26, 1995, SPO2 Corazon dela Cruz, another
conclusion is strengthened by the provisions of RESOLUTION: May 28, 2002 CIC investigator, executed an affidavit corroborating
Section 9, Ruled 113, (I think sec 7 rule 117 na) of the material allegations of delos Reyes
the Rules of Court under which appellant could no NATURE - On May 31, 1995, Armando Capili, a reporter of
longer be prosecuted for estafa through falsification Petition for review on certiorari Remate, executed an affidavit stating that he was
of commercial documents by reckless negligence present when the KBG members were arrested in
were we to acquit him in the cases at bar on the FACTS Superville Subdivision
obviously technical theory of the dissenters - The assailed Decision of the appellate court - On June 1, 1995, Chief Superintendent Job A. Mayo,
granted respondent Lacson’s Second Amended PNP Director for Investigation, filed murder charges
Petition for Prohibition with application for the
SEPARATE OPINION with the Office of the Ombudsman against ninety-
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, (1) seven (97) officers and personnel of ABRITFG. The
assailing the Order issued by Judge Herminia next-of-kin of the slain KBG members also filed
REYES JBL [dissent] Pasamba of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, murder charges against the same officers and
- Quizon vs. Justice of the Peace of Bacolor (97 Phil., Branch 40, that allowed the continuation of the re- personnel.
342), July 28, 1955, that criminal negligence is not a investigation of the Kuratong Baleleng cases; and (2) - Ombudsman Aniano Desierto then created a panel
mere variant of the intentional misdeed; that it is a praying for the dismissal of Criminal Cases entitled of investigators to conduct a preliminary
distinct and separate in itself. We also pointed out in
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 109 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

investigation of the murder charges. On October 20, committed in relation to, or in discharge of, the to attend the investigation of said Criminal Cases
1995, the panel issued a resolution recommending official functions of the respondent, as required by R. - On May 28, 2001, respondent Lacson, et al.,
the dismissal of the charges for lack of probable A. No. 8249. invoking, among others, their constitutional right
cause. - The Criminal Cases were raffled off to Branch 81 of against double jeopardy, filed a petition for
- Ombudsman Desierto referred the resolution for the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, then prohibition with application for temporary restraining
review. On November 20, 1995, the review panel presided by Judge, now Associate Justice of the Court order and/or writ of preliminary injunction with the
reversed the resolution and found probable cause for of Appeals, Wenceslao Agnir, Jr. Regional Trial Court of Manila, primarily to enjoin the
the prosecution of multiple murder charges against - Before the accused could be arraigned, prosecution State prosecutors from conducting the preliminary
twenty-six (26) officers and personnel of ABRITFG. witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes, Corazon de la Cruz, investigation.
- On November 2, 1995, the Ombudsman filed before Armando Capili and Jane Gomez recanted their - The plea for temporary restraining order was denied
the Sandiganbayan eleven (11) Informations for affidavits which implicated respondent Lacson in the - On June 6, 2001, eleven (11) Informations for
MURDER, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 23047 to murder of the KBG members. murder involving the killing of the same members of
23057, against respondent Panfilo M. Lacson and - On the other hand, private complainants also the Kuratong Baleleng gang were filed before the
twenty-five (25) other accused. All twenty-six (26) of executed their respective affidavits of desistance Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
them were charged as principals. declaring that they were no longer interested to - The new Informations charged as principals thirty-
- Upon motion of the respondent, the criminal cases prosecute these cases. four (34) people, including respondent Lacson and
were remanded to the Ombudsman for - Due to these developments, the twenty-six (26) his twenty-five (25) other co-accused in the original
reinvestigation. On March 1, 1996, Amended accused, including respondent Lacson, filed five informations. The criminal cases were assigned to
Informations were filed against the same twenty-six separate but identical motions to: Judge Ma. Theresa L. Yadao.
(26) suspects but the participation of respondent (1) make a judicial determination of the existence - On the same day, respondent Lacson filed before
Lacson was downgraded from principal to accessory. of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari against
Arraignment then followed and respondent entered a arrest Judge Pasamba, the Secretary of Justice, the PNP
plea of not guilty. (2) hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants Chief, State Prosecutors Ong and Zacarias, 2nd
- With the downgrading of charges against him, (3) dismiss the cases should the trial court find Assistant City Prosecutor Jamolin, and the People of
respondent Lacson questioned the jurisdiction of the lack of probable cause. the Philippines. The said petition was amended to
Sandiganbayan to hear the criminal cases as none of - The records of the case before us are not clear implead as additional party-respondents State
the “principal” accused in the Amended Informations whether the private offended parties were notified of Prosecutor Claro Arellano and the RTC, Quezon City,
was a government official with a Salary Grade (SG) the hearing on March 22, 1999 held by Judge Agnir to Branch 81
27 or higher, citing Section 2 of R. A. No. 7975 then resolve the motions filed by respondent Lacson and - In the meantime, on June 8, 2001, respondent
prevailing. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan ordered the other accused. Lacson also filed with the RTC-QC Branch 81
the cases transferred to the Regional Trial Court - During the said hearing, the private offended (presided by Judge Ma. Theresa Yadao), a Motion for
- The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a motion parties who desisted do not appear to have been Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and in the
for reconsideration of the transfer. Pending resolution presented on the witness stand. In their stead, Atty. absence thereof, to dismiss the cases outright.
of the motion, R. A. No. 8249 took effect on February Godwin Valdez testified that he assisted them in Respondent Lacson, however, filed a Manifestation
23, 1997, amending R. A. No. 7975. In particular, the preparing their affidavits of desistance and that he and Motion dated June 13, 2001 seeking the
amendatory law deleted the word “principal” in signed said affidavits as witness. On the other hand, suspension of the proceedings before the trial court.
Section 2 of R. A. No. 7975, thereby expanding the Atty. Aurora Bautista of the Philippine Lawyer’s - The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to include all cases League presented the affidavits of recantation of order enjoining Judge Yadao from issuing a warrant
where at least one of the accused, whether principal, prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes, of arrest or conducting any proceeding or hearing in
accomplice or accessory, is a government official of Armando Capili and Jane Gomez. Only prosecution Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112.
Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher. The amendment is witness Corazon de la Cruz testified to affirm her - On August 24, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered
made applicable to all cases pending in any court in affidavit. the now assailed Decision. It characterized the
which trial has not yet begun as of the date of its - On March 29, 1999, Judge Agnir issued a Resolution termination of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-
approval. dismissing the Criminal Cases 99-81689 as “provisional dismissal,” and considered
- In Lacson v. Executive Secretary, respondent - On March 27, 2001, PNP Director Leandro R. Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 as
Lacson challenged the constitutionality of the Mendoza indorsed to the Department of Justice the mere revivals of the same. Applying Section 8, Rule
amendment and contended that the Sandiganbayan new affidavits of P/Insp. Ysmael S. Yu and P/S Insp. 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
had no jurisdiction over the criminal cases. This Abelardo Ramos regarding the Kuratong Baleleng it dismissed the criminal cases against the
Court, while dismissing the constitutional challenge, incident for preliminary investigation. On the respondent
nonetheless ordered the transfer of the criminal strength of this indorsement, Secretary of Justice
cases to the Regional Trial Court on the ground that Hernando B. Perez formed a panel to investigate the ISSUE
the Amended Informations for murder failed to matter. WON Section 8, Rule 117 bars the filing of the eleven
indicate that the offenses charged therein were - On April 17, 2001, the respondent was subpoenaed (11) informations against the respondent Lacson
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 110 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

involving the killing of some members of the desistance executed by the relatives of the three to justify the revival of cases beyond the 2-year bar.
Kuratong Baleleng gang. other victims. The same records do not show - In light of the lack of or the conflicting
whether they were notified of the hearing or had evidence on the various requirements to
HELD knowledge thereof. To be sure, it is not fair to expect determine the applicability of Section 8, Rule
- This rule which took effect on December 1, 2000 the element of notice to be litigated before then 117, this Court is not in a position to rule
provides: Judge Agnir for Section 8, Rule 117 was yet inexistent whether or not the re-filing of the cases for
“SEC. 8. Provisional dismissal.- A case shall not be at that time. multiple murder against respondent Lacson
provisionally dismissed except with the express - The fact of notice to the offended parties was not should be enjoined. Fundamental fairness
consent of the accused and with notice to the raised either in the petition for prohibition with requires that both the prosecution and the
offended party. application for temporary restraining order or writ of respondent Lacson should be afforded the
The provisional dismissal of offenses preliminary injunction filed by respondent Lacson in opportunity to be heard and to adduce
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) the RTC of Manila, to enjoin the prosecutors from evidence on the presence or absence of the
years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall reinvestigating the said cases against him. The only predicate facts upon which the application of
become permanent one (1) year after issuance of question raised in said petition is whether the the new rule depends. They involve disputed
the order without the case having been revived. reinvestigation will violate the right of respondent facts and arguable questions of law. The
With respect to offenses punishable by Lacson against double jeopardy. Thus, the issue of reception of evidence on these various issues
imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their whether or not the reinvestigation is barred by cannot be done in this Court but before the
provisional dismissal shall become permanent two Section 8, Rule 117 was not tackled by the litigants. trial court.
(2) years after issuance of the order without the - Nor was the fact of notice to the offended parties Dispositive Case remanded
case having been revived.” the subject of proof after the eleven (11)
- Like any other favorable procedural rule, this new informations for murder against respondent Lacson PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON
rule can be given retroactive effect. However, the and company were revived in the RTC of Quezon City
G.R. No. 149453
Court cannot rule on this issue due to the lack of presided by Judge Yadao. There was hardly any
sufficient factual bases. Thus, there is need of proof proceeding conducted in the case for respondent April 3, 2003
of the following facts: (1) whether the provisional Lacson immediately filed a petition for certiorari in
dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the the appellate court challenging, among others, the NATURE
accused; (2) whether it was ordered by the court authority of Judge Yadao to entertain the revived Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated
after notice to the offended party, (3) whether the 2- informations for multiple murder against him. May 28, 2002
year period to revive has already lapsed, and (4) - The applicability of Section 8, Rule 117 was never
whether there is any justification for the filing of the considered in the trial court. It was in the Court of FACTS
cases beyond the 2-year period. Appeals where respondent Lacson raised for the first - Respondent and his co-accused were charged with
- There is no uncertainty with respect to the fact that time the argument that Section 8, Rule 117 bars the multiple murder for the shooting and killing of eleven
the provisional dismissal of the cases against revival of the multiple murder cases against him. But male persons identified as members of the Kuratong
respondent Lacson bears his express consent. It was even then, the appellate court did not require the Baleleng Gang.
respondent Lacson himself who moved to dismiss the parties to elucidate the crucial issue of whether - The Court ruled in the Resolution sought to be
subject cases for lack of probable cause before then notices were given to the offended parties before reconsidered that the provisional dismissal of
Judge Agnir, hence, it is beyond argument that their Judge Agnir ordered the dismissal of the cases Criminal Cases against the accused were with the
dismissal bears his express consent. against respondent Lacson and company. express consent of the respondent as he himself
- The records of the case, however, do not reveal - Indeed, the records of this case are inconclusive on moved for said provisional dismissal when he filed
with equal clarity and conclusiveness whether the factual issue of whether the multiple murder his motion for judicial determination of probable
notices to the offended parties were given before the cases against respondent Lacson are being revived cause and for examination of witnesses. The Court
cases against the respondent Lacson were dismissed within or beyond the 2-year bar. The reckoning date also held therein that although Section 8, Rule 117 of
by then Judge Agnir. It appears from the resolution of of the 2-year bar has to be first determined - - - the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure could be
then Judge Agnir that the relatives of the victims who whether it is from the date of the Order of then Judge given retroactive effect, there is still a need to
desisted did not appear during the hearing to affirm Agnir dismissing the cases or from the dates the determine whether the requirements for its
their affidavits. Their affidavits of desistance were Order were received by the various offended parties application are attendant. The trial court was thus
only presented by Atty. Godwin Valdez who testified or from the date of the effectivity of the new rule. directed to resolve the following:
that he assisted the private complainants in - If the cases were revived only after the 2-year bar, ... (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the
preparing their affidavits and he signed them as a the State must be given the opportunity to justify its cases had the express consent of the accused; (2)
witness. It also appears that only seven (7) persons failure to comply with said timeline. The new rule whether it was ordered by the court after notice to
submitted their affidavits of desistance. From the fixes a timeline to penalize the State for its the offended party; (3) whether the 2-year period
records of the case before us, it cannot be inexcusable delay in prosecuting cases already filed to revive it has already lapsed; (4) whether there is
determined whether there were affidavits of in courts. It can therefore present compelling reasons any justification for the filing of the cases beyond
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 111 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the 2-year period; (5) whether notices to the and not retroactively against the State. To apply the for the same offense or for an offense necessarily
offended parties were given before the cases of time limit retroactively to the criminal cases against included therein. Although the second paragraph of
respondent Lacson were dismissed by then Judge the respondent and his co-accused would violate the the new rule states that the order of dismissal shall
Agnir; (6) whether there were affidavits of right of the People to due process, and unduly become permanent one year after the issuance
desistance executed by the relatives of the three impair, reduce, and diminish the State’s substantive thereof without the case having been revived, the
(3) other victims; (7) whether the multiple murder right to prosecute the accused for multiple murder. provision should be construed to mean that the order
cases against respondent Lacson are being revived of dismissal shall become permanent one year after
within or beyond the 2-year bar. ISSUES service of the order of dismissal on the public
- The Court further held that the reckoning date of 1. WON Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of prosecutor who has control of the prosecution
the two-year bar had to be first determined whether Criminal Procedure is applicable to the Criminal without the criminal case having been revived. The
it shall be from the date of the order of then Judge Cases public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with
Agnir, Jr. dismissing the cases, or from the dates of 2. WON the time-bar in said rule should be applied the timeline unless he is served with a copy of the
receipt thereof by the various offended parties, or retroactively order of dismissal.
from the date of effectivity of the new rule. According - Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given
to the Court, if the cases were revived only after the HELD either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct,
two-year bar, the State must be given the 1. YES unequivocal consent requiring no inference or
opportunity to justify its failure to comply with the - Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal implication to supply its meaning. Where the accused
said time-bar. It emphasized that the new rule fixes a Procedure reads: writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a provisional
time-bar to penalize the State for its inexcusable Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal. A case shall not be dismissal of the case No objection or With my
delay in prosecuting cases already filed in court. provisionally dismissed except with the express conformity, the writing amounts to express consent
However, the State is not precluded from presenting consent of the accused and with notice to the of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case.
compelling reasons to justify the revival of cases offended party. The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a
beyond the two-year bar. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by motion for a provisional dismissal of the case or his
- The petitioners aver that Section 8, Rule 117 of the imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine failure to object to a provisional dismissal does not
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is not applicable of any amount, or both, shall become permanent amount to express consent. A motion of the accused
to the Criminal Cases because the essential one (1) year after issuance of the order without the for a provisional dismissal of a case is an express
requirements for its application were not present case having been revived. With respect to offenses consent to such provisional dismissal. If a criminal
when Judge Agnir, Jr., issued his resolution of March punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) case is provisionally dismissed with the express
29, 1999. The petitioners maintain that the years, their provisional dismissal shall become consent of the accused, the case may be revived
respondent did not give his express consent to the permanent two (2) years after issuance of the only within the periods provided in the new rule. On
dismissal by Judge Agnir, Jr. of the Criminal Cases. order without the case having been revived. the other hand, if a criminal case is provisionally
The respondent allegedly admitted in his pleadings Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel dismissed without the express consent of the
filed with the Court of Appeals and during the of prosecutors and before the Court of Appeals, the accused or over his objection, the new rule would not
hearing thereat that he did not file any motion to respondent is burdened to establish the essential apply. The case may be revived or refiled even
dismiss said cases, or even agree to a provisional requisites of the first paragraph thereof, namely: beyond the prescribed periods subject to the right of
dismissal thereof. Moreover, the heirs of the victims 1. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused to oppose the same on the ground of
were allegedly not given prior notices of the the accused or the accused moves for a provisional double jeopardy or that such revival or refiling is
dismissal of the said cases by Judge Agnir, Jr. (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the barred by the statute of limitations.
According to the petitioners, the respondent’s prosecution and the accused move for a - In this case, the respondent has failed to prove that
express consent to the provisional dismissal of the provisional dismissal of the case; the first and second requisites of the first paragraph
cases and the notice to all the heirs of the victims of 2. the offended party is notified of the motion for a of the new rule were present when Judge Agnir, Jr.
the respondent’s motion and the hearing thereon are provisional dismissal of the case; dismissed the Criminal Cases. Irrefragably, the
conditions sine qua non to the application of the 3. the court issues an order granting the motion prosecution did not file any motion for the provisional
time-bar in the second paragraph of the new rule. and dismissing the case provisionally; dismissal of the said criminal cases. The respondent
- The petitioners further contend that even on the 4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of did not pray for the dismissal, provisional or
assumption that the respondent expressly consented the order of provisional dismissal of the case. otherwise of the Criminal Cases. Neither did he ever
to a provisional dismissal of the Criminal Cases and - The foregoing requirements are conditions sine qua agree, impliedly or expressly, to a mere provisional
all the heirs of the victims were notified of the non to the application of the time-bar in the second dismissal of the cases.
respondent’s motion before the hearing thereon and paragraph of the new rule. The raison d’ etre for the - The Court also agrees with the petitioners’
were served with copies of the resolution of Judge requirement of the express consent of the accused to contention that no notice of any motion for the
Agnir, Jr. dismissing the eleven cases, the two-year a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is to bar provisional dismissal or of the hearing thereon was
bar in Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of him from subsequently asserting that the revival of served on the heirs of the victims at least three days
Criminal Procedure should be applied prospectively the criminal case will place him in double jeopardy before said hearing as mandated by Rule 15, Section
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 112 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

4 of the Rules of Court. It must be borne in mind that prospectively, the State would have two years from and the defendants filed their affidavit and counter-
in crimes involving private interests, the new rule December 1, 2000 or until December 1, 2002 within affidavits respectively.
requires that the offended party or parties or the which to revive the cases. This is in consonance with - In Jan. 1985, petitioners Bulaong and his counsel de
heirs of the victims must be given adequate a priori the intendment of the new rule in fixing the time-bar Guzman submitted to City Fiscal of Pasay a reply-
notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal of and thus prevent injustice to the State and avoid affidavit containing statements which are alleged to
the criminal case. Such notice may be served on the absurd, unreasonable, oppressive, injurious, and be libelous. Hence, Vistan and Buenaventura filed a
offended party or the heirs of the victim through the wrongful results in the administration of justice. The complaint for libel against Bulaong and his counsel
private prosecutor, if there is one, or through the period from April 1, 1999 to November 30, 1999 de Guzman with the City Fiscal. The latter conducted
public prosecutor who in turn must relay the notice should be excluded in the computation of the two- an investigation, and thereafter, filed an information
to the offended party or the heirs of the victim to year period because the rule prescribing it was not for libel against petitioners. The said information was
enable them to confer with him before the hearing or yet in effect at the time and the State could not be later amended on.
appear in court during the hearing. expected to comply with the time-bar. It cannot even - Petitioners moved to quash the Information on the
- In the case at bar, even if the respondent’s motion be argued that the State waived its right to revive ff. grounds: (1) that the facts charged do not
for a determination of probable cause and the criminal cases against respondent or that it was constitute an offense; and 2) that the fiscal has no
examination of witnesses may be considered for the negligent for not reviving them within the two-year authority to file the Information. They further argue
nonce as his motion for a provisional dismissal of the period under the new rule. To require the State to that the reply-affidavit was submitted and sworn to
Criminal Cases, however, the heirs of the victims give a valid justification as a condition sine qua non by petitioner Bulaong not only because he was
were not notified thereof prior to the hearing on said to the revival of a case provisionally dismissed with required to do so by the investigating fiscal but also
motion on March 22, 1999. It must be stressed that the express consent of the accused before the because it was in compliance with his legal and
the respondent filed his motion only on March 17, effective date of the new rule is to assume that the moral duty as complainant in the case for estafa
1999 and set it for hearing on March 22, 1999 or State is obliged to comply with the time-bar under against Vistan and Buenaventura and hence, the
barely five days from the filing thereof. Although the the new rule before it took effect. This would be a reply-affidavit belongs to the class of absolutely
public prosecutor was served with a copy of the rank denial of justice. The State must be given a privileged communications
motion, the records do not show that notices thereof period of one year or two years as the case may be - The assistant city fiscal filed an opposition to the
were separately given to the heirs of the victims or from December 1, 2000 to revive the criminal case motion to quash filed by petitioners. RTC of Pasay
that subpoenas were issued to and received by them without requiring the State to make a valid City denied the motion to quash. Petitioners filed
- Since the conditions sine qua non for the justification for not reviving the case before the MFR but was denied. Petitioners filed with CA a
application of the new rule were not present when effective date of the new rule. Although in criminal petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, with
Judge Agnir, Jr. issued his resolution, the State is not cases, the accused is entitled to justice and fairness, preliminary injunction. CA dismissed petition for lack
barred by the time limit set forth in the second so is the State. of merit. Hence, the instant petition for review on
paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Dispositive Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED certiorari was filed
Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State can thus
revive or refile the Criminal Cases or file new PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON ISSUE
Informations for multiple murder against the October 2003 WON the procedure availed by petitioners after
respondent. denial by the RTC of the motion to quash (MTQ) was
2. NO correct
BULAONG v CA (PEOPLE)
- The Court agrees with the petitioners that to apply
the time-bar retroactively so that the two-year period 181 SCRA 618 HELD
commenced to run on March 31, 1999 when the MEDIALDEA; January 30, 1990 NO
public prosecutor received his copy of the resolution Ratio: Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are not
of Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissing the criminal cases is NATURE the correct remedies against an order denying a
inconsistent with the intendment of the new rule. Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA motion to quash. The defendant should instead, go to
Instead of giving the State two years to revive trial without prejudice on his part to present the
provisionally dismissed cases, the State had FACTS special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if
considerably less than two years to do so. Thus, - In March 1984, petitioner Bulaong filed with the RTC after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is
Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissed the Criminal Cases on of Zambales an action for sum of money against rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner
March 29, 1999. The new rule took effect on Vistan, Buenaventura and Sta. Maria. Later, Vistan authorized by law
December 1, 2000. If the Court applied the new time- also filed a complaint against Bulaong for rescission Reasoning: [a] Sec. 1, Rule 117 of the ROC
bar retroactively, the State would have only one year of contract with damages. The said cases were provides that, upon arraignment, defendant shall
and three months or until March 31, 2001 within consolidated and are pending trial. immediately either move to quash the complaint or
which to revive these criminal cases. The period is - In Nov. 1984, Bulaong filed a criminal complaint for information or plead thereto, or do both and that, if
short of the two-year period fixed under the new rule. estafa with the City Fiscal of Pasay against Vicente the defendant moves to quash, without pleading, and
- On the other hand, if the time limit is applied Vistan and Leonardo Buenaventura. The complainant the motion is withdrawn or overruled, he should
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 113 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

immediately plead, which means that trial must the Stipulation of Facts. The Trial Court convicted accused cannot be deemed established beyond
proceed. If, after trial on the merits, judgment is petitioner-appellant. reasonable doubt.
rendered adversely to the movant in the MTQ, he can -On appeal, respondent Appellate Court upheld the -Consequently, under the circumstances obtaining in
appeal the judgment and raise the same defenses or Stipulation of Facts and affirmed the judgment of this case, the ends of justice require that evidence be
objections earlier raised in his MTQ which would then conviction. 1 presented to determine the culpability of the
be subject to review by the appellate court. [b] An accused. When a judgment has been entered by
order denying a MTQ, like an order denying a motion ISSUE consent of an attorney without special authority, it
to acquit, is interlocutory and not a final order, and WON CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC will sometimes be set aside or reopened (Natividad
thus, not appealable. Neither can it be the subject of convicting the petitioner of the offense charged, vs. Natividad).
a petition for certiorari. Such order of denial may despite the cold fact that the basis of the conviction Dispositive WHEREFORE, the judgment of
only be reviewed, in the ordinary course of law, by an was based solely on the stipulation of facts made respondent Appellate Court is REVERSED and this
appeal from the judgment, after trial. [c] In Collins during the pre-trial on August 8, 1985, which was not case is hereby ordered RE-OPENED and REMANDED
vs. Wolfe and reiterated in Mill vs. Yatco, the signed by the petitioner, nor by his counsel to the appropriate Branch of the Regional Trial Court
accused, after the denial of his MTQ, should have of Lucena City, for further reception of evidence. SO
proceeded with the trial of the case in the court HELD ORDERED.
below, and if final judgment is rendered against him, YES. The CA committed a mistake.
he could then appeal, and upon such appeal, present -The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which PEOPLE v UY
the questions which he sought to be decided by the became effective on January 1, 1985, applicable to
327 SCRA 335
appellate court in a petition for certiorari.[d] this case since the pre-trial was held on August 8,
Whether or not the alleged libelous statements in the 1985, provides: DAVIDE; March 7, 2000
reply-affidavit are covered within the mantle of "SEC. 4. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. No
absolutely privileged communications, is a defense agreement or admission made or entered during the FACTS
which petitioners could raise upon the trial on the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against - Ramon Uy was caught by the PNP in a buy bust
merits, and, if that defense should fail, they could the accused unless reduced to writing and signed by operation. 3 informations was filed against him for
still raise the same on appeal. The MTQ the him and his counsel." (Rule 118) the illegal sale of 5.8564 grams of
information for libel on the ground of qualified The Rule is mandatory. Under the rule of statutory methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," and
privilege, duly opposed by the prosecution, is construction, negative words and phrases are to be possession of 401 grams of the same drug.
properly denied, as the prosecution is entitled to regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative - When arraigned, RAMON pleaded not guilty in each
prove at the trial that there was malice in fact on the are merely directory (McGee vs. Republic). The use case. During the pre-trial, the parties agreed on a
part of the petitioners of the term "shall" further emphasizes its mandatory joint trial and to dispense with the testimony of
Dispositive Petition is DENIED. CA decision is character and means that it is imperative, operating Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo. They also agreed
AFFIRMED. to impose a duty which may be enforced (Bersabal on the marking of the exhibits for the prosecution.
vs. Salvador). And more importantly, penal statutes - During the trial, Uy claimed that he was merely
framed.
FULE v CA whether substantive and remedial or procedural are,
by consecrated rule, to be strictly applied against the - The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s
162 SCRA 446 story of a legitimate buy bust and convicted him of 2
government and liberally in favor of the accused
MELENCIO-HERRERA ; June 22, 1988 (People vs. Terrado). of the 3 charges against him.
-The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that
NATURE the omission of the signature of the accused ISSUE
Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of and his counsel, as mandatorily required by 1. WON there was a legitimate buy bust
the CA the Rules, renders the Stipulation of Facts 2. WON Uy agreed to waive the testimony of the
inadmissible in evidence. The fact that the lawyer Forensic Chemist during the pre-trial
FACTS of the accused, in his memorandum, confirmed the
-Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the RTC of Stipulation of Facts does not cure the defect because HELD
Lucena City that convicted Fule of Violation of BP 22 Rule 118 requires both the accused and his counsel 1. YES.
(The Bouncing Checks Law) on the basis of the to sign the Stipulation of Facts. What the prosecution - As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be
Stipulation of Facts entered into between the should have done, upon discovering that the accused given to the narration of the incident by the
prosecution and the defense during the pre-trial did not sign the Stipulation of Facts, as required by prosecution witnesses especially when they are
conference in the Trial Court. Rule 118, was to submit evidence to establish the police officers who are presumed to have performed
-Only the prosecution presented its evidence. elements of the crime, instead of relying solely on their duties in a regular manner, unless there be
Petitioner-appellant waived the right to present the supposed admission of the accused in the evidence to the contrary; moreover in the absence of
evidence and submitted a Memorandum confirming Stipulation of Facts. Without said evidence proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious
independent of the admission, the guilt of the crime against appellant, the presumption of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 114 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

regularity in the performance of official duty, as well doubt on the conformity of the accused to the facts penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall
as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of agreed upon. be imposed, but always in the proper period. Thus,
witnesses, shall prevail over appellant’s self-serving - Nevertheless, Uy cannot take advantage of the the imposable penalty on James Andrew, by reason
and uncorroborated claim of having been framed absence of his and his counsel’s signatures on the of his minority, is 1 degree lower than the statutory
- Moreover, the defense of denial or frame-up, like pre trial order. They did not object when the penalty.
alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for prosecution presented the plastic bags and said that Reasoning
it can just as easily be concocted and is a common it contained shabu. Uy cannot now raise it for the - The penalty for the special complex crime of
and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for first time on appeal. Objection to evidence cannot be kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. raised for the first time on appeal. homicide and rape being death, one degree lower
2. NO. Dispositive Decision affirmed in toto therefrom is reclusion perpetua. On the other hand,
- Uy’s premise is that at the pre-trial he did not waive the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal
the Forensic Chemist’s testimony but only "stipulated PEOPLE v LARRAÑAGA detention is reclusion perpetua to death. One degree
on the markings of the prosecution’s evidence." lower therefrom is reclusion temporal. There being
PER CURIAM; January 31, 2006
Indeed, the records disclose that during the pre-trial, no aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the
conducted immediately after the arraignment on 21 penalty to be imposed on James Andrew is reclusion
November 1995, Uy, duly represented by counsel de NATURE temporal in its medium period. Applying the
parte Atty. Gerardo Alberto, and the prosecution MFR filed by brothers James Anthony and James Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be
stipulated on the markings of the prosecution’s Andrew, both surnamed Uy, praying for the reduction sentenced to suffer the penalty of 12 years of prision
exhibits, and agreed to dispense with the testimony of the penalties imposed upon the latter on the mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to 17
of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo. ground that he was a minor at the time the crimes years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
- During the pre-trial, prosecution and defense were committed. maximum.
agreed to stipulate on the markings of the following Dispositive The MFR is GRANTED. For the crime of
prosecution’s exhibits, thereby dispensing will the FACTS kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
testimony of Forensic chemist Loreto E. Bravo. - The Uy brothers were convicted of the crimes of homicide and rape, James Andrew Uy is sentenced to
- It may at once be noted that neither Uy nor his special complex crime of kidnapping and serious reclusion perpetua; For the crime of simple
counsel made express admission that the contents of illegal detention with homicide and rape; and simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the penalty
the plastic bags to "be marked" contain shabu. That kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The Uy of 12 years of prision mayor in its maximum period,
Uy agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic brothers claim that James Andrew was only 17 years as minimum, to 17 years of reclusion temporal in its
Chemist Bravo may not be considered an admission and 262 days old at the time the crimes were medium period, as maximum.
of the findings of Bravo on the contents of the plastic committed. He begs leave and pleads that we admit
at this stage of the proceedings his Certificate of Live
bag. Strictly, from the tenor of the aforequoted PEOPLE v QUIAZON
portion of the Joint Order, it is clear that Uy and his Birth issued by the NSO, and Baptismal Certificate.
He prays that his penalty be reduced, as in the case 78 SCRA 513
counsel merely agreed to the marking of the
exhibits, and the clause "thereby dispensing with the of his brother James Anthony. FERNANDO; August 31, 1977
testimony of forensic Chemist Loreto E. Bravo" must - Since the entry in the birth certificate was not
be understood in that context. legible, the court required the SolGen to secure a NATURE
- Even granting for the sake of argument that Uy clear and legible copy from the Civil Registrar of Plea of Acting Solicitor Vicente Mendoza to acquit the
admitted during the pre-trial that the plastic bags Cotabato as well as the NSO, and thereafter to file a accused.
contained shabu , the admission cannot be used in comment on the issue of James Andrew's minority.
evidence against him because the Joint Order was The documents showed that James Andrew was FACTS
not signed by Uy and his counsel. Section 4 of Rule indeed a minor when the crimes were committed. - Judgment of lower court convicted Antonio Quiazon
118 of the Rules of Court expressly provides: The SolGen recommended that the penalty imposed of abduction with rape. Acting Solicitor General
SEC. 40. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. No be reduced. Vicente V. Mendoza, instead of filing a brief for
agreement or admission made or entered during appellee, submitted a Manifestation recommending
the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence ISSUE that the judgment of the lower court be reversed and
against the accused unless reduced to writing and WON James Anthony's penalty should be reduced another be entered acquitting him, the need for a
signed and his counsel. because he was a minor at the time the crime was thorough study of the record became evident.
- The purpose of this requirement is to further committed - Events started in a chance encounter between
safeguard the rights of the accused against complainant, Virginia Salazar de la Cruz (Virginia),
improvident or unauthorized agreements or HELD and appellant while they were passengers in a
admissions which his counsel may have entered into YES Baliuag Transit bus, both of them being residents
without his knowledge, as he may have waived his Ratio Article 68 of the RPC provides: Upon a person thereof and bound for San Jose City, Nueva Ecija.
presence at the pre-trial conference; eliminate any over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the Virginia was quite friendly, and during the trip was
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 115 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

leaning on Quiazon. Encouraged, Quiazon asked if he - In Cabanatuan City the accused Antonio was attract attention. In addition, there was a police
could visit her at home. Virginia said that instead detained in jail, by virtue of the complaint brought by outpost near the market.
they could meet in the public market of San Jose Virginia against him. When he was in jail, Virginia Dispositive Decision is reversed, and the accused is
City. visited him. She apologized to him and told him that acquitted.
- Two days thereafter they met. Quiazon brought she did not want what had happened to him, but she
Virginia home and introduced her to his parents, had to do it because she was afraid of her husband. CASTILLO v FILTEX
announcing that she was going to be their daughter-
124 SCRA 900
in-law. That same day they had sexual intercourse in ISSUE
the house of Quiazon. WON Quiazon is guity of abduction with rape. ESCOLIN; September 30, 1983
- After that day, it was not unexpected for such
intimacies to be repeated. Every time Virginia visited HELD NATURE
Quiazon they had sexual intercourse. NO, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable Appeal from CFI Rizal decision
- May 1973: the accused was eating in the public doubt, and according to the Manifestation of the
market with his friend Rogelio Vigilia and the Acting Solicitor General, the evidence supports FACTS
complainant Virginia. Suddenly Virginia stood up and Quiazon’s innocence. -Artemio Castillo, an employee of FILTEX and a
left them because she saw her husband. The Ratio Only if the judge below and the appellate member of the Samahan ng Malaya Manggagawa sa
following morning, when Rogelio went to visit his tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime Filtex (FFW), was charged together with others in the
brother-in-law, who is a neighbor of the complainant has been committed precisely by the person on trial MTC Makati with the offense of slight physical
in Barrio Abar, he saw Virginia with contusions and a under such an exacting test should the sentence be injuries, for his alleged involvement in a mauling and
swollen face. He asked his brother-in-law what had one of conviction. It is thus required that every shining incident which occurred sometime in July
happened, and was told that complainant's husband circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken 1964 at the height of a strike called by the
had beaten her. into account. The proof against him must survive the SAMAHAN. During the pendency of the case, Castillo
- Quiazon and Virgina seldom saw each other after test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be was suspended from his job.
the former learned of the latter’s marriage. However, permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must -July 8, 1964: FILTEX and SAMAHAN entered into a
they wrote each other letters, and even saw each be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the “Return Work Agreement”:
other on countless occasions after the knowledge responsibility for the offense charged; that not only >par. 3: company employees against whom court
regarding the marriage surfaced. did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a cases are filed or to be filed, shall be suspended by
- Manifestation: "The complainant had earlier crime. Moral certainty is required. the company upon filing of such cases by the fiscal
introduced herself to the accused as a widow. Reasoning with the proper courts for as long as the said cases
Antonio did not know that Virginia was in fact - Art. 3, Section 14 (2) (Constitution) shall remain pending in court
married, until sometime during the first week of May, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused >par. 4: in the event said employees are found
1973 when they were eating at the restaurant. When shall be presumed innocent until the contrary innocent by the courts, the COMPANY agrees to
he learned that she was married, he told her to avoid is proved xxx” reinstate them to their respective jobs with back
him, but she answered that she could not, because - It is precisely because of such notorious lack of any wages minus whatever earnings they earned during
she loved him. Antonio did not also try to avoid her persuasive force in the testimony of complainant that the period of suspension; otherwise, if found guilty
because he loved her xxx” Even Quiazon’s parents the Manifestation asserted most emphatically that they shall remain dismissed;
objected to the relationship, but to no avail. appellant could rely on the constitutional -After trial, the MTC Makati found Castillo guilty of
- To avoid being found out, Quiazon and Virginia presumption of innocence, one of the most valuable slight physical injuries.
traveled from barrio to barrio until they reached rights of an accused person -CFI Rizal dismissed the case (November 28, 1966)
Barrio Armenia in Tarlac, where they stayed for more - The complainant alleges that on July 3, 1973 the because complainant failed to appear at the
than a week. While on their way to the voting accused, whom the complainant had never met scheduled trial.
precinct which was near a P.C. Detachment, a P. C. before, suddenly grabbed her while she was in the -Castillo asked for reinstatement and back wages.
soldier, Sgt. Daton, stopped them because he public market of San Jose City and forced her to When FILTEX paid no head to his demands, he
noticed that they were new in the place. The P. C. board a tricycle. Then he took her to the house of his instituted action in CFI Rizal, claiming that dismissal
Officer asked her whether Antonio Quiazon was her parents where he ravished her. The abduction of the criminal case justified his reinstatement and
husband, and she answered in the negative. At the occurred in broad daylight, or at about 10:00 in the payment of back wages, pursuant to paragraph 4 of
P.C. Headquarters, Virginia was asked who her morning. The improbability of the complainant's the “Return to Work Agreement.”
husband was, and she answer that her husband is charge is immediately visible from the time and locus -FILTEX filed motion to dismiss; grounds: lack of
Sgt. Gaudencio de la Cruz, an army man. It was then where the crime was supposed to have been cause of action and want of jurisdiction, the case
when the P.C. soldiers became interested in asking committed. The market, being a public place, was at being allegedly within the exclusive jurisdiction of
her why she was in Tarlac. The complainant its busiest at 10 in the morning. Virginia was also CIR. This motion was denied.
answered that she was brought there by the accused with a niece at the time. Any commotion would easily -Pre-trial: the parties defined the principal issue “Is
and that Antonio abducted and raped her. Castillo entitled to reinstatement and back wages
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 116 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

after the dismissal of the charge against him in tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime Petitioner’s Claim It is the contention of petitioner
accordance with par. 4 of the "Return to Work had been committed precisely by person on trial that the failure to arraign him is violative of his
Agreement?” under such an exacting test could sentence be one of constitutional right to procedural due process, more
-Case was submitted for decision on the bases of the conviction. specifically of his right to be informed of the nature
parties’ memoranda and stipulation of facts. CFI Rizal -It is thus required that every circumstance favoring and cause of the accusation against him and of his
dismissed Castillo’s complaint, and ordered him to his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof right to be heard by himself and counsel.
pay FILTEX P1thou as attorney's fees, plus costs. against him must survive the test of reason; the - The Solicitor General, when asked to comment,
Reasoning: CFI Rizal’s dismissal of the case was only strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway agreed that the procedural defect was of such
because of the failure of the complainant to appear judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on gravity as to render void the decision of the City
at the scheduled trial. The agreement to reinstate an the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the Court affirmed by the Court of First Instance. The
employee expressly states that there must be a offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the comment was considered as answer, with the case
finding of innocence by the courts. It did not stipulate act but that it amounted to a crime. So it has been being submitted for decision.
that the case should be dismissed. held from the 1903 decision of United States v.
-Hence, this appeal. Reyes. ISSUE
Interpretation of par. 4 of Return to Work WON the accused’s constitutional right to procedural
ISSUE Agreement due process was violated.
WON Castillo is entitled to reinstatement and -FILTEX: said paragraph requires an express finding
backwages of innocence by the court in order to entitle an HELD
employee to reinstatement and back wages; no such YES.
HELD finding of innocence had been made because the The Constitution requires that the accused be
YES. Since the criminal case was ultimately criminal case was dismissed on a mere technicality; arraigned so that he may be informed as to why be
dismissed, the constitutional presumption of interpretation of said agreement should not be was indicted and what penal offense he has to face,
innocence in favor of the appellant should be stretched to include a "mere presumption of to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is
applied. Castillo’s innocence need no longer be innocence under the law." shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity
proved, since under the fundamental law his -SC: Constitutional provision on protection to labor to disprove the evidence against him.
innocence is presumed. constrains courts to interpret the agreement in - It is at that stage of arraignment where in the mode
-While it is true that Castillo was convicted of the question in favor of the claim of the laborer and and manner required by the Rules, an accused, for
offense of slight physical injuries by MTC Makati, it is against that of management. Those who are less the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the
undisputed that on appeal, CFI Rizal dismissed the fortunate in terms of economic well-being should be precise charge that confronts him. It is imperative
case for failure of the prosecution witnesses to given preferential attention. State’s obligation to that he is thus made fully aware of possible loss of
appear. protect labor is welfare state concept vitalized. (Art. freedom, even of his life depending on the nature of
-ROC Rule 123, Sec 7: Trial de novo on appeal. An 4, Labor Code. Art. 1700, NCC. ^_^ hehe! ) the crime imputed to him. At the very least then, he
appealed case shall be tried in all respects anew in Dispositive CFI Rizal decision set aside. Remand to must be fully informed of why the prosecuting arm of
the courts of first instance as if it had been originally Labor Arbiter of NLRC for determination of the the state is mobilized against him. It is a vital aspect
instituted in that court. amount of back wages. of the constitutional rights guaranteed him. It is not
-Applying this rule, the judgment of conviction useless formality, much less an idle ceremony.
rendered by MTC Makati was vacated upon BORJA v MENDOZA - Petitioner was not arraigned at all and was not
perfection of the appeal, to be tried de novo in the represented by counsel throughout the whole
77 SCRA 422
CFI as if it were originally instituted therein. The proceedings in the respondent City Court. It is
phrase "to vacate" applied to a judgment means "to FERNANDO; June 20, 1977 indisputable then that there was a denial of
annul, to render void." petitioner's constitutional right to be heard by
-People vs. Dramayo: The starting point is the FACTS himself and counsel.
constitutional presumption of innocence - a right - Notwithstanding the absence of an arraignment of - An equally fatal defect in the proceeding had before
safeguarded the accused. Accusation is not, petitioner Manuel Borja, accused of slight physical respondent Judge Senining was that notwithstanding
according to the fundamental law, synonymous with injuries, respondent Judge Romulo R. Senining its being conducted in the absence of petitioner, he
guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to proceeded with the trial in absentia and found the was convicted. It was shown that after one
demonstrate that culpability lies. Guilt must be accused guilty of such offense. postponement due to his failure to appear, the case
shown beyond reasonable doubt. To such a standard - An appeal was filed in the CFI of Cebu presided by was reset for hearing. When that date came, without
this Court has always been committed. respondent Judge Rafael T. Mendoza. petitioner being present, although his bondsman
-There is need for the most careful scrutiny of the - It was then alleged that without any notice to were notified, respondent Judge, as set forth in the
testimony of the state, both oral and documentary, petitioner and without requiring him to submit his comment of the Solicitor General, "allowed the
independently of whatever defense is offered by the memorandum, a decision on the appealed case was prosecution to present its evidence. Thereupon,
accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate rendered affirming the judgment of the City Court. respondent City Court promulgated thedecision.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 117 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- It is the constitutional right of the accused to be > At around 5:30 PM, Rebada, one of Penecilla’s - This rule is a restatement of the doctrine laid down
heard in his defense before sentence is pronounced neighbors, spotted Khazie by the window of in People vs. Apduhan. The searching inquiry of the
on him. Such "constitutional right is inviolate." There Alicando’s house. Khazie offered to buy yemas trial court must be focused on: (1) the voluntariness
is no doubt that it could be waived, but here there from Rebada but Alicando closed the window. of the plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the
was no such waiver, whether express or implied. Rebada then heard Khazie crying so she consequences of the plea.
- The provision in the present Constitution allowing approached the house and saw through an - The questions of the trial court failed to show the
trial to be held in absentia is unavailing. It cannot opening between the floor and the door that voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the appellant nor
justify the actuation of respondent Judge Senining. Its Khazie was being raped. did the questions demonstrate appellant's full
language is clear and explicit. What is more, it is > Khazie did not come home so Romeo and his comprehension of the consequences of his plea.
mandatory. Thus: "However, after arraignment, trial wife looked for her. Rebada did not tell them what > The records do not clearly illustrate the
may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the she saw. personality profile of the accused.
accused provided that he has been duly notified and > In the morning, Khazie’s corpse was found under > The age, socio-economic status and educational
his failure to appear is unjustified." As pointed out the house of Santiago, another neighbor. Rebada background of the accused were not examined.
then by the Solicitor General, the indispensable then told the Penecillas what she knew. > With regard to voluntariness, questions
requisite for trial in absentia is that it should come > Alicando was arrested and her verbally regarding the presence or absence of
"after arraignment." confessed his guilt to PO3 Tan without the maltreatment of the accused are deemed
- Without the accused having been arraigned, it assistance of counsel. Based on his confession insufficient when a record of events in the penal
becomes academic to discuss the applicability of this and follow-up interrogations, Khazie’s slippers facility indicate that Alicando suffered a hematoma
exception to the basic constitutional right that the were recovered from Alicando’s home along with a from being locked up in a cell with violent inmates
accused should be heard by himself and counsel. stained T-shirt and pillow. upon his arrest.
- The appeal to the Court of First Instance presided - June 29, 1994 – Alicando was arraigned and > With regard to comprehension, the trial court
by respondent Judge Mendoza did not possess any pleaded guilty. After the plea of guilt, the trial court inadequately warned Alicando that a plea of guilt
curative aspect. Respondent considered the appeal ordered the prosecution to present its evidence. would result to a mandatory of penalty of death
taken by the petitioner as waiver of the defects in - July 20, 1994 – The trial court sentenced Alicando to without explaining to him what mandatory meant.
the proceedings in the respondent City Court. death by electric chair or, if the penal facilities would - The rule requires that after a free and intelligent
- Precisely, the appeal itself is tantamount to be available by then, by gas poisoning. plea of guilt the trial court must require the
questioning those defects. In fact, the Memorandum prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant and
in support of the appeal unmistakably raised as error ISSUE the precise degree of his culpability beyond
the absence of petitioner at the arraignment and WON the accused was properly meted the sentence reasonable doubt. Rule 116, Sec. 3 modifies priorituis
cited jurisprudence, commentaries and the rules to of death prudence that a plea of guilt even in capital offenses
bolster his position. Specifically, the absence of an is sufficient to sustain a conviction charged in the
arraignment can be invoked at anytime in view of the HELD information without need of further proof.
requirements of due process to ensure a fair and NO 3. Some prosecution evidence, offered independently
impartial trial. 1. Arraignment of the accused was null and void of the plea of guilt of the appellant, were
Dispositive The petition was granted. Ratio During arraignment, the complaint or the inadmissible, yet were considered by the trial court
information should be read in a language or dialect convicting the appellant.
PEOPLE v ALICANDO which the accused understands. Ratio “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine: once
Reasoning the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have
251 SCRA 293
- The trial judge failed to follow the procedure been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
PUNO; December 12, 1995 outlined in Rule 116 of the RoC. derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is
- The information was written in English and it was also inadmissible. In other words, illegally seized
NATURE unknown whether or not the accused could evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal
Automatic review understand English well. It could not be said with act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the
certainty that the accused was informed of the indirect result of the same illegal act. The "fruit of the
FACTS nature and cause of the accusation against him. poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the
- Alicando was charged of rape with homicide for the 2. The plea of guilt was null and void. illegally seized evidence, but it is equally
death of Khazie Penecilla on June 12, 1994 in Iloilo Ratio Rule 116, Sec. 3 provides that in a plea of inadmissible.
City. In the process of raping Khazie, he choked her guilt, the court should ascertain that the accused Reasoning
thus causing her death. voluntarily entered into the plea and fully - The rule is based on the principle that evidence
> Khazie’s father Romeo was having a drink with comprehends the ramifications of such a plea and, in illegally obtained by the State should not be used to
two friends in Romeo’s house. Alicando eventually addition, the prosecution should also be required to gain other evidence because the originally illegally
joined them. At around 4:30 PM, Romeo’s friends prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently
left. Reasoning obtained.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 118 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The Court admitted as evidence the things seized in that the bulk of proceedings in our trial courts, the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of
Alicando’s house. These are inadmissible evidence including the process of arraignment is conducted his culpability. Nowhere in the rules does it state
for they were gathered by PO3 Tan of as a result of in the vernacular that an extra-judicial confession is a prerequisite
custodial interrogation where appellant verbally > Three things which need to be accomplished for a conviction based on a plea of guilty.
confessed to the crime without the benefit of after the accused in a criminal case enters a plea - The physical evidence objected to falls under the
counsel. of guilty to a capital offense, which have all been exclusionary rule.
- This is in violation of Art. 3, Sec. 12 of the 1987 complied with in this case: > The 1987 Constitution's exclusionary rules
Constitution which requires the assistance of counsel 1. the court should conduct a searching absolutely forbid evidence obtained from illegal
for the accused as well as provides for the right of inquiry into the voluntariness and full searches and seizures or evidence resulting from
the accused to remain silent and to be informed of comprehension of the consequences of the uncounseled custodial investigations of accused
the nature of the accusation against him and that accused's plea. There is no rule on conducting individuals.
these rights cannot be waived subject to exceptions. inquiry except that in People vs. Dayot, it was > The doctrine is not without its exceptions, and
A violation of this provision renders the evidence held that “a searching inquiry ... compels the the evidence in dispute in the instant case falls
gathered inadmissible. judge to content himself reasonably that the within those exceptions.
- Even if the evidence gathered were admissible, accused has not been coerced or placed under + The discovery of the victim's body near the
they are still insufficient as evidence. a state of duress - and that his guilty plea has house of the accused would have naturally led
> The alleged bloodstains on the pillow and shirt not therefore been given improvidently - other authorities to undertake a more thorough
were never proven with laboratory tests. by actual threats of physical harm from investigation of the site, particularly in those
> There was no testimony that the shirt in malevolent quarters or simply because of his, areas where the victim was last seen.
question was worn by the accused when he the Judge's, intimidating robes.” + Under one of the recognized exceptions of
committed the crime. It was not unnatural for him 2. the lower court should require the the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, the
to have a shirt with bloodstains because he was a prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused more appropriate question in such cases is
butcher. and the precise degree of his culpability whether the evidence to which the objection is
- The burden to prove that an accused waived his 3. the court should inquire whether or not the made would not have been discovered at all
right to remain silent and the right to counsel before accused wishes to present evidence on his but for the illegality or would have been
making a confession under custodial interrogation behalf and should allow him to do so if he so discovered anyway by sources or procedures
rests with the prosecution. It is also the burden of the desires independent of the illegality.
prosecution to show that the evidence derived from - The plea of guilt was not improvident. + Another exception refuses to treat the
confession is not tainted as "fruit of the poisonous > When the appellant pleaded guilty in open court, doctrine as absolutely sacred if the evidence
tree." the appellant was clearly assisted by counsel. in question would have been inevitably
Dispositive The Decision convicting accused of the discovered under normal conditions.
crime of Rape with Homicide and sentencing him to - There is adequate legal evidence to sustain the trial
> The trial court, on its own, in fact went out of its
suffer the penalty of death is annulled and set aside court’s conviction with moral certainty. The
way to repeatedly inform the defendant of the
and the case is remanded to the trial court for further testimony of a lone witness, free from signs of
nature of his plea and the implications of the plea
proceedings. impropriety or falsehood, is sufficient to convict an
he was making. He was asked a number of times
accused even if uncorroborated.
if he was sure of the plea he was making.
SEPARATE OPINION > The records fail to indicate that appellant
questioned his plea of guilty at any stage of the AQUINO v MILITARY COMMISSION 2
KAPUNAN [dissent] trial. He did not put up any defense with regard to 63 SCRA 546
- There was substantial compliance with the the evidence and the testimonies and even ANTONIO; May 9, 1975
requirements for arraignment and plea. directed the police to the location of the evidence.
> There is nothing on the record which would > The accused’s silence can counter the assertion FACTS
warrant a finding that the information was not read of the Court that the plea of guilt was improvident. - After Martial Law was proclaimed, Benigno Aquino
in the language or dialect known to the appellant. Silence is assent as well as consent, and may, Jr. was arrested (on Sept 22, 1972), pursuant to
> The rule on arraignment and plea does not where a direct and specific accusation of crime is General Order No. 2-A of the President for complicity
absolutely require that the same be indicated in made, be regarded under some circumstances as a in a conspiracy to seize political and state power in
the record of every criminal case quasi-confession. An innocent person will defend the country and to take over the Government.
> Rule 116 contains nothing requiring trial courts, himself so silence can be understood as a person - On September 25, 1972, he sued for a writ of
to indicate in the record the fact that the deferring to do just that. habeas corpus in which he questioned the legality of
information was read in the language or dialect > The absence of an extra-judicial confession does the proclamation of martial law and his arrest and
known to the defendant even if the same was in not detract from the efficacy or validity of detention.
fact actually complied with by the lower court. appellant's plea of guilty. It does not affect the
And yet, even in Metro Manila alone, one observes requirement compelling the prosecution to prove
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 119 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- SC issued a writ of habeas corpus and heard the 5. WON the taking of testimonies and depositions of, incident to or in connection with the commission
case. SC dismissed the petition and upheld the were void of said crimes" which were pending in the civil courts
validity of martial law and the arrest and detention of 6. WON petitioner may validly waive his right to be were ordered transferred to the military tribunals.
petitioner. present at his trial This jurisdiction of the tribunal, therefore, operates
- In the present case, petitioner challenges the equally on all persons in like circumstances.
jurisdiction of military commissions to try him, alone HELD - The guarantee of due process is not a guarantee of
or together with others, for illegal possession of 1. YES any particular form of tribunal in criminal cases. A
firearms, ammunition and explosives, for violation of - The court denied the motion, since all matters in military tribunal of competent jurisdiction, accusation
the Anti-Subversion Act and for murder. issue in this case have already been submitted for in due form, notice and opportunity to defend and
- When the proceedings before the Military resolution, and they are of paramount public interest, trial before an impartial tribunal, adequately meet
Commission opened, petitioner questioned the it is imperative that the questions raised by the due process requirement. Due process of law
fairness of the trial and announced that he did not petitioner on the constitutionality and legality of does not necessarily mean a judicial proceeding in
wish to participate in the proceedings even as he proceedings against civilians in the military the regular courts. The procedure before the Military
discharged both his defense counsel of choice and commissions, pursuant to pertinent General Orders, Commission, as prescribed in PD No. 39, assures
his military defense counsel. Presidential Decrees and Letters of Instruction, observance of the fundamental requisites of
- For the petitioner's assurance, a Special Committee should be definitely resolved. procedural due process, due notice, an essentially
was created to reinvestigate the charges against 2. YES fair and impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for
petitioner. Petitioner filed supplemental petition - Military Commission No. 2 has been lawfully the preparation of the defense.
questioning the legality of the creation of the Special constituted and validly vested with jurisdiction to - It is asserted that petitioner's trial before the
Committee. hear the cases against civilians, including the military commission will not be fair and impartial,
- On March 24, 1975, petitioner filed an "Urgent petitioner. since the President had already prejudged
Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order Reasoning petitioner's cases and the military tribunal is a mere
Against Military Commission No. 2"; praying that said - The Court has previously declared that the creation of the President, and "subject to his control
Commission be prohibited from proceeding with the proclamation of Martial Law is valid and and direction." We cannot, however, indulge in
perpetuation of testimony under its Order dated constitutional and that its continuance is justified by unjustified assumptions. Prejudice cannot be
March 10, 1975, the same being illegal, until further the danger posed to the public safety. presumed, especially if weighed against the great
orders from the Supreme Court. - To preserve the safety of the nation in times of confidence and trust reposed by the people upon the
- On April 14, 1975, this Court also issued a national peril, the President of the Philippines President and the latter's legal obligation under his
restraining order against respondent Military necessarily possesses broad authority compatible oath to "do justice to every man". Nor is it justifiable
Commission No. 2, restraining it from further with the imperative requirements of the emergency. to conceive, much less presume, that the members
proceeding with the perpetuation of testimony under On the basis of this, he has authorized in GO No. 8 of the military commission, the Chief of Staff of the
its Order dated March 10, 1975 until the matter is the Chief of Staff of the AFP, to create military AFP, the Board of Review and the Secretary of
heard thereto. tribunals & try and decide cases "of military National Defense, with their corresponding staff
- When this case was called for hearing, petitioner's personnel and such other cases as may be referred judge advocates, as reviewing authorities, through
counsel presented to this Court a Motion to Withdraw to them." In GO No. 12, the military tribunals were whom petitioner's hypothetical conviction would be
the petition and all other pending matters and/or vested with jurisdiction "exclusive of the civil courts", reviewed before reaching the President, would all be
incidents in connection therewith. among others, over crimes against public order, insensitive to the great principles of justice and
violations of the Anti-Subversion Act, violations of the violate their respective obligations to act fairly and
ISSUES laws on firearms, and other crimes which, in the face impartially in the premises.
1. WON the court has jurisdiction despite petitioner’s of the emergency, are directly related to the quelling This assumption must be made because innocence,
motion to withdraw of the rebellion and preservation of the safety and not wrongdoing, is to be presumed.
2. WON Military Commission No. 2 has been lawfully security of the Republic. 3. NO
constituted and validly vested with jurisdiction to - Petitioner is charged with having conspired with - It was precisely because of petitioner's complaint
hear the cases against civilians, including the certain military leaders of the communist rebellion to that he was denied the opportunity to be heard in the
petitioner. overthrow the government, furnishing them arms preliminary investigation of his charges .The
3. WON Administrative Order No. 355, creating the and other instruments to further the uprising. Under President created a Special Committee to
Special Committee strips the petitioner of his right to GO No. 12, jurisdiction over this offense has been reinvestigate the charges filed against him in the
due process vested exclusively upon military tribunals. It cannot military commission. It is intended that the
4. WON the denial to an accused of an opportunity to be said that petitioner has been singled out for trial Committee should conduct the investigation with
cross-examine the witnesses against him in the for this offense before the military commission. "utmost fairness, impartiality and objectivity"
preliminary investigation constitutes an infringement Pursuant to GO No. 12, all "criminal cases involving ensuring to the accused his constitutional right to
of his right to due process, subversion, sedition, insurrection or rebellion or due process, to determine whether "there is
those committed in furtherance of, on the occasion reasonable ground to believe that the offenses
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 120 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

charged were in fact committed and the accused is "(2) The requirements as to the interval of time are presence at all stages of his trial, there appears,
probably guilty thereof." Petitioner, however, now everywhere regulated by statute * * *; the therefore, no logical reason why petitioner, although
objected by challenging in his supplemental petition rulings in regard to the sufficiency of time are thus so he is charged with a capital offense, should be
before this Court the validity of Administrative Order dependent on the interpretation of the detailed precluded from waiving his right to be present in the
No. 355, on the pretense that by submitting to the prescriptions of the local statutes that it would be proceedings for the perpetuation of testimony, since
jurisdiction of the Special Committee he would be impracticable to examine them here. But whether or this right, like the others aforestated, was conferred
waiving his right to cross-examination because not the time allowed was supposedly insufficient or upon him for his protection and benefit.
Presidential Decree No. 77, which applies to the was precisely the time required by statute, the actual - It is also important to note that under Section 7 of
proceedings of the Special Committee, has done attendance of the party obviate any objection upon Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court (Deposition of
away with cross-examination in preliminary the ground of insufficiency, because then the party witness for the prosecution) the "Failure or refusal on
investigation. has actually had that opportunity of cross- the part of the defendant to attend the examination
4. NO examination for the sole sake of which the notice or the taking of the deposition after notice
- The Constitution "does not require the holding of was required." hereinbefore provided, shall be considered a waiver"
preliminary investigations. The right exists only, if 6. YES - Presidential Decree No. 328 expressly provides
and when created by statute." It is "not an essential - Under the present Constitution, trial even of a that the failure or refusal to attend the examination
part of due process of law." The absence thereof capital offense may proceed notwithstanding the or the taking of the deposition shall be considered a
does not impair the validity of a criminal information absence of the accused. It is now provided that "after waiver. "
or affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case. arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
As a creation of the statute it can, therefore, be absence of the accused provided that he has been
SEPARATE OPINION
modified or amended by law. duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified."
- It is also evident that there is no curtailment of the - On the basis of the aforecited provision of the (on waiver of presence only)
constitutional right of an accused person when he is Constitution which allows trial of an accused in
not given the opportunity to "cross-examine the absentia, the issue has been raised whether or not CASTRO [concur and dissent]
witnesses presented against him in the preliminary petitioner could waive his right to be present at the - My understanding of the provisions of the new
investigation before his arrest, this being a matter perpetuation of testimony proceedings before Constitution on waiver of presence in criminal
that depends on the sound discretion of the Judge or respondent Commission. proceedings is that such waiver may be validly
investigating officer concerned." - As a general rule, subject to certain exceptions, implied principally in cases where the accused has
5. NO, any constitutional or statutory right may be waived if jumped bail or has escaped, but certainly may not be
the taking of the testimony or deposition was proper such waiver is not against public policy. The personal asserted as a matter of absolute right in cases where
and valid. presence of the accused from the beginning to the the accused is in custody and his identification is
- Petitioner does not dispute respondents' claim that end of a trial for felony, involving his life and liberty, needed in the course of the proceedings.
on March 14, 1975, he knew of the order allowing the has been considered necessary and vital to the - Thus, I voted for qualified waiver.- the accused
taking of the deposition of prosecution witnesses on proper conduct of his defense. The "trend of modern may waive his presence in the criminal proceedings
March 31, to continue through April 1 to 4, 1975. authority is in favor of the doctrine that a party in a except at the stages where identification of his
- The provisions of PD No. 328, dated October 31, criminal case may waive irregularities and rights, person by the prosecution witnesses is necessary. I
1973, for the conditional examination of prosecution whether constitutional or statutory, very much the might agree to the proposition of "total" waiver in
witnesses before trial, is similar to the provisions of same as in a civil case." any case where the accused agrees explicitly and
Section 7 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. - There are, certain rights secured to the individual unequivocally in writing signed by him or personally
- In Elago,the court said that the order of the court by the fundamental charter which may be the manifests clearly and indubitably in open court and
authorizing the taking of the deposition of the subject of waiver. The rights of an accused to defend such manifestation is recorded, that whenever a
witnesses of the prosecution and fixing the date and himself in person and by attorney, to be informed of prosecution witness mentions a name by which the
time thereof is the one that must be served on the the nature and cause of the accusation, to a speedy accused is known the witness is referring to him
accused within a reasonable time prior to that fixed and public trial, and to meet the witnesses face to and to no one else.
for the examination of the witnesses so that the face, as well as the right against unreasonable
accused may be present and cross-examine the searches and seizures, are rights guaranteed by the
TEEHANKEE [dissent]
witness. Constitution. They are rights necessary either
- Petitioner’s presence at the proceedings could not
- 'The opportunity of cross-examination involves two because of the requirements of due process to
be compelled by virtue of his express waiver thereof
elements: ensure a fair and impartial trial, or of the need of
as explicitly allowed by the Constitution and by P.D.
"(1) Notice to the opponent that the deposition is to protecting the individual from the exercise of
No. 328 itself.
be taken at the time and place specified, and arbitrary power. And yet, there is no question that all
- Petitioner's submittal that he cannot be compelled
"(2) A sufficient interval of time to prepare for of these rights may be waived. Considering the
to be present at the proceedings even against his will
examination and to reach the place, aforecited provisions of the Constitution and the
by virtue of his express waiver is meritorious.
absence of any law specifically requiring his
Whereas previously such right of waiver of the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 121 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

accused's presence in criminal proceedings was for the authorities to enforce execution of any Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2 and held that "he
generally recognized save in capital cases (leading to adverse judgment. But I cannot see why an accused cannot be validly compelled to appear and be
the suspension of trial whenever the accused was at should be compelled to be present at the trial when present during the trial of this case."
large) or where the accused was in custody although he prefers perhaps the solitude of his cell to pray - Petitioner prays that the order of respondent judge
for a non-capital offense, the 1973 Constitution now either for forgiveness, if he knows he is guilty, or, if be annulled and set aside and that private
unqualifiedly permits trial in absentia even of capital he is innocent, for God to illumine the court so there respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. be compelled to
cases, and provides that "after arraignment, trial would be unerring justice in his case. (hehehe) appear during the trial of the criminal case whenever
may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the - My understanding is that the problem of required to do so by the trial court.
accused provided that he has been duly notified and identification of an accused may be adequately - Private respondent claims that Sec 19, Article IV of
his failure to appear is unjustified," thus recognizing solved without violating the justified wishes of the the 1973 Constitution grants him absolute right to
the right of an accused to waive his presence. P.D. accused to be left alone. To start with, if he is absent himself from the trial of the case filed against
No. 328 under which the perpetuation proceedings referred to by the witnesses of the prosecution by him despite the condition of his bail bond that he
are being conducted in military commissions (as the name, the court may presume that the amused who "will at all times hold himself amenable to the orders
counterpart rule for similar proceedings before the has acknowledged his true name at the arraignment and processes of the Court."
regular civil courts, as provided in Rule 119, section is the one indicated.
7 of the Rules of Court) explicitly provides that after ISSUE
reasonable notice to an accused to attend the BORJA v MENDOZA WON the judge erred in granting private
perpetuation proceedings, the deposition by question respondent’s manifestation to waive his right to be
[SUPRA, PAGE 78]
and answer of the witness may proceed in the present during trial
accused's absence and "the failure or refusal to
attend the examination or the taking of the PEOPLE v PRESIDING JUDGE OF HELD
deposition shall be considered a waiver." Thus, an URDANETA YES
accused's right of total waiver of his presence either 125 SCRA 269 - Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, Section 19
expressly or impliedly by unjustified failure or refusal thereof provides:
RELOVA; October 26, 1983
to attend the proceedings is now explicitly SEC. 19. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
recognized and he cannot be compelled to be shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
NATURE
present as against his express waiver. proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
Petition for certiorari
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
BARREDO [concur] FACTS
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
- Petitioner has the right to waive his presence at the - Private respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. is charged
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
perpetuation proceedings before the respondent with murder before the RTC of Pangasinan, in
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and
Commission.I find eminent merit in the contention of Urdaneta. He is out on a P30,000.00 bail bond which
the production of evidence in his behalf. However,
petitioner that even for identification purposes he contains the following conditions:
after arraignment, trial may proceed
cannot be made to be present at the trial against his The aforenamed, as bondsmen, hereby jointly and
notwithstanding the absence of the accused
will. Since under the Constitution, trial of criminal severally undertake that the above-mentioned
provided that he has been duly notified and his
cases in the absence of the accused is allowed, when defendant, as principal therein will appear and
failure to appear is unjustified.
after the arraignment and in spite of due notice he answer the charge above-mentioned in whatever
- The 1973 Constitution now unqualifiedly permits
fails to appear without justification, pursuant to Court it may be tried, and will at all times hold
trial in absentia even of capital offenses, provided
Section 19 of the Bill of Rights or Article IV. himself amenable to the orders and processes of
that after arraignment he may be compelled to
- I can understand why an accused has to be present the Court, and if convicted, will appear for
appear for the purpose of Identification by the
at the arraignment and at the reading of the judgment, and render himself to the execution
witnesses of the prosecution, or provided he
sentence. In the former, it has to be known to the thereof; or that if he fails to perform any of these
unqualifiedly admits in open court after his
court that he is indeed the person charged and that conditions will pay to the Republic of the
arraignment that he is the person named as the
he personally understands the accusation against Philippines the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos
defendant in the case on trial.
him. More importantly, the plea must be entered by (P30,000.00) ...
- The reason for requiring the presence of the
him personally to avoid any misconstruction or - After his arraignment, Valdez, thru his counsel,
accused, despite his waiver, is, if allowed to be
misrepresentation, innocent or otherwise. In the manifested orally in open court that he was waiving
absent in all the stages of the proceedings without
latter, it is essential that the accused himself, should his right to be present during the trial. The
giving the People's witnesses the opportunity to
be aware from personal knowledge what is the prosecuting fiscal moved that Valdez be compelled to
Identify him in court, he may in his defense say that
verdict of the court, and if it be conviction, what is appear and be present at the trial so that he could be
he was never Identified as the person charged in the
the penalty to be served by him. These are matters identified by prosecution witnesses.
information and, therefore, is entitled to an acquittal.
too personal to permit delegation. At the same time, Respondent judge sustained the position of private
his presence makes it simpler in the public interest respondent who cited the majority opinion in Aquino,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 122 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Furthermore, it is possible that a witness may not ISSUE prosecution moved that the hearing continue in
know the name of the culprit but can Identify him if WON the accused, despite having waived his accordance with the constitutional provision
he sees him again, in which case the latter's presence at the trial, may still be compelled to be authorizing trial in absentia under certain
presence in court is necessary. present in the same trial when he is to be identified circumstances. The respondent judge denied the
Dispositive petition granted and the assailed order motion, however, and suspended all proceedings
of respondent judge is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE HELD until the return of the accused.
YES. Stare Decisis.
PEOPLE v MACARAEG Reasoning ISSUE
- The rule adopted by the Court in the case of Aquino WON the judge erred in suspending the proceedings
141 SCRA 37
vs. Military Commission No. 2 (supra) is that while
CONCEPCION; January 14, 1986 the accused may waive his presence at the trial of HELD
the case, his presence may be compelled when he is YES
NATURE to be identified. The Court said: “Since only 6 Justices Ratio Under Art.IV Sec.19, the prisoner cannot by
Petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary are of the view that petitioner may waive his right to simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution
injunction to review order of CFI of Pangasinan be present at all stages of the proceedings while five and possibly eventual conviction provided only that:
5 Justices are in agreement that he may so waive a) he has been arraigned; b) he has been duly
FACTS such right, except when he is to he identified, the notified of the trial; and c) his failure to appear is
- Private Respondent Vasco Valdez was charged with result is that the respondent Commission's Order unjustified.
Homicide before the CFI of Pangasinan for the death requiring his presence at all times during the Reasoning
of one Severs Paulo and posted bail for his proceedings before it should be modified, in the - The rule is found in the last sentence of Article IV,
provisional release. Attached to the bail bond was a sense that petitioners presence shall be required Section 19, of the 1973 Constitution: In all criminal
waiver stipulating that the trial may proceed in his only in the instance just indicated. prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent
absence. Dispositive Petition GRANTED, orders of respondent until the contrary is proved and shall enjoy the right
- When the case was called for trial, the prosecution Judge ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Judge is ordered to to be heard by himself and counsel, to he informed of
presented Welino Paulo, as its 1st witness, who when issue the necessary process to compel the the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
asked if he could identify the accused, answered in attendance of the accused at the hearing of the to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet
the affirmative. Since the accused was not present in criminal case for purposes of identification. the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
court, the prosecution asked the court to order the Temporary TRO lifted and set aside. process to secure the attendance of witnesses and
presence of the accused so that he could be the production of evidence in his behalf. However,
identified. Counsel for accused objected to the
PEOPLE v SALAS (ABONG, DE LEON, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding
motion by invoking the waiver in the bail bond and the absence of the accused provided that he has
contended that the absence of the accused is part of ET AL)
been duly notified and his failure to appear is
his defense. 143 SCRA 163 unjustified.
- Respondent Judge Daniel Macaraeg of the CFI, CRUZ; July 29, 1986 - The purpose of this rule is to speed up the
invoking the case of Aquino v Military Commission disposition of criminal cases, trial of which could in
No.2, denied the motion: NATURE the past be indefinitely deferred, and many times
“The issue at bar was one of those squarely raised Certiorari and Mandamus completely abandoned, because of the defendant's
in the Aquino case where six out of ten Justices escape.
voted that the accused may not be compelled to FACTS - the fugitive is now deemed to have waived such
be present during the trial when he is to be - Mario Abong was originally charged with homicide notice precisely because he has escaped, and it is
identified by the witnesses of the prosecution in the CFI of Cebu but before he could be arraigned also this escape that makes his failure to appear at
while four voted that the accused may be the case was reinvestigated on motion of the his trial unjustified. Escape can never be a legal
compelled in this instance. The reason of the prosecution. As a result of the reinvestigation, an justification.
majority is that the accused must not be amended information was filed, with no bail - The right to be present at one's trial may now be
compelled to assist the prosecution in proving its recommended, to which he pleaded not guilty. waived except only at that stage where the
case.” - While trial was in progress, the prisoner, taking prosecution intends to present witnesses who will
- The prosecution moved for reconsideration but advantage of the first information for homicide, Identify the accused.
respondent Judge denied the motion. Prosecution succeeded in deceiving the city court of Cebu into - the defendant's escape will be considered a waiver
then filed this petition with prayer for a TRO. The SC granting him bail and ordering his release; and so he of this right and the inability of the court to notify
granted the petition and issued a TRO, restraining escaped. him of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it
the respondent Court from further proceeding with - Respondent judge Salas, learning later of the from continuing with his trial. He will be deemed to
the criminal case. trickery, cancelled the illegal bail bond and ordered have received due notice.
Abong's re-arrest. But he was gone. Nonetheless, the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 123 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Dispositive the order of the trial court denying the dismissing the case against the five accused while August 22, 1973 and in the said arraignment he
motion for the trial in absentia of the accused is set holding in abeyance the proceedings against the pleaded not guilty. He was also informed of the
aside. private respondent. On November 16,1973 the scheduled hearings set on September 18 and 19,
petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration 1973 and this is evidenced by his signature on the
GIMENEZ v NAZARENO questioning the above-quoted dispositive portion on notice issued by the lower Court. It was also proved
the ground that it will render nugatory the by a certified copy of the Police Blotter that private
160 SCRA 1
constitutional provision on "trial in absentia" cited respondent escaped from his detention center. No
GANCAYCO; April 15 1988 earlier. However, this was denied by the lower court explanation for his failure to appear in court in any of
in an Order dated November 22, 1973. Hence, this the scheduled hearings was given. Even the trial
NATURE petition. court considered his absence unjustified
Petition for certiorari and mandamus - The contention of the respondent judge that the
ISSUES right of the accused to be presumed innocent will be
FACTS 1. WON a court loses jurisdiction over an accused violated if a judgment is rendered as to him is
- Accused Samson Suan, Alex Potot, Rogelio Mula, who after being arraigned, escapes from the custody untenable. He is still presumed innocent. A judgment
Fernando Cargando, Rogelio Baguio and the herein of the law of conviction must still be based upon the evidence
private respondent Teodoro de la Vega Jr., were 2. WON trial in absentia is warranted presented in court. Such evidence must prove him
charged with the crime of murder on August 3, 1973. 3. WON under Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Also, there can be
On August 22, 1973 all the above-named. accused Constitution, an accused who has been duly tried in no violation of due process since the accused was
were arraigned and each of them pleaded not guilty absentia retains his right to present evidence on his given the opportunity to be heard.
to the crime charged. Following the arraignment, the own behalf and to confront and cross-examine INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE:
respondent judge, Hon. Ramon E. Nazareno, set the witnesses who testified against him . . . The Constitutional Convention felt the need for
hearing of the case for September 18, 1973 at 1:00 such a provision as there were quite a number of
o'clock in the afternoon. All the acused including HELD reported instances where the proceedings against
private respondent, were duly informed of this. 1. NO a defendant had to be stayed indefinitely because
- Before the scheduled date of the first hearing the - It is not disputed that the lower court acquired of his non- appearance. What the Constitution
private respondent escaped from his detention jurisdiction over the person of the accused-private guarantees him is a fair trial, not continued
center and on the said date, failed to appear in court. respondent when he appeared during the enjoyment of his freedom even if his guilt could be
This prompted the fiscals handling the case (the arraignment on August 22,1973 and pleaded not proved. With the categorical statement in the
petitioners herein) to file a motion with the lower guilty to the crime charged. In cases criminal, fundamental law that his absence cannot justify a
court to proceed with the hearing of the case against jurisdiction over the person of the accused is delay provided that he has been duly notified and
all the accused praying that private respondent de la acquired either by his arrest for voluntary his failure to appear is unjustified, such an abuse
Vega, Jr. be tried in absentia invoking the application appearance in court. Such voluntary appearance is could be remedied. That is the way it should be, for
of Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution accomplished by appearing for arraignment as what both society and the offended party have a
which provides: accused-private respondent did in this case. legitimate interest in seeing to it that crime should
SEC. 19. In all criminal prosecution, the accused Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the not go unpunished.
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is instance of parties but continues until the case is 3. NO
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by terminated. To capsulize the foregoing discussion, - The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature suffice it to say that where the accused appears at Section 1 (c) of Rule 115 clearly reflects the intention
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a the arraignment and pleads not guilty to the crime of the framers of our Constitution, to wit:
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the charged, jurisdiction is acquired by the court over his ... The absence of the accused without any justifiable
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory person and this continues until the termination of the cause at the trial on a particular date of which he had
process to the attendance of witnesses and the case, notwithstanding his escape from the custody of notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be
production of evidence in his behalf. However, the law. present during that trial. When an accused under
after arraignment trial may proceed 2. YES custody had been notified of the date of the trail and
notwithstanding the absence of the accused - Going to the second part of Section 19, Article IV of escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right
provided that he has been duly notified and his the 1973 Constitution aforecited a "trial in to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial
failure to appear is unjustified. absentia"may be had when the following requisites dates until custody in regained....
- Pursuant to the above-written provision, the lower are present: (1) that there has been an arraignment; - An escapee who has been duly tried in absentia
court proceeded with the trial of the case but (2) that the accused has been notified; and (3) that waives his right to present evidence on his own
nevertheless gave the private respondent the he fails to appear and his failure to do so is behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses
opportunity to take the witness stand the moment he unjustified.In this case, all the above conditions were who testified against him.
shows up in court. After due trial, or on November attendant calling for a trial in absentia. As the facts Dispositive The judgment of the trial court in so far
6,1973, the lower court rendered a decision show, the private respondent was arraigned on as it suspends the proceedings against the private
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 124 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

respondent Teodoro de la Vega, Jr. is reversed and escapee could not be held because he could not be The defendant was found guilty on count 4 as well as
set aside. The respondent judge is hereby directed to duly notified. He forgets that the fugitive is now counts 1, 2, 3 and 7 and was sentenced to death and
render judgment upon the innocence or guilt of the deemed to have waived such notice precisely to pay a fine of P20,000.
herein private respondent Teodoro de la Vega, Jr. in because he has escaped, and it is also this escape
accordance with the evidence adduced and the that makes his failure to appear at his trial ISSUE
applicable law. unjustified. The right to be present at one's trial may WON the judgment must be reversed because of the
now be waived except only at that stage where the trial court's failure to appoint "another attorney de
PEOPLE v SALAS prosecution intends to present witnesses who will oficio for the accused in spite of the manifestation of
identify the accused.11 Under [Sec.14(2), 1987 the attorney de oficio (who defended the accused at
CRUZ; July 29, 1986
Const.], the defendant's escape will be considered a the trial) that he would like to be relieved for obvious
waiver of this right and the inability of the court to reasons."
NATURE
notify him of the subsequent hearings will not
Special civil actions, certiorari and mandamus.
prevent it from continuing with his trial. He will be HELD
deemed to have received due notice. The same fact NO
FACTS
of his escape will make his failure to appear - The appellate tribunal will indulge reasonable
- ABONG was originally charged with homicide in CFI
unjustified because he has, by escaping, placed presumptions, in favor of the legality and regularity
Cebu but before he could be arraigned the case was
himself beyond the pale, and protection, of the law. of all the proceedings of the trial court, including the
reinvestigated. An amended information was filed as
- ABONG should be prepared to bear the presumption that the accused was not denied the
a result, with no bail recommended, to which ABONG
consequences of his escape, including forfeiture of right to have counsel. (U. S. vs. Labial, 27 Phil., 82.) It
pleaded not guilty. During the trial, ABONG, taking
the right to be notified of the subsequent is presumed that the procedure prescribed by law
advantage of the first information for homicide,
proceedings and of the right to adduce evidence on has been observed unless it is made to appear
succeeded in deceiving the court into granting him
his behalf and refute the evidence of the prosecution, expressly to the contrary. (U. S. vs. Escalante, 36
bail and ordering his release; and so he escaped.
not to mention a possible or even probable Phil., 743.) The fact that the attorney appointed by
Judge SALAS, learning later of the trickery, cancelled
conviction. the trial court to aid the defendant in his defense
the illegal bail bond and ordered ABONG's re-arrest.
Dispositive Order of J. SALAS was SET ASIDE, and expressed reluctance to accept the designation
Meanwhile, the prosecution moved that the hearing
he was directed to continue hearing ABONG’s case in because, as the present counsel assumes, he did not
continue in accordance with the constitutional
absentia as long as he has not reappeared, until it is sympathize with the defendant's cause, is not
provision authorizing trial in absentia. SALAS denied
terminated. sufficient to overcome this presumption. The
the motion, however, and suspended all proceedings
statement of the counsel in the court below did no
until the return of ABONG. Hence, the present
petitions. PEOPLE v PRIETO (alias EDDIE necessarily imply that he did not perform his duty to
protect the interest of the accused. As a matter of
VALENCIA)
fact, the present counsel "sincerely believes that the
ISSUE 80 Phil 138 said Attorney Carin did his best, although it was not
WON J. SALAS is correct in disallowing trial in
TUASON: January 29, 1948 the best of a willing worker." We do not discern in the
absentia of ABONG’s case
record any indication that the former counsel did not
NATURE conduct the defense to the best of his ability. If
HELD
APPEAL from a judgment of the People's Court Attorney Carin did his best as a sworn member of the
NO
bar, as the present attorney admits, that was
- The purpose of the constitutional rule that “after
FACTS enough; his sentiments did not cut any influence in
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
- The appellant was prosecuted in the People's Court the result of the case and did not imperil the rights of
absence of the accused provided that he has been
for treason on 7 counts. After pleading not guilty he the appellant.
duly notified and his failure to appear is
entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7, and
unjustified,”10 is to speed up the disposition of
criminal cases, trial of which could in the past be
maintained the original plea as to counts 4, 5 and 6. JOHNSON v ZERBST
The special prosecutor introduced evidence only on
indefinitely deferred, and many times completely 304 US 458
count 4, stating with reference to counts 5 and 6 that
abandoned, because of the defendant's escape. Now,
he did not have sufficient evidence to sustain them. BLACK; May 23, 1938
the prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his
- The attorney de officio manifested that he would
continued prosecution provided only that: a) he has NATURE
like to be relieved from his assignment.
been arraigned; b) he has been duly notified of the Appeal from the decision of the District Court
trial; and c) his failure to appear is unjustified. denying the petition for habeas corpus which the
- J. SALAS was probably still thinking of the old Court of Appeals affirmed
doctrine when he ruled that trial in absentia of the
11
10
Citing Aquino v. Mil. Commission No. 2 and People v. Presiding FACTS
1973 Const, ART. IV, Sec.19. Now, ART. III, Sec.14(2), 1987 Const. Judge. See p.9 of outline.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 125 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Petitioner and one Bridwell were arrested in conviction and sentence. If the accused, however, is his conviction to a sufficient extent to test the
Charleston, S.C., November 21, 1934, charged with not represented by counsel and has not competently jurisdiction of the state court to proceed to judgment
feloniously uttering and passing four counterfeit and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the against him. ...
twenty-dollar Federal Reserve notes and possessing Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a '... it is open to the courts of the United States, upon
twenty-one such notes. Both were then enlisted men valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his an application for a writ of habeas corpus, to look
in the United States Marine Corps, on leave. They life or his liberty. beyond forms and inquiry into the very substance of
were bound over to await action of the United States Ratio The purpose of the constitutional guaranty of a the matter ....'
Grand July, but were kept in jail due to inability to right to counsel is to protect an accused from - If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not
give bail. January 21, 1935, they were indicted; conviction resulting from his own ignorance of his complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to
January 23, 1935, they were taken to court and there legal and constitutional rights, and the guaranty proceed. The judgment of conviction pronounced by
first give notice of the indictment; immediately were would be nullified by a determination that an a court without jurisdiction is void, and one
arraigned, tried, convicted, and sentenced that day accused's ignorant failure to claim his rights removes imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas
to four and one-half years in the penitentiary; and the protection of the Constitution. True, habeas corpus. A judge of the United States-to whom a
January 25, were transported to the Federal corpus cannot be used as a means of reviewing petition for habeas corpus is addressed-should be
Penitentiary in Atlanta. While counsel had errors of law and irregularities-not involving the alert to examine 'the facts for himself when if true as
represented them in the preliminary hearings before question of jurisdiction-occurring during the course of alleged they make the trial absolutely void.'
the commissioner in which they-some two months trial; and the 'writ of habeas corpus cannot be used - It must be remembered, however, that a judgment
before their trial-were bound over to the Grand Jury, as a writ of error.' These principles, however, must cannot be lightly set aside by collateral attack, even
the accused were unable to employ counsel for their be construed and applied so as to preserve-not on habeas corpus. When collaterally attacked, the
trial. Upon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty, said destroy-constitutional safeguards of human life and judgment of a court carries with it a presumption of
that they had no lawyer, and-in response to an liberty. The scope of inquiry in habeas corpus regularity. Where a defendant, without counsel,
inquiry of the court-stated that they were ready for proceedings has been broadened-not narrowed-since acquiesces in a trial resulting in his conviction and
trial. They were then tried, convicted, and sentenced, the adoption of the Sixth Amendment. In such a later seeks release by the extraordinary remedy of
without assistance of counsel. proceeding, 'it would be clearly erroneous to confine habeas corpus, the burden of proof rests upon him to
- It appears from the opinion of the District Judge the inquiry to the proceedings and judgment of the establish that he did not competently and
denying habeas corpus that he believed petitioner trial court' and the petitioned court has 'power to intelligently waive his constitutional right to
was deprived, in the trial court, of his constitutional inquire with regard to the jurisdiction of the inferior assistance of Counsel. If in a habeas corpus hearing,
right under the provision of the Sixth Amendment, court, either in respect to the subject-matter or to he does meet this burden and convinces the court by
that, 'In all criminal prosecutions,the accused shall the person, even if such inquiry involves an a preponderance of evidence that he neither had
enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel examination of facts outside of, but not inconsistent counsel nor properly waived his constitutional right
for his defense.' However, he held that proceedings with, the record.' Congress has expanded the rights to counsel, it is the duty of the court to grant the
depriving petitioner of his constitutional right to of a petitioner for habeas corpus and the '... effect is writ.
assistance of counsel were not sufficient 'to make to substitute for the bare legal review that seems to Dispositive The cause is reversed and remanded to
the trial void and justify its annulment in a habeas have been the limit of judicial authority under the the District Court for determination whether
corpus proceeding, but that they constituted trial common-law practice, and under the act of 31 Car. II, petitioner did not competently and intelligently waive
errors or irregularities which could only be corrected chap. 2, a more searching investigation, in which the his right to counsel. If court finds for petitioner the
on appeal.' applicant is put upon his oath to set forth the truth of decision of the district court convicting petitioner
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the matter respecting the causes of his detention, must be declared void.
and the court, upon determining the actual facts, is
ISSUE to 'dispose of the party as law and justice require.' PEOPLE v HOLGADO
WON the remedy of habeas corpus render the - 'There being no doubt of the authority of the
85 PHIL 752
conviction of the petitioner void when there is a Congress to thus liberalize the common-law
violation of the right to counsel, the sixth procedure on habeas corpus in order to safeguard MORAN; March 22, 1950
amendment the liberty of all persons within the jurisdiction of the
United States against infringement through any FACTS
HELD violation of the Constitution or a law or treaty - Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court
YES established thereunder, it results that under the of First Instance of Romblon with slight illegal
- Compliance with this constitutional mandate is an sections cited a prisoner in custody pursuant to the detention because according to the information,
essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal final judgment of a state court of criminal jurisdiction being a private person, he did "feloniously and
court's authority to deprive an accused of his life or may have a judicial inquiry in a court of the United without justifiable motive, kidnap and detain one
liberty. When this right is properly waived, the States into the very truth and substance of the Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for
assistance of counsel is no longer a necessary causes of his detention, although it may become about eight hours thereby depriving said Artemia
element of the court's jurisdiction to proceed to necessary to look behind and beyond the record of Fabreag of her personal liberty."
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 126 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- During the trial, he plead guilty as he was without a the accused desires to procure an attorney of his and whether it had reference to the commission of
lawyer, and that a certain Numeriano Ocampo told own the court must grant him a reasonable time the offense or to the making of the plea guilty. No
Holgado to plead guilty. The Court reserved the therefor. investigation was opened by the court on this matter
sentence for a two days despite the fiscal’s - IN THE CASE, Not one of these duties had been in the presence of the accused and there is now no
assurances that the certain Numeriano Ocampo has complied with by the trial court. The record discloses way of determining whether the supposed instruction
been investigated and found without evidence to link that said court did not inform the accused of his right is a good defense or may vitiate the voluntariness of
him to the crime to have an attorney nor did it ask him if he desired the confession. Apparently the court became
- It must be noticed that in the caption of the case as the aid of one. The trial court failed to inquire satisfied with the fiscal's information that he had
it appears in the judgment above quoted, the offense whether or not the accused was to employ an investigated Mr. Ocampo and found that the same
charged is named SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION while attorney, to grant him reasonable time to procure or had nothing to do with this case. Such attitude of the
in the body of the judgment if is said that the assign an attorney de oficio. court was wrong for the simple reason that a mere
accused "stands charged with the crime of - The question asked by the court to the accused statement of the fiscal was not sufficient to
kidnapping and serious illegal detention." In the was "Do you have an attorney or are you going to overcome a qualified plea of the accused. But above
formation filed by the provincial fiscal it is said that plead guilty?" Not only did such a question fail to all, the court should have seen to it that the accused
he "accuses Frisco Holgado of the crime of slight inform the accused that it was his right to have an be assisted by counsel specially because of the
illegal detention." The facts alleged in said attorney before arraignment, but, what is worse, qualified plea given by him and the seriousness of
information are not clear as to whether the offense is the question was so framed that it could have been the offense found to be capital by the court.
named therein or capital offense of "kidnapping and construed by the accused as a suggestion from the Dispositive The judgment appealed from is
serious illegal detention" as found by the trial judge court that he plead guilt if he had no attorney. And reversed and the case is remanded to the Court
in his judgment. Since the accused-appellant pleaded this is a denial of fair hearing in violation of the below for a new arraignment and a new trial after the
guilty and no evidence appears to have been due process clause contained in our Constitution. accused is apprised of his right to have and to be
presented by either party, the trial judge must have - One of the great principles of justice guaranteed by assisted by counsel. So ordered.
deduced the capital offense from the facts pleaded in our Constitution is that "no person shall be held to
the information. answer for a criminal offense without due process of PEOPLE v NICANDRO
law", and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be
141 SCRA 295
ISSUE heard by himself and counsel." In criminal cases
WON the conviction of the lower court is valid there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be PLANA; February 11, 1986
given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. The
HELD right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not NATURE
NO. It is invalid. include the right to be heard by counsel. Even the Appeal from judgment of CFI Manila
- Under the circumstances, particularly the qualified most intelligent or educated man may have no skill
plea given by the accused who was unaided by in the science of the law, particularly in the rules of FACTS
counsel, it was not prudent, to say the least, for the procedure, and, without counsel, he may be - Pursuant to information regarding the illegal sale of
trial court to render such a serious judgment finding convicted not because he is guilty but because he prohibited drugs by Nicandro, the WPD conducted
the accused guilty of a capital offense, and imposing does not know how to establish his innocence. And surveillance and organized an “entrapment with the
upon him such a heavy penalty as ten years and one this can happen more easily to persons who are confidential informant acting as the buyer of
day of prision mayor to twenty years, without ignorant or uneducated. marijuana.” With marked money, the informant
absolute any evidence to determine and clarify the - It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by asked to buy marijuana from Nicandro, and upon
true facts of the case. counsel is deemed so important that it has become a delivery of 4 sticks of marijuana cigarettes, the police
- rules of Court, Rule 112, section 3, that – constitutional right and it is so implemented that nabbed Nicandro. The marked bills were recovered
If the defendant appears without attorney, he must under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the from her pockets, as well as marijuana flowering top.
be informed by the court that it is his right to have Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an - Allegedly, upon being investigated and after having
attorney being arraigned., and must be asked if he attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether he been duly apprised of her constitutional rights,
desires the aid of attorney, the Court must assign desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that Nicandro orally admitted having sold the marijuana,
attorney de oficio to defend him. A reasonable the court should assign one de oficio if he so desires but refused to reduce her confession to writing.
time must be allowed for procuring attorney. and he is poor grant him a reasonable time to The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of
- the court has four important duties to comply with: procure an attorney of his own. Patrolman Joves, one of the officers who conducted
1 — It must inform the defendant that it is his right to - in the instant case, that the accused who was the entrapment. His testimony said “when we saw
have attorney before being arraigned; 2 — After unaided by counsel pleaded guilty but with the the accused handed the 4 sticks of suspected
giving him such information the court must ask him if following qualification: "but I was instructed by one marijuana cigarettes to our confidential informant
he desires the aid of an attorney; 3 — If he desires Mr. Ocampo." The trial court failed to inquire as to and after a prearranged signal was given by the
and is unable to employ attorney, the court must the true import of this qualification. the record does informant that the accused had already sold her the
assign attorney de oficio to defend him; and 4 — If not show whether the supposed instructions was real marijuana, we immediately nabbed said suspect and
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 127 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

at the same time we identified ourselves as police confession obtained in violation of this section shall be constitutional rights when he answered the
officers.” inadmissible in evidence). questions, it is idle to talk of waiver of rights.
- When asked how he conducted the investigation, - above provision is an expanded version of the right - in this case, Joves did not say what specific rights
Pat. Joves testified that “the first thing I did was I vs self-incrimination, formally incorporating the he mentioned to Nicandro, neither did he state the
informed the accused of her constitutional rights, doctrine in Miranda v Arizona: “the prosecution may manner he advised her of her rights so as to make
then I questioned her about the marijuana that were not use statements, whether exculpatory or her understand them. This is particularly impt
confiscated xxx and she verbally admitted that she inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of because Nicandro was illiterate and can’t be
sold the 4 sticks and possessed and owned the other the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of expected to be able to grasp the significance of her
marijuana leaves.” CFI convicted her, relying mostly procedural safeguards effective to secure the rights merely by hearing an abstract statement
on Nicandro’s confession as stated in the Joves’ privilege against self- incrimination. xxx As for the thereof.
testimony. She appealed. procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other - As it is the obligation of the investigator to inform a
fully effective means are devised to inform accused person under investigation of his rights, so is it the
ISSUES persons of their right of silence and to assure a duty of the prosecution to affirmatively establish
1. WON court erred in giving probative value to the continuous opportunity to exercise it, the ff measures compliance by the investigator with his said
testimony of the officer are required. Prior to any questioning, the person obligation. Absent such affirmative showing,
2. WON rights of accused (vs self-incrimination and must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, admission or confession made by a person under
to confront witness vs her) were violated, thus any that any statement he does make may be used as investigation cannot be admitted in evidence.
evidence obtained therefrom are inadmissible evidence against him, and that he has a right to the - Miranda v Arizona: “we will not presume that
presence of an atty, either retained or appointed. defendant has been effectively apprised of his rights
HELD The defendant may waive those rights, provided and that his privilege vs self incrimination has been
1. YES such is made voluntarily, knowingly & intelligently. If, adequately safeguarded on a record that doesn’t
Ratio The prosecution evidence leaves much to be however, he indicates in any manner & at any stage show that any warnings have been given or any
desired. It is at best uncertain whether any of the process that he wishes to consult with an atty effective alternative has been employed. Nor can a
prosecution witness really saw the alleged sale of before speaking, there can be no questioning. waiver of these rights be assumed on a silent record”
marijuana. Likewise, if the individual is alone & indicates in any Dispositive decision SET ASIDE. Acquitted for
Reasoning manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the reasonable doubt
- The court found the testimony of Pat. Joves police may not question him. The mere fact that he
unreliable as it appears that he himself was unsure of may have answered some questions or volunteered BATAAN SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING
what he saw, first saying that he saw the marijuana some statements on his own does not deprive him of
the right to refrain from answering any further CO INC (BASECO) v PCGG
being sold openly, but when the improbability of
illegal drugs being sold openly was pointed out, he inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney & 150 SCRA 181
qualified his story by saying that the sale took place thereafter consents to be questioned.” (the court NARVASA; May 27, 1987
secretly. points out that the Miranda doctrine rests on the
-it is probable that Joves did not really see either the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be NATURE
alleged delivery of marijuana or the supposed compelled to be a witness vs himself) SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari and prohibition to
payment therefor. With his testimony seriously - since right “to be informed” implies comprehension, review the order of the Presidential Commission on
placed in doubt, there is not much left of the degree of explanation required will necessary vary, Good Government
prosecution evidence. depending upon the education, intelligence & other
2. YES relevant personal circumstances of the person under FACTS
Ratio the right of a person under interrogation “to investigation. A simpler & more lucid explanation is - Challenged in this special civil action of certiorari
be informed” implies a correlative obligation on the needed where the subject is unlettered and prohibition by a private corporation known as the
part of the investigator to explain, and contemplates - Like other constitutional rights, the right vs self- Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc. are:
an effective communication that results in incrimination, including the right of a person under (1) Executive Orders Numbered 1 and 2,
understanding what is conveyed. Short of this, there investigation to remain silent & to counsel, and to be promulgated by President Aquino on February 28,
is a denial of the right, as it cannot truly be said that informed of such right, may be waived. To be valid, 1986 and March 12, 1986
the person has been “informed” of his rights. however, a waiver must not only be voluntary; it (2) the sequestration, takeover, and other orders
Reasoning must be made knowingly & intelligently, which issued, and acts done, in accordance with said
- reliance on oral admission is assailed as violative of presupposes an awareness or understanding of what executive orders by the Presidential Commission on
Sec20, Art.IV, 1973 Consti (No person shall be compelled is being waived. It stands to reason that where the Good Government and/or its Commissioners and
to be a witness vs himself. Any person under investigation right has not been adequately explained and there agents, affecting said corporation.
for the commission of an offense shall have right to remain are serious doubts as to whether the person - BASECO prays that this Court
silent and to counsel, and to be in. formed of each right. No interrogated knew and understood his relevant 1) declare unconstitutional and void Executive
force, violation, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any
Orders Numbered 1 and 2;
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 128 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

2) annul the sequestration order dated April 14, subpoenae ad testification and duces tecum; Philippines or abroad, in their names as nominees,
1986, and all other orders subsequently issued and administer oaths; punish for contempt. It was given agents or trustees, to make full disclosure of the
acts done on the basis thereof, inclusive of the power also to promulgate such rules and regulations same to the Commission on Good Government within
takeover order of July 14, 1986 and the termination as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of (its thirty (30) days from publication of * (the) Executive
of the services of the BASECO executives. creation). " Order, "
Executive Order No. 2 Executive Order No. 14
ISSUES > gives additional and more specific data and > PCGG is empowered, "with the assistance of the
1. WON Executive No s 1, 2 and 14 are directions respecting "the recovery of ill-gotten Office of the Solicitor General and other government
unconstitutional properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of agencies, * * to file and prosecute all cases
2. WON right against self-incrimination can be the previous regime." It declares that: investigated by it * * as may be warranted by its
invoked by BASECO 1) "* * the Government of the Philippines is in findings.'"34 All such cases, whether civil or criminal,
possession of evidence showing that there are assets are to be filed "with the Sandiganbayan, which shall
HELD and properties purportedly pertaining to former have exclusive and original jurisdiction thereof."
1. NO Ferdinand E. Marcos, and/or his wife Mrs. Imelda > "(c)ivil suits for restitution, reparation of damages,
Executive Order No. 1 Romualdez Marcos, their close relatives, or indemnification for consequential damages,
> stresses the "urgent need to recover all ill-gotten subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents forfeiture proceedings provided for under Republic
wealth," and postulates that "vast resources of the or nominees which had been or were acquired by Act No. 1379, or any other civil actions under the
government have been amassed by former President them directly or indirectly, through or as a result of Civil Code or other existing laws, in connection with *
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, the improper or illegal use of funds or properties * (said Executive Orders Numbered I and 2) may be
and close associates both here and abroad." Upon owned by the government of the Philippines or any of filed separately from and proceed independently of
these premises, the Presidential Commission on its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or any criminal proceedings and may be proved by a
Good Government was created, "charged with the financial institutions, or by taking undue advantage preponderance of evidence;" and that, moreover, the
task of assisting the President in regard to (certain of their office, authority, influence, connections or "technical rules of procedure and evidence shall not
specified) matters, - among which was precisely relationship, resulting in their unjust enrichment and be strictly applied to* *(said) civil cases."
> In relation to the takeover or sequestration that it causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino 2. NO, there is No Violation of Right against Self-
was authorized to undertake in the fulfillment of its people and the Republic of the Philippines; and Incrimination
mission, the PCGG was granted "power and 2) " * said assets and properties are in the form of Ratio It is elementary that the right against self-
authority" to do the following particular acts, to wit: bank accounts, deposits, trust accounts, shares of incrimination has no application to juridical persons.
1. "To sequester or place or cause to be placed stocks, buildings, shopping centers, condominiums, Reasoning
under its control or possession any building or mansions, residences, estates, and other kinds of - BASECO contends that its right against self-
office wherein any ill-gotten wealth or properties may real and personal properties in the Philippines and in incrimination and unreasonable searches and
be found, and any records pertaining thereto, in various countries of the world." seizures had been transgressed by the Order of April
order to prevent their destruction, concealment or Upon these premises, the President 18, 1986 which required it "to produce corporate
disappearance which would frustrate or hamper the 1) froze "all assets and properties in the records from 1973 to 1986 under pain of contempt of
investigation or otherwise prevent the Commission Philippines in which former President Marcos and/or the Commission if it fails to do so." The order was
from accomplishing its task. his wife, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their close issued upon the authority of Section 3 (e) of
2. "To provisionally take over in the public relatives, subordinates, business associates, Executive Order No. 1, treating of the PCGG's power
interest or to prevent the disposal or dummies, agents, or nominees have any interest or to "issue subpoenas requiring the production of such
dissipation, business enterprises and properties participation" books, papers,contracts, records, statements of
taken over by the government of the Marcos 2) prohibited former President Ferdinand Marcos accounts and other documents as may be material to
Administration or by entities or persons close to and/or his wife * *, their close relatives, subordinates, the investigation conducted by the Commission," and
former President Marcos, until the transactions business associates, dummies, agents, or nominees paragraph (3), Executive Order No. 2 dealing with its
leading to such acquisition by the latter can be from transferring, conveying, encumbering, power to "(r)equire all persons in the Philippines
disposed of by the appropriate authorities." concealing or dissipating said assets or holding * *(alleged "ill-gotten") assets or properties,
3. "To enjoin or restrain any actual or properties in the Philippines and abroad whether located in the Philippines or abroad, in their
threatened commission of acts by any person 3) prohibited "any person from transferring names as nominees, agents or trustees, to make full
or entity that may render moot and academic, or conveying, encumbering or otherwise depleting or disclosure of the same **. "
frustrate or otherwise make ineffectual the efforts of concealing such assets and properties or from - While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer
the Commission to carry out its task under this order. assisting or taking part in their transfer, incriminating questions unless protected by an
" encumbrance. concealment or dissipation under pain immunity statute, it does not follow that a
> So that it might ascertain the facts germane to its of such penalties as are prescribed by law;" and corporation, vested with special privileges and
objectives, it was granted power to conduct 4) required "all persons in the Philippines holding franchises, may refuse to show its hand when
investigations, require submission of evidence by such assets or properties, whether located in the charged with an abuse of such privileges
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 129 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling information directly or indirectly derived from such YES
> corporations are not entitled to all of the testimony, or other information) may be used - Sections 1 and 2, Rule 13212 of the rules of Court
constitutional protections which private individuals against the witness in any criminal case, except a clearly require that the testimony of a witness shall
have. They are not at all within the privilege against prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, be given orally in open court.
self-incriminatior, although this court more than once or otherwise failing to comply with the order." Reasoning
has said that the privilege runs very closely with the Dispositive petition is dismissed - The main and essential purpose of the rule is to
4th Amendment's Search and Seizure provisions. It is Voting Yap, Fernan, Paras, Gancayco and Sarmiento secure for the adverse party the opportunity to cross-
also settled that an officer of the company cannot concur examine the witness presented. The “opponent”
refuse to produce its records in its possession, upon Teehankee, concurs in a separate opinion. demands confrontation for the purpose of cross
the plea that they will either incriminate him or may Melencio-Herrera, concurs with qualifications in a examination which cannot be had except by the
incriminate it. separation opinion. direct and personal putting of questions and
- Wilson v. United States Gutierrez, Jr. see concurring and dissenting opinion. obtaining immediate answers.
> The corporation is a creature of the state. It is Cruz dissents in a separate opinion. - There is also the advantage obtained in the
presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the Feliciano joins M. Herrera's qualified concurring personal appearance of the witness in open court as
public. It received certain special privileges and opinion. it affords the judge to assess the weight and value
franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the Padilla see concurring opinion. that can be given to any of the testimony based on
state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are Bidin joins Gutierrez in his concurring and dissenting his perception of the witness’ countenance, manner,
limited by law. It can make no contract not opinion. and expression. In deed, the great weight given the
authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a Cortes joins Gutierrez in his concurring and findings of fact of the trial judge in the appellate
corporation are only preserved to it so long as it dissenting opinion. court is based precisely upon the judge having had
obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserve the opportunity and the assumption that he took
right in the legislature to investigate its contracts PEOPLE v ESTENSO advantage of it to ascertain the credibility of the
and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It witness.
72 SCRA 473
would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, - Rules governing the examination of witnesses are
having chartered a corporation to make use of ANTONIO; August 27, 1976 intended to protect the rights of the litigants and to
certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of secure orderly dispatch of the business of the courts.
sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been NATURE Hence only questions directed to the eliciting of
employed, and whether they had been abused, and Original Action for Certiorari and prohibition testimony which, under the general rules of
demand the production of the corporate books and evidence, is relevant to and competent to prove, the
papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to issues of the case, may be propounded to the
this, that an officer of the corporation which is FACTS witness.
charged with a criminal violation of the statute may - In Criminal Case No. 2891, entitled People of the Dispositive Petition granted. The order of the judge
plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal Philippines vs Gregorio Ojoy, of the CFI of Iloilo, the is set aside.
to produce its books. To state this proposition is to counsel for the accused, after the accused himself
had already testified in his own trial, manifested to
answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to SEPARATE OPINION
answer incriminating questions unless protected by the Court that he was filing only affidavits for his
an immunity statute, it does not follow that a subsequent witnesses subject to cross-examination
by the prosecution on matters stated in the said BARREDO [concur]
corporation, vested with special privileges and
affidavits and on all matters pertinent and material - Barredo noted that it was the private prosecutor
franchises may refuse to show its hand when
to the case. who objected to the procedure adapted and the
charged with an abuse of such privileges.
- At any rate, Executive Order No. 14-A, amending - The private prosecutor objected to the
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 14 assures manifestation as the same is a violation of Sections 1
protection to individuals required to produce and 2 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, 12
Section 1. Testimony to be given in open court.- the testimony of
evidence before the PCGG against any possible which require that testimony of the witnesses should witnesses shall be given orally in open court and under oath or
violation of his right against self-incrimination. It be given orally in open court. affirmation.
Section 2. Testimony in Superior Courts to be reduced in writing.- In
gives them immunity from prosecution on the basis - The CFI judge granted the motion of the defense. superior courts, the testimony of each witness shall be taken in
of testimony or information he is compelled to Hence this appeal. shorthand or stenotype, the name, residence, and occupation of the
witness being stated, and all the questions put the witness and his
present. As amended, said Section 4 now provides answers thereto being included. If a question put is objected to and the
that ISSUE objection is ruled on, the nature of the objection and the ground on
"The witness may not refuse to comply with the WON the CFI judge erred in allowing the just the which it was sustained or overruled must be stated, or if the witness
order on the basis of his privilege against self- submission of affidavits in lieu of oral testimony declines to answer a question out, the fact and the proceedings taken
thereon shall be entered in the record. A transcript of the record made
incrimination; but no testimony or other by the official stenographer so stenotypist and certified as correct by
information compelled under the order (or any HELD him shall be prima facie a correct statement of such testimony and
proceedings.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 130 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Solicitor General only commented at the insistence of warrant for the arrest and thereafter set the case for he had already been convicted of rebellion, he
the Supreme Court. trial. cannot now be prosecuted for subversion
- While concurring with the opinion of the court, - Upon being arraigned, Liwanag, assisted by his 4. WON the decision should have been promulgated
Barredo felt that the approach is novel as this may counsel, waived the reading of the information and in the CFI of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, considering
be a solution to speeding up trials in the lower entered a plea of not guilty. In view of the desire of that he was then detained or confined at Camp
courts. He nevertheless stated that the procedure his counsel to file a motion to quash, the court Crame, Quezon City, and not in the Pasig Branch of
could probably work only for civil cases. granted Liwanag twenty (20) days within which to do said Court
- Barredo anchored his approbation of the procedure so.
on the fact that cross examination may be had even - Liwanag filed a motion to quash the information HELD
if direct examination is dispensed with. Hence the upon the grounds that he has been previously 1. NO
Constitutional requirement that the opponent be convicted of rebellion based upon the same overt - The Constitution guarantees an accused person the
given the opportunity to confront the witness is met. acts as in the instant case, and that Republic Act No. right to meet the witnesses against him face to face.
- Barredo suggested certain improvements prior to 1700 is an ex post pacto law (bill of attainder) in that This provision "intends to secure the accused in the
the adoption of the procedure. Among these are the it changes the punishment and inflicts a greater right to be tried, so far as facts provable by
need for the testimony to be submitted to the punishment or penalty than that annexed to the witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as
prosecution for vetting as to materiality and crime when committed. The court denied the meet him face to face at the trial, who give their
relevance. Same should be submitted to the judge motion. testimony in his presence, and give to the accused
for his own examination as to materiality and - The case was subsequently set for trial, the an opportunity of cross-examination. It was intended
relevance. prosecution moved that the testimony of the to prevent the conviction of the accused upon
witnesses presented during the preliminary depositions or ex-parte affidavits, and particularly to
PEOPLE v LIWANAG investigation of this case be adopted as part of the preserve the right of the accused to test the
evidence in chief of the prosecution. The trial court recollection of the witnesses in the exercise of the
73 SCRA 473
granted the motion subject to the condition that the right of cross-examination."
CONCEPCION; October 19, 1976 witnesses be further cross-examined by counsel for - Here, the testimony sought to be made part of the
the accused. evidence in chief are not ex-parte affidavits, but
NATURE - At the trial, the witnesses for the prosecution who testimony of witnesses taken down by question and
Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First testified at the preliminary investigation were answer during the preliminary investigation in the
Instance of Bataan, finding the accused guilty of recalled and were again cross-examined by counsel presence of the accused and his counsel who
violating the provisions of Republic Act No. 1700, for the appellant. To bolster their case, the subjected the said witnesses to a rigid and close
otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Act, and prosecution presented three additional witnesses. cross-examination. The inclusion of said testimony
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion The defense, presented the appellant himself who was made subject to the right of the defendant to
perpetua with the accessories of the law, and to pay stated that after his apprehension, he was charged further cross-examine the witnesses whose
the costs. with rebellion before the CFI of Pampanga and found testimony are sought to be reproduced and, pursuant
guilty thereof; and he was also charged with murder to said order, the witnesses were recalled to the
FACTS before the CFI of Tarlac and acquitted; and that he stand during the trial and again examined in the
- Liwanag was charged for violating the provisions of surrendered to the PC patrol. However, he admitted presence of the appellant. Upon the facts, there was
RA 1700, otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion membership in the Hukbalahap, and later in the no curtailment of the constitutional right of the
Act, in an information filed before the Court of First HMB, from 1948 to 1960, and did not take advantage accused to meet the witnesses face to face.
Instance of Bataan, for having unlawfully and wilfully of the amnesty offered in 1948. 2. NO
continued and remained as officer and/or ranking - The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime - Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1700, provides that
leader of the outlawed CPP and its military arm, the of subversion, as charged. "No person shall be convicted of any of the offenses
HMB, until his apprehension, without having penalized herein with prision mayor to death unless
renounced his aforementioned leadership and/or ISSUES on the testimony of at least two witnesses to the
membership therein within the period prescribed by 1. WON Liwanag was deprived of his fundamental same overt act or on confession of the accused in
law, and, while remaining as such leader or high- right to confront the witnesses against him when the open court."
ranking member, has taken up arms against the trial court granted the motion of the Fiscal that the - Appellant's being an officer or ranking leader of the
Government by making and conducting raids, testimony of the witnesses presented during the CPP and its military arm, the HMB, is borne out by
ambuscades and armed attacks against civilians, preliminary investigation be adopted and made part the testimony of former associates of the appellant in
Philippine Constabulary, and local police forces. of the evidence for the prosecution the CPP and the HMB. There is his sworn statement
- Preliminary investigation was conducted by the CFI 2. WON trial court erred in finding Liwanag guilty wherein the appellant admitted membership in the
of Bataan. Finding a prima facie case against the 3. WON having been charged with rebellion and Central Committee of the CPP and recounted his
appellant, the Court issued the corresponding subversion based upon the same overt act, and since prismatic rise in the "Hukbalahap" and later in the
HMB, as well as the numerous armed clashes he and
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 131 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

his men had with the Philippine Constabulary and twice in jeopardy for the same act cannot be because Basilio, Talino and Macadangdang were
police forces. There is also the testimony as to the sustained. granted separate trials and they did not cross
gun battle between a PC patrol and a group of HMB 4. NO examine Ulat because, as a matter of fact, they
men led by the appellant in Bataan, where the - The records show that he had been confined at Fort were not even required to be present when the
appellant was captured along with his wife. Besides, Bonifacio (then known as Fort William Mckinley), other accused were presenting their defenses, the
appellant admitted in court that he was a member of Makati, Rizal, since November 20, 1962 and latter's testimonies can not now be considered
the "Hukbalahap" and the HMB and fought against continued to be detained therein during the against said three accused.
the government. continuation of the trial, up to its termination. - The grant of a separate trial rests in the sound
3. NO Dispositive UPON THE FOREGOING, the decision discretion of the court and is not a matter of right to
- Violation of Republic Act No. 1700, or subversion, is appealed from should be, as it is, hereby affirmed, the accused, especially where, as in this case, it is
a crime distinct from that of actual rebellion. with costs. sought after the presentation of the evidence of the
- The crime of rebellion is committed by rising prosecution. The rule in every case is that the trial
publicly and taking up arms against the Government TALINO v SANDIGANBAYAN court should exercise the utmost circumspection in
for any of the purposes specified in Article 134 of the granting a motion for separate trial, allowing the
148 SCRA 598
Revised Penal Code; while the Anti-Subversion Act same only after a thorough study of the claimed
punishes affiliation or membership in a subversive CRUZ; March 16, 1987 justification therefor, if only to avoid the serious
organization as defined therein. In rebellion, there difficulties that may arise, such as the one
must be a public uprising and the taking of arms FACTS encountered and regretted by the respondent court,
against the Government; whereas, in subversion, - Talino, along with several others, were charged in in according the accused the right of confrontation.
mere membership in a subversive association is four separate informations with estafa through - The right of confrontation is one of the fundamental
sufficient, and the taking up of arms by a member of falsification of public documents for having allegedly rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the person
a subversive organization against the Government is conspired to defraud the government in the total facing criminal prosecution who should know, in
but a circumstance which raises the penalty to be amount of P26,523.00, representing the cost of fairness, who his accusers are and must be given a
imposed upon the offender. repairs claimed to have been undertaken, but chance to cross-examine them on their charges. No
- In the rebellion case, the appellant and several actually not needed and never made, on four accusation is permitted to be made against his back
others were charged and convicted of rebellion for government vehicles, through falsification of the or in his absence nor is any derogatory information
having risen publicly and taken up arms against the supporting papers to authorize the illegal payments. accepted if it is made anonymously, as in poison pen
Government for the purpose of removing the The cases were tried jointly for all the accused until letters sent by persons who cannot stand by their
allegiance of the Republic of the Philippines or its Genaro Basilio, Alejandro Macadangdang and libels and must shroud their spite in secrecy. In
laws, the territory of the Philippines, and in petitioner Talino asked for separate trials, which United States v. Javier  confrontation is essential
furtherance thereof, engaged in combat against the were allowed. At one of the proceedings, Pio Ulat because cross-examination is essential. A second
forces of the Government, destroyed property, and gave damaging testimony against Talino. The reason for the prohibition is that a tribunal may have
committed serious violence during the period from Sandiganbayan rendered its decision in all the four before it the deportment and appearance of the
May 28, 1946 to June 19, 1957. cases finding Talino, Basilio, Macadangdang Ulat and witness while testifying.
- The accused is prosecuted under RA 1700 for Renato Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
having remained a high ranking member of the CPP crimes charged while absolving the other defendants ISSUE
and its military arm, the HMB, from January, 1946 to for insufficient evidence. This decision is now WON the decision of the court violates Talino’s right
June 21, 1960, without having renounced his challenged by Talino on the ground that it violates of confrontation as guaranteed by the Constitution
membership in said organizations; and, being a his right of confrontation as guaranteed by the
member or officer of said subversive association, has Constitution. HELD
taken up arms against the Government. - In its decision, the court made the ff remarks: NO
- Although the information charges the appellant with The peculiarity of the trial of these cases is the fact - The court have carefully studied the decision under
having taken up arms against the Government, the that We allowed, upon their petition, separate challenge and find that the respondent court did not
same is not specific as to the period covered by it. trials for the accused Basilio and Talino and consider the testimony given by Ulat in convicting
But, since the appellant is prosecuted for violation of Macadangdang. This being the case, We can only Talino. The part of that decision finding Talino guilty
Republic Act No. 1700 it is deducible that the period consider, in deciding these cases as against them, made no mention of Ulat at all but confined itself to
covered is that from June 20, 1957, when the Act the evidence for the, prosecution as wen as their the petitioner's own acts in approving the questioned
took effect, up to June 21, 1960, when the appellant own evidence. Evidence offered by the other vouchers as proof of his complicity in the plot to
was captured. Inasmuch as the rebellion case accused can not be taken up. It would really have swindle the government. Talino makes much of the
covered the period up to June 19, 1957 and the been simpler had there been no separate trial statement in the Comment that the petitioner's guilt
period covered in the instant case is from June 20, because the accused Pio Ulat said so many could be deduced "from the evidence for the
1957 to June 21, 1960, the claim of having been put incriminatory things against the other accused prosecution and from the testimony of Pio Ulat," but
when he took the stand in his own defense. But that was not the respondent court speaking. That
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 132 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

was the Solicitor General's analysis. As far as the told appellant that he will pay for the marijuana after such a case is from the interpretation thereof which
Sandiganbayan was concerned, the said testimony weighing it in the hotel, to which the appellant is given by another person.
was inadmissible against the petitioner because he agreed. On the way back to the hotel in Baguio, the - The prosecution should have presented Emateo
"did not cross examine Ulat and was not even NBI was signaled that the transaction took place. The himself to testify on what actually transpired. The
required to be present when the latter was testifying. NBI team blocked Bostick’s car and arrested the lower court ignored the right of the accused to meet
In fact, the respondent court even expressed the appellant and Emateo. the witness face to face.
wish that Ulat had been presented as rebuttal - Prosecution claims that according to Emateo, - Prosecution revealed not to know anything about
witness in the separate trial of the petitioner as there appellant would only sell to a foreigner, preferably an the informant’s background. Although there is a
would then have been "no impediment to the use of American. policy of non-disclosure of an informant’s identity, it
his testimony against the other accused. " As it was cannot be invoked in this case. The informant’s
not done, the trial court could not and did not failure to take the witness to stand to confirm the
consider Ulat's testimony in determining the Suspect’s Claim correctness of his interpretations not only rendered
petitioner's part in the offenses. - He went to the house of Emateo to collect P4000, the testimonies as hearsay and inadmissible, but also
Dispositive judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED, which the latter borrowed him. Emateo told him to deprived the appellant of his right to cross-examine
with costs against the petitioner. wait for Emateo’s visitor, from whom he would get him.
the money to pay for his debt. After being introduced - Non-presentation of an informer is a privilege that
PEOPLE v BAGANO to Bostick, they proceeded to Irisan to get the bag has its own inherent limitation. Where in the
Emateo would five the American as gift. Emateo disclosure of an informer’s identity is relevant and
181 SCRA 747
asked Bagano to get the bag because Emateo did not helpful to the defense of the accused, or is essential
BIDIN; February 5, 1990 want to get wet. On the way back to Baguio, the NBI to the proper disposition of the case, the privilege
team came out and made the arrests. must give way.
NATURE - He claims that the court erred: - Although the identity of the informer was disclosed,
Appeal on the decision of RTC convicting the accused in finding that he agreed to sell 10kgs of marijuana prosecution failed to present him as witness on the
of the violation of RA6426 as amended, otherwise when he had no knowledge of the alleged sale. assertion that his whereabouts are unknown. No
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act and imposing the In not holding as hearsay the alleged conversation subpoena has been issued by the prosecution to
penalty of P20K. between Bolstick and the appellant when Emateo, Emateo, the presumption that evidence willfully
the informant who interpreted the conversation suppressed would be adverse if produced (Sec 5(e),
FACTS was never presented to testify Rule 131) arises.
- A buy-bust operation was conducted by NBI on a In appreciating the ‘bag’ and not the sack against - The appellant’s claim that the ownership of the sack
suspected narcotics dealer. Bostick, a special agent the appellant that which Emateo owned and of marijuana was previously deposited by Emateo
of the US Air Force was introduced to Doming deposited in the quarter of the appellant at irisan was never contradicted by prosecution. Bare
Bagano by an informer, Clayton Emateo. earlier the same day of the alleged buy-bust assertion of Bagano’s delivery of the bag does not,
- An information for the violation of RA6425, also operation. by itself indicate ownership nor even illegal
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, was filed against In not appreciating the defense that it was Emateo possession absent any other evidence.
the accused. It stated that the accused “willfully, who owns the Marijuana in question - Apellant’s signature appearing on the sack and
unlawfully and feloniously attempt to sell to another individual bundles containing marijuana do not
ten (10) kilos, more or less, of dried marijuana ISSUE signify, much less evidence, guilt for they are mere
leaves, a dangerous drug, for P800.00 per kilo”. WON the Bolstick testimonies were hearsay procedural steps undertaken after arrest.
- Upon arraignment, Bagano pleaded not guilty. His Furthermore, it appearing that appellant was not
motion to admit bail was deferred and later denied. HELD informed of his right to counsel at the time he affixed
- After trial on the merits, TC judge rendered decision YES his signature, the same has been obtained in
sentencing Bagano with reclusion perpetua. - From Bolstick’s testimonies as principal witness for violation of his right as a person under custodial
Solicitor General’s Claims the prosecution, such were mere translations and/or investigation for the commission of an offense and is
- Bostic and Emateo went to the residence of the interpretations of what Bagano supposedly said in therefore inadmissible.
latter in Baguio City to meet the appellant. Emateo the dialect and interpreted by Emateo. The only - It is a cardinal rule that in order to merit conviction,
introduced Bagano and an unnamed friend to exception is the testimony on what Bolstick saw. the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own
Bostick. Negotiations for the purchase of 10kilos of - Where a witness is offered to testify to statements evidence and not on the weakness of evidence
marijuana between Bostick and Bagano was done, of another person, spoken in a language not presented by the defense. An accused must always
Emateo being the interpreter. After agreeing for the understood by him, but translated to his by an be deemed innocent until the contrary is proved
price of P800/kg, the group proceeded to Bagano’s interpreter, such witness is not qualified, because he beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the
house in Irisan Benguet where he kept the marijuana. does not speak from personal knowledge. All that he prosecution failed to so establish the guilt of herein
At Irisan, Bagano left Bostick and Emateo in the car, can know as to the testimony which is in fact given in appellant.
returning 15mins later carrying a nylon sack. Bostick
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 133 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Dispositive challenged judgment is REVERSED and rights to remains silent and have counsel. The the law excuses no one. The right against self-
appellant is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of private prosecutors filed an MFR, but respondent incrimination is not automatically operational but
reasonable doubt. Judge justified his order citing the constitutional must be claimed. Failure to claim it is an implied
precept that the rights in custodial investigation waiver of said right.
US v GARCIA cannot be waived except in writing and in the - The second right, or rather, group of rights, are a
presence of counsel. person’s rights in custodial interrogation, which
11 PHIL 384
- Said orders are now assailed in this petition for means questioning initiated by law enforcement
July 24, 1908 certiorari and prohibition. The Court required officers after a person has been taken into custody or
respondent Judge Ayson and Ramos to comment, otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
THEFT; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF.-From the Court of and directed the issuance of a TRO enjoining significant way. These section can be broken down
First Instance of Ambos Camarines. The respondents from further proceeding with the into 3 rights: (1) the right to remain silent and to
uncorroborated testimony of the prosecuting witness trial/hearing. The Solgen, who was also required to counsel and to be informed of such right (2) no force,
held insufficient to prove that the accused was guilty comment, sided with petitioner, praying that violence, threat, intimidation or any other means
of taking money from a trunk, as alleged, while respondent judge’s orders be set aside and further which vitiates the free will shall be used against him
searching the house of the witness for another ordering the admittance of exhibits A and K of the (3) any confession obtained in violation of this shall
person. Judgment reversed and defendant acquitted. prosecution. be inadmissible in evidence.
Note: The case is really this short only. I did not omit - The accused must be informed of these rights prior
a single word. ISSUE to any questioning, after which the individual may
WON it was grave abuse of discretion for respondent knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and
PEOPLE v AYSON judge to exclude exhibits A and K agree to answer or make a statement. Statements
G.R. No. 85215 not made under custodial interrogation are not
HELD protected.
NARVASA; July 7, 1989 YES - It is important now to inquire whether the rights
- At the core of the controversy is Sec. 20, Art. IV of mentioned apply to persons under preliminary
FACTS
the 1973 Constitution which provides: “No person investigation or already charged in court for a crime.
- Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket flight
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is evident that a defendant under preliminary
clerk of PAL’s Baguio station. PAL management
Any person under investigation for the commission of investigation is not under custodial interrogation, and
notified him of an investigation due to his alleged
an offense shall have the right to remain silent and there is thus no occasion to speak of such rights
involvement in irregularities in the sales of plane
to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No under custodial interrogation; however, the accused
tickets. On the day before the investigation, Ramos
force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other still possesses the right against self-incrimination.
gave his superiors a handwritten note (exhibit K)
means which vitiates the free will shall be used - Under the Rules of Court, the accused occupies a
expressing his willingness to settle the irregularities
against him. Any confession obtained in violation of different tier of protection from an ordinary witness
(in the amount of P76k). At the investigation, Ramos
this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.” and is entitled, among others: (1) not be a witness
admitted his non-disclosure of the tickets mentioned,
- There are 2 rights dealt with in the section: the against himself (2) to testify as a witness on his own
that the proceeds had been “misused” by him, and
right against self-incrimination (now embodied in behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness, he may
that although he planned on paying back the money,
Sec. 17 Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution) and the be cross-examined as any other witness; his neglect
he had been prevented from doing so out of shame.
rights of a person in custodial interrogation (Sec 12 of refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner
He also stated his willingness to settle the obligation
Art. 3). prejudice or be used against him. Thus, unlike an
on a staggered basis, the amount of which would be
- The first right, against self-incrimination, is NOT to ordinary witness, the accused may refuse to take the
known at the next investigation which he desired to
“be compelled to be a witness against himself” and witness stand, be sworn, or answer any question
be held at Baguio CTO, that he be represented by
applies to any person testifying in any proceeding, altogether. The accused, if he chooses to testify, may
Nieves Blanco, and that he was willing to sign his
civil, criminal or administrative. It prescribes an refuse to answer only questions which could
statement (exhibit A).
option of refusal to answer incriminating questions incriminate him of a crime for which he isn’t charged.
- 2 months later, an information was filed against
and not a prohibition of inquiry. However, it can only - It appears that respondent Judge mistakenly
Ramos charging him with estafa against PAL. On
be claimed when the specific question, incriminatory applied the rights set forth in Sec 20 Art. IV of the
arraignment he pleaded not guilty. At the close of
in character, is actually put to the witness and 1973 Constitution. It is clear from the undisputed
the case, private prosecutors presented Ramos’
cannot be claimed at any other time. The witness facts that Ramos was not in any sense under
(above mentioned) statement, including his
thus may not disregard a subpoena or refuse to custodial interrogation, and thus his constitutional
handwritten admission as evidence. Defendant’s
testify altogether. rights in relation thereto don’t apply. Also, Ramos
attorneys objected, particularly as regards the
- The provision of the 1973 Constitution does not had voluntary answered the questions posed to him
handwritten confession as it was taken without
impose on the judge or any other presiding officer, on the first day of the administrative investigation
Ramos having counsel. Respondent Judge declared
any affirmative obligation to advise a witness of this and agreed that the proceedings be recorded and
exhibits A and K inadmissible as evidence as it
right, which the witness should know, as ignorance of filed as exhibits A and K, spontaneously offering to
appears he was not reminded of his constitutional
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 134 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

compromise his liability. Said exhibits may not be accused, thru counsel, asked for and were granted fourteen separate occasions without objection on
excluded as the so-called Miranda rights had not time to submit memoranda. Respondents Calo and their part, and without an iota of evidence to
been accorded to Ramos. Carbonnel, thru counsel, Atty. Rafael Consengco, substantiate any claim as to any other person so
Dispositive the writ of certiorari is granted submitted a 14-page memorandum in support of minded being excluded from the premises. It is thus
annulling and setting aside the Orders of respondent their prayer for exoneration, and conviction of evident that what took place in the chambers of the
Judge, and he is hereby ordered to admit in evidence petitioner Lorenzana in respect of their city court judge was devoid of haste or intentional
exhibits A and K countercharges against the latter. It is worthy of note secrecy.
that up to this late date, said respondents Calo and - The 1935 Constitution which was in force at the
GARCIA v DOMINGO Carbonnel had not objected to or pointed out any time of this petition explicitly enumerated the right
supposed irregularity in the proceedings thus far; the to a public trial to which an accused was entitled. As
52 SCRA 143
memorandum submitted in their behalf is confined to a matter of fact, that was one constitutional provision
FERNANDO; July 25, 1973 a discussion of the evidence adduced in, and the that needed only a single, terse summation from
merits of the cases. Justice Jose P. Laurel, to gain acceptance. As was
NATURE - The promulgation of judgment scheduled on Sep stressed by him: "Trial should also be public in order
Petition for certiorari and prohibition 23, 1968 was postponed to Sep 28, 1968 at the to offset any danger of conducting it in an illegal and
instance of Atty. Consengco, , and again to Oct 1, unjust manner." It would have been surprising if its
FACTS 1968. The applications for postponement were not proposed inclusion in the Bill of Rights had provoked
- On January 16, 1968, in the City Court of Manila grounded upon any supposed defect or irregularity of any discussion, much less a debate. It was merely a
presided over by petitioner Judge Gregorio Garcia, 8 the proceedings. reiteration what appeared in the Philippine Autonomy
informations were filed against respondents Edgardo - However, on October 1, 1968, Calo and Carbonnel, Act of 1916, popularly known as the Jones Law.
Calo, and Simeon Carbonnel and Francisco thru their counsel, filed with the CFI of Manila a Earlier, such a right found expression in the
Lorenzana, for slight physical injuries, maltreatment, petition for certiorari and prohibition, with application Philippine Bill of 1902, likewise an organic act of the
for violation of Sec. 887 of the Revised Ordinances of for preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction then government of this country as an
Manila (resisting an officer); and for slander. The trial alleging jurisdictional defects. Respondent Judge unincorporated territory of the United States.
of the aforementioned cases was jointly held on Felix Domingo issued a restraining order thus Historically as was pointed out by Justice Black, in
March 4, 18, 23, 30, 1968; April 17, & 20, 1968, May causing the deferment of the promulgation of the the leading case of In re Oliver: This nation's
4 & 11, 1968, June 1, 15, 22 & 29, 1968, August 3 & judgment. After proceedings duly had, there was an accepted practice of guaranteeing a public trial to an
10, 1968. All the 14 trial dates except March 4 and order from him declaring that 'the constitutional and accused has its roots in the English common law
18, and April 17, 1968 fell on a Saturday. This was statutory rights of the accused' had been violated, heritage, but it likely evolved long before the
arranged by the parties and the Court upon the adversely affecting their 'right to a free and impartial settlement of the US as an accompaniment of the
insistence of respondents Calo and Carbonnel who, trial, noting 'that the trial of these cases lasting ancient institution of jury trial. The guarantee to an
as police officers under suspension because of the several weeks held exclusively in chambers and not accused of the right to a public trial appeared in a
cases, desired the same to be terminated as soon as in the court room open the public';" and ordering the state constitution in 1776. Later it was embodied in
possible and as there were many cases scheduled for city court Judge Garcia, "to desist from reading or the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution
trial on the usual criminal trial days (Monday, causing to be read or promulgated the decisions he ratified in 1791. Today almost without exception
Wednesday and Friday), Saturday was agreed upon may have rendered already in the criminal cases every state by constitution, statute, or judicial
as the invariable trial day for said eight (8) criminal pending in his Court, until further orders of this decision, requires that all criminal trials be open to
cases. The trial of the cases in question was held, Court.” the public.
with the conformity of the accused and their counsel, - The MR was denied. Hence, on January 28, 1969, - The Constitution guarantees an accused the right to
in the chambers of Judge Garcia. During all the 14 the matter was elevated to the SC by means of the a public trial. There is no ambiguity in the words
days of trial, spanning a period of several months, present suit for certiorari and prohibition. employed. The trial must be public. It possesses that
the accused were at all times represented by their character when anyone interested in observing the
respective counsel, who acted not only in defense of ISSUE manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his
their clients, but as prosecutors of the accusations WON respondent Judge commit a grave abuse of courtroom may do so. There is to be no ban on such
filed at their clients' instance. There was only 1 day discretion in ruling that the holding of the trial of the attendance. His being a stranger to the litigants is of
(April 20) when Atty. Consengco, representing accused inside the chambers of petitioner ,city court no moment. No relationship to the parties need be
respondent Calo and Carbonnel, was absent. But at Judge Gregorio Garcia, as violative of the shown. The thought that lies behind this safeguard is
the insistence of Carbonnel, the trial proceeded, and constitutional right to public trial the belief that thereby the accused is afforded
said respondent cross-examined one of the witnesses further protection, that his trial is likely to be
presented by the adverse party. In any case, no HELD conducted with regularity and not tainted with any
pretense has been made by the respondents that YES impropriety. Accdg to J. Laurel, the importance of this
this constituted an irregularity correctible on - The procedure had been agreed to beforehand by right is its being a deterrence to arbitrariness. It is
certiorari. At the conclusion of the hearings the accused. The hearings have been thus conducted on thus understandable why such a right is deemed
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 135 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

embraced in procedural due process. Where a trial from the knowledge that a judge, with the eyes of WON the right of the petitioners to a speedy trial has
takes place, as is quite usual, in the courtroom and a the alert court alert to his demeanor and his rulings, been accorded
calendar of what cases are to be heard is posted, no would run the risk of being unjust, unfair, or
problem arises. It the usual course of events that arbitrary. Nor does it change matters, just because, HELD
individuals desirous of being present are free to do as did happen here, it was in the air-conditioned NO
so. There is the well recognized exception though chambers of a city court judge rather than in the Ratio. The constitutional right to a speedy trial
that warrants the exclusion of the public where the usual place that the trial took place. means one free from vexatious, capricious and
evidence may be characterized as "offensive to Dispositive Writ of certiorari is granted. oppressive delays [Acebedo v. Sarmiento, Conde v.
decency or public morals." Rivera]. Thus, if the person accused were innocent,
- What did occasion difficulty in this suit was that for FLORES v PEOPLE he may within the shortest time possible be spared
the convenience of the parties, and of the city court from anxiety and apprehension arising from a
61 SCRA 331
Judge, it was in the latter's air-conditioned chambers prosecution, and if culpable, he will not be kept long
that the trial was held. There is no showing that the FERNANDO, December 10, 1974 in suspense as to the fate in store for him, within a
public was thereby excluded. It is to be admitted that period of course compatible with his opportunity to
the size of the room allotted the Judge would reduce NATURE present any valid defense.
the number of those who could be our present. Such Petition for certiorari -"The Government should be the last to set an
a fact though is not indicative of any transgression of example of delay and oppression in the
this right. Courtrooms are not of uniform dimensions. FACTS administration of justice and it is the moral and legal
Some are smaller than others. Moreover, as admitted - December 1951: Francisco Flores and Francisco obligation of this court to see that the criminal
by Justice Black in his masterly In re Oliver opinion, it Angel were accused for robbery proceedings against the accused come to an end and
suffices to satisfy the requirement of a trial being - November 1955: TC found them guilty of robbery that they be immediately discharged from the
public if the accused could "have his friends, - December 1955: the 2 petitioners filed a notice of custody of the law." [People v. Castañeda]
relatives and counsel present, no matter with what appeal - An accused person is entitled to a trial at the
offense he may be charged." - February 1958: CA issued a resolution remanding earliest opportunity. . . . He cannot be oppressed by
- It is an undisputed fact that at least fourteen the records of the case to the lower court for a delaying the commencement of trial for an
hearings had been held in chambers of the city court rehearing of the testimony of a certain witness unreasonable length of time. If the proceedings
Judge, without objection on the part of respondent deemed material for the disposition of the case. pending trial are deferred, the trial itself is
policemen. - August 1959: CA granted motion of petitioners to necessarily delayed. xxx The Constitution does not
- There is much to be said of course for the concern set aside the TC decision so that evidence for the say that the right to a speedy trial may be availed of
displayed by respondent Judge to assure the reality defense on certain new facts or matters may be only where the prosecution for crime is commenced
as against the mere possibility of a trial being truly received, and that a new decision be rendered. Case and undertaken by the fiscal. It does not exclude
public. If it were otherwise, such a right could be was returned to TC but for about a year nothing from its operation cases commenced by private
reduced to a barren form of words. To the extent happened because the offended party failed to individuals. Where once a person is prosecuted
then that the conclusion reached by him was appear for about 6 or 7 times. And when the criminally, he is entitled to a speedy trial,
motivated by an apprehension that there was an offended party took the witness stand, he could no irrespective of the nature of the offense or the
evasion of a constitutional command, he certainly longer remember the details of the crime, even failed manner in which it is authorized to be commenced.
lived up to what is expected of a man of the robe. to identify the 2 petitioners. TC just sent back the [Mercado v. Santos]
Further reflection ought to have convinced him records to CA - remedies available to the accused: The remedy
though that such a fear was unjustified. An objective - May 1965: petitioners sought the dismissal of their in the event of a non-observance of this right is by
appraisal of conditions in municipal or city courts case due to the inordinate delay in their disposition habeas corpus if the accused were restrained of his
would have gone far in dispelling such misgivings. (for almost 10 yrs), invoking constitutional right to a liberty, or by certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus for
The crowded daily calendar, the nature of the cases speedy trial the final dismissal of the case. [Acebedo v.
handled, civil as well as criminal, the relaxed attitude - January 1966: CA denied motion for reconsideration Sarmiento]
on procedural rules not being strictly adhered to all Respondent’s defense: Reasoning
make for a less tense atmosphere. As a result the (1) case was not properly captioned, the CA not - In the absence of any valid decision, the stage of
attendance of the general public is much more in being made a party to the petition trial has not been completed. Thus, when they
evidence; nor is its presence unwelcome. When it is (2) it was not adequately shown that the right to a moved to dismiss in the CA, they could contend that
remembered further that the occupants of such speedy trial had been violated, CA taking all the they had not been accorded their right to be tried as
courts are not chosen primarily for their legal steps necessary to complete the transcript of promptly as circumstances permit. It was not the
acumen, but taken from that portion of the bar more stenographic notes of the original trial. pendency in the Court of Appeals of their cases that
considerably attuned to the pulse of public life, it is should be deemed material. It is at times
not to be rationally expected that an accused would ISSUE unavoidable that appellate tribunals cannot, even
be denied whatever solace and comfort may come with due diligence, put an end to suits elevated to
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 136 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

them. What is decisive is that with the setting aside - They then raised peremptory challenges against subsided. Indeed we cannot say that the trial of the
of the previous decision in the resolution of August 5, Col. Alejandro, as president of the court-martial, and petitioners was being held under circumstances
1959, petitioners could validly premise their plea for Col. Olfindo, Lt. Col. Camagay, Lt. Col. Valones, Lt. which did not permit the observance of those
dismissal on this constitutional safeguard. Col. Blanco and Col. Malig, as members. There was imperative decencies of procedure which have come
*the procedural issue on the CA not being made the also an issue as to the number of peremptory to be identified with due process.
party respondent, Court considered the substantial challenges that can be raised by each accused. - Even granting the existence of "massive" and
issues over this technicality. - SC then restrained court-martial from proceeding "prejudicial" publicity, since the petitioners here do
Dispositive petition for certiorari is granted, and with the case. Respondents asserted that despite the not contend that the respondents have been unduly
the order of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR No. publicity which the case had received, no proof has influenced but simply that they might be by the
16641-R entitled, People v. Francisco Flores, et al., of been presented showing that the court-martial's "barrage" of publicity.
September 28, 1965 denying the motion to dismiss president's fairness and impartiality have been 2. YES
as well as its order of January 8, 1966 denying the impaired. As a preliminary consideration, the Ratio Each of the 23 petitioners (accused before the
motion for reconsideration, and the order of January respondents urge this Court to throw out the petition general court-martial) is entitled to one peremptory
28, 1966 denying the second motion for on the ground that it has no power to review the challenge, irrespective of the number of
reconsideration are hereby set aside, nullified, and proceedings of the court-martial, "except for the specifications and/or charges and regardless of
considered of no force and effect. The criminal case purpose of ascertaining whether the military court whether they are tried jointly or in common. “The
against petitioners in the aforesaid CA-GR No. 16641- had jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, right to challenge is in quintessence the right to
R are ordered dismissed. and whether, though having such jurisdiction, it had reject, not to select. If from the officers who remain
exceeded its powers in the sentence pronounced." an impartial military court is obtained, the
MARTELINO v ALEJANDRO constitutional right of the accused to a fair trial is
ISSUES maintained.”
32 SCRA 106
1. WON the publicity given to the case against the Reasoning
CASTRO; March 25, 1970 petitioners was such as to prejudice their right to a - It is the submission of the petitioners that "for
fair trial every charge, each side may exercise one
NATURE 2. WON each accused was entitled to one peremptory challenge," and therefore because there
Petition for certiorari and prohibition, to nullify the peremptory challenge are eleven charges they are entitled to eleven
orders of the court-martial denying their challenges, separate peremptory challenges. The respondents
both peremptory and for cause HELD argue that although there are actually a total of
1. NO eleven specifications against the petitioners, three of
FACTS Reasoning these should be considered as merged with two
- There are ongoing court-martial proceedings - The trial courts must take strong measures to other specifications, "since in fact they allege the
against the petitioner, Major Eduardo Martelino, alias ensure that the balance is never weighed against the same offenses committed in conspiracy, thus leaving
Abdul Latif Martelino, of the AFP, and the officers and accused. And appellate tribunals have the duty to a balance of eight specifications." The general court-
men under him, for violation of the 94th and 97th make an independent evaluation of the martial thereof takes the position that all the 23
Articles of War, as a result of the alleged shooting of circumstances. Where there is a reasonable petitioners are entitled to a total of only eight
some Muslim recruits then undergoing commando likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will peremptory challenges. (a) A peremptory challenge
training on the island of Corregidor. prevent a fair trial, the judge should continue the is afforded to an accused who, whether rightly or
- Initially there was a question of jurisdiction: WON case until the threat abates, or transfer it to another wrongly, honestly feels that the member of the court
the general court-martial, convened to try the case, county not so permeated with publicity. If publicity peremptorily challenged by him cannot sit in
acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the fact during the proceeding threatens the fairness of the judgment over him, impartially. Every accused
that about a month earlier, a complaint for frustrated trial, a new trial should be ordered. person is entitled to a fair trial. It is not enough that
murder had been filed in the fiscal's office of Cavite - The spate of publicity in this case before us did not objectively the members of the court may be fair and
City. Proceedings had to be suspended until SC focus on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on the impartial. It is likewise necessary that subjectively
finally ruled in favor of the jurisdiction of the military responsibility of the Government for what was the accused must feel that he is being tried by a fair
court. claimed to be a "massacre" of Muslim trainees. If and impartial body of officers. Because the
- After that, Martelino sought the disqualification of there was a "trial by newspaper" at all, it was not of petitioners may entertain grave doubts as to the
the President of the general court-martial, following the petitioners but of the Government. Absent here is fairness or impartiality of distinct, separate and
the latter's admission that he read newspaper stories a showing of failure of the court-martial to protect different individual members of the court-martial, it
of the Corregidor incident. He contended that the the accused from massive publicity encouraged by follows necessarily that each of the accused is
case had received such an amount of publicity in the those connected with the conduct of the trial either entitled to one peremptory challenge. (b) Article of
press and was being exploited for political purposes by a failure to control the release of information or to War 18 does not distinguish between common trials
in connection with the upcoming 1969 presidential remove the trial to another venue or to postpone it and joint trials, nor does it make the nature or
elections as to imperil his right to a fair trial. until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have number of specifications and/or charges a
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 137 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

determinant. (c) A perceptive analysis of the the minimum to Seventeen (17) years, Four (4) - In the main, appellant's contention in this appeal is
companion articles convinces us that the word, "each months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as that the evidence of the prosecution is weak and
side," as used in the said article in reference to the the maximum, to indemnify Francisco Limen the insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
defense, should be construed to mean each accused amount of P8,000.00, and to pay ¼ of the costs of doubt, particularly in the manner he was Identified as
person. this suit one of the alleged perpetrators of the four (4) crimes
Dispositive Subject to our pronouncement that each (3) Criminal Case No. 473 (1185) for Robbery in herein charged. He would then argue that such
of the 23 petitioners is entitled to one separate Band with Multiple Homicide- four separate and weakness of the state evidence would
peremptory challenge, the present petition is distinct imprisonment's of Ten (10) years and One (1) commensurately strengthen his defense of alibi
DENIED. The temporary restraining order issued by day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen which, as he claims, the trial court erroneously
this Court is hereby lifted. (17) years and Five (5) months of Reclusion Temporal rejected.
as the maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the - What is indubitably clear is that the state witnesses
PEOPLE v ORSAL deceased Cristino Bejic, Eduarda Bejic, Roberto Bejic who pointed to appellant as among the culprits are
and Atanasia Legazpi the total amount of P48,000.00 the ones with no motive sufficient to urge them to
113 SCRA 226
and to pay ¼ of the costs of this suit in each of these testify falsely against appellant who would be
PER CURIAM; March 29, 1982 four cases punished with no less than death in consequence of
(4) Criminal Case No. 432 (1157) for Robbery in their perjured testimony.
NATURE Band with Homicide- Supreme penalty of 'DEATH', - First to Identify appellant was Antonio Bejic the lone
Automatic review to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jesus Limen survivor in the carnage against the Bejic family and
the amount of P12,000.00, and to pay one fourth of household. He Categorically stated that he
FACTS the costs in each of these four cases recognized the voice that shouted: "Hoy", to be that
- Vicente Orsal is one of four accused in four - In the case of Gutierrez, owing to the fact that he is of appellant whom he had known very well because
separate cases filed in the Court of First Instance of a youthful offender, as he is only 18 years old, the appellant used to sleep in Antonio's grandfather with
Zamboanga City Court ordered his commitment to the Department of whom he was residing. Moreover, Antonio also
- The three (3) other accused are Ramon Gutierrez, Social Services and Development, Region IX, testified having seen appellant stab his cousin,
Generoso Abapo and Romeo Flores, but the two (2) Zamboanga City Roberto Bejic He was however candid enough to
last named accused having gone at large, only - The sentence of death having been imposed in admit that he did not see who actually killed the rest
appellant Vicente Orsal and Ramon Gutierrez stood Criminal Case No. 432 (1157), which was heard of his relatives, nor who actually burned the house.
trial jointly with the other three (3) cases, the single This fact would tend to negate appellant's claims that
- The cases stemmed from the ff acts: decision rendered for all the four (4) cases is before the testimony of the state witnesses were scripted
*On April 13, 1974 appellant, together with Generoso the SC for automatic review. and merely rehearsed.
Abapo, Ramon Gutierrez and Romeo Flores, killed - That the appellant and his companions were the
Crisanto Bejic, his wife Eduarda, as well as his ISSUES perpetrators of the killing of Jesus Limen and also the
grandchildren Atanacia Legazpi and Roberto Bejic, 1. WON the appellant has been denied his burning of his house was positively established by
and burned his house constitutional right to a speedy trial the testimony of Ramon Jimenez. Ramon was with
*On April 14, 1974, the same accused ransacked the 2. WON the evidence is sufficient to establish his Jesus Limen when the latter was killed and his house
house of Jesus Limen, taking his shoes and clothes, guilt beyond reasonable doubt burned. That he was taken along by appellant
one paltik revolver, two paltik shotguns and a hand apparently as a hostage to prevent him from
grenade, killed Jesus Limen, and burned his house HELD reporting to the authorities, and so he was arrested
- The court found Orsal and Gutierrez guilty beyond 1. NO with appellant together is, undeniably, one
reasonable doubt as principals of the crimes, - Appellant first contends that he has been denied his circumstance strongly lending credence to all that
attended by two (2) aggravating circumstances, constitutional right of speedy trial because the Ramon Jimenez testified to, particularly on
namely, that the crimes were committed at nighttime information was filed only about nine (9) months appellant's complicity in the commission of the four
and by a band, without any mitigating circumstances after his arrest and investigation. (4) crimes.
to offset the same, and sentenced them accordingly: - There was no such denial. As correctly set forth by - The testimony of Ramon Jimenez of course did not
(1) Criminal Case No. 471 (1183) for Arson-penalty the Solicitor General, the test of violation of the right escape the very keenly scrutinizing examination to
of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as to speedy trial has always been to begin counting the which appellant's counsel subjected the testimonies
the minimum to Seventeen (17) years, Four (4) delay from the time the information is filed, not of all the other state witnesses, in a zealous effort to
months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as before the filing. The delay in the filing of the show their want of credibility with the
the maximum, to indemnify Francisco Limen the information, which in the instant case has not been inconsistencies, improbabilities and contradictions
amount of P8,000.00, and to pay ¼ of the costs of without reasonable cause, is, therefore, not to be they supposedly contained. Suffice it to say that the
this suit reckoned with in determining whether there has alleged contradictions and inconsistencies were on
(2) Criminal Case No. 472 (1184) for Arson- penalty been a denial of the right to speedy trial. minor and inconsequential details that would not in
of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as 2. YES any way affect Ramon's credibility.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 138 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- As earlier stated, no sufficient motive was shown Code against Demetrio Jardin for malversation of - The right to a speedy trial means that the accused
why the two (2) eyewitnesses, Antonio Bejic and public funds thru falsification of public documents on is free from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
Ramon Jimenez, would perjure themselves in six counts. (1967) delays, its salutary objective being to assure that an
pointing to appellant as one of the perpetrators of - {This case is full of delaying tactics} innocent person may be free from anxiety and
very grave and heinous crimes. That appellant's - PI 1: accused moved to postpone 4 times, and expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of
mother may have accused Ramon Jimenez of theft failed to appear everytime. having his guilt determined within the shortest
would, therefore, not serve as motive to induce the - PI was nevertheless conducted. And the six criminal possible time compatible with the presentation and
two (2) aforenamed witnesses to give the testimony informations were filed in CFI. consideration of whatever legitimate defense he may
that named and pointed to not only appellant but - AR 1: accused moved to postpone 4 time, never interpose.
three (3) other persons including Ramon Gutierrez appeared; counsel asked for reinvestigation on the - The delays in the prosecution of the offenses were
who stood trial with appellant, as the malefactors. ground that the accused was not given the all caused by the accused so he cannot invoke
Even as to Ramon Jimenez alone, the alleged motive opportunity to present his defense during the constitutional right to speedy trial. By his own
is assuredly not enough for him to charge falsely preliminary investigation. Court granted motion. deliberate acts, he is deemed to have waived or
appellant, who is his cousin, with such grievous - PI 2: accused moved to postpone many times, abandoned his right to a speedy trial
offenses as the killing of four (4) persons, burning failed still to appear. When he finally appeared with 2. NO
down of two (2) houses and stealing of valuable his counsel, they asked for 15 days to file - The dismissal of the criminal cases against the
personal belongings. memorandum. The memorandum was never filed, so accused by the respondent court on the ground that
- From how appellant's identity as one of the the investigating fiscal filed a manifestation before his right to speedy trial had been violated was devoid
perpetrators of the four (4) crimes just mentioned the court that the records of these cases be returned of factual and legal basis.
has been established, his defense of alibi is futile. and the trial on the merits of the same be set. - In order that the protection against double jeopardy
The barrio captain of New Sagay,Jesus Agabon, with - The court transferred the case to new branch of CFI may inure to the benefit of an accused, the following
whom appellant claimed to be with when the crimes Quezon without acting on manifestation. requisites must be present in the first prosecution:
were being committed, was presented to corroborate Arraignment date was set. (a) a valid complaint or information;
appellant's alibi by testifying that in accordance with - AR 2: more postponements at instance of accused; (b) a competent court;
the regulation in his place, he registered appellant's moved for reinvestigation again. Court granted. (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and
name in a notebook as a transient therein. His - PI 3: reset because no show. Counsel then asked (d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the
testimony became worthless when despite sufficient for 5 days to file written sworn statement of accused case against him was dismissed or otherwise
opportunity given him to produce the notebook in as defense. No statement was submitted so the terminated without his express consent.
Court, by postponing the hearing not just once but records of the case were returned to court. A date - The last requisite is not present because the order
twice, the defense witness never again appeared in was set for arraignment. of the CFI judge was null and void.
Court. If his salvation hanged on the credibility of this - AR 3: accused asked for postponement. Dispositive Petition granted. The criminal cases are
witness, appellant should have done everything and - Arraignment finally happened on Sept 8, reinstated and the proper regional trial court is
resorted to even the coercive process of the Court to 1970. Accused pleaded NOT GUILTY and asked for ordered to proceed with all deliberate speed in these
make said witness go to Court and present the trial to be postponed. On postponed date, accused cases.
desired document, or explain his inability to do so. asked for another postponement.
Dispositive Decision affirmed in toto. - Oct 1970, accused and counsel were at trial; but no PEOPLE v ANG GIOC
one appeared for prosecution, except for a state
73 PHIL 336
PEOPLE v JARDIN witness. Counsel moved (orally) for dismissal,
ABAD SANTOS; October 31, 1941
invoking accused right to a speedy trial. Court
124 SCRA 167
granted motion and dismissed the cases.
GUTIERREZ JR; August 17, 1983 NATURE
ISSUES Petition for a writ of certiorari
NATURE 1. WON accused can invoke right to speedy trial
Petition for certiorari on decision of CFI Quezon 2. WON this appeal places the accused in double FACTS
dismissing the criminal cases against accused jeopardy - Ang Gioc, together with Sio Go, Gang Kan, Kee Ya
Demetrio Jardin because his constitutional right to and Chua Chui, was charged with the crime of
speedy trial was allegedly violated. HELD frustrated murder in the Court of First Instance of
1. NO Manila. He was released on bail. After a protracted
FACTS - The respondent court committed a grave abuse of trial, which lasted several months, Ang Gioc and one
- The criminal prosecutions originated from a letter- discretion in dismissing the cases and in basing the of his co-accused, Sio Go, were found guilty and
complaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon dismissal on the constitutional right of the accused to sentenced to twelve years and one day of cadena
requesting the Provincial Fiscal to file the necessary speedy trial. temporal. Ang Gioc and his sureties were duly
criminal action under Article 217 of the Revised Penal notified to appear before the court for the reading of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 139 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the sentence, but the former failed to appear and execution. This action of the court amounted to a in crimes that shock the conscience. This concern
thereupon the trial judge ordered his arrest and the judicial declaration that Ang Gioc was a fugitive from cannot be diluted.
confiscation of the bond furnished for his temporary justice, and such declaration cannot after the lapse - We have always reviewed the imposition of the
release. of nearly thirteen years be controverted by proof death penalty regardless of the will of the convict.
- All attempts to arrest him proved futile. He was, aliunde. A contrary view would encourage accused Our unyielding stance is dictated by the policy that
however, finally arrested after nearly thirteen persons to trifle with the administration of justice, the State should not be given the license to kill
years from the date fixed for the reading of the and provide means for guilty parties to escape without the final determination of this Highest
sentence. He was subsequently brought before the punishment. We reject it without the least hesitation Tribunal whose collective wisdom is the last,
court and the sentence was read to him, from which by declaring that Ang Gioc had waived his right to effective hedge against an erroneous judgment of a
he appealed to the Court of Appeals where, against appeal from the judgment rendered against him. The one-judge trial court. This enlightened policy ought
the objection of the Solicitor General, he was allowed law will not allow a person to take advantage of his to continue as our beacon light for the taking of life
to file a bond for his temporary release. own wrong. ends all rights, a matter of societal value that
- In perfecting the record on appeal it was found that - Ang Gioc has waived his right of appeal. Court of transcends the personal interest of a convict. The
the stenographic notes taken during the trial were Appeals acquired no jurisdiction of the appeal filed importance of this societal value should not be
not transcribed and that the two stenographers who by him, except to dismiss it; and that court acted in blurred by the escape of a convict which is a problem
took the notes were already dead. The matter was excess of its jurisdiction when it ordered the cause to of law enforcement. Neither should this Court be
referred to several stenographers who stated that be remanded to the court of origin for a new trial moved alone by the outrage of the public for the rise
they could not transcribe the notes because the Dispositive remanding order must be set aside, and in statistics of heinous crimes for our decisions
deceased had used systems known only to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila should not be directed by the changing winds of the
themselves. In this situation, Ang Gioc petitioned the declared final and executory. social weather. Let us not for a moment forget that
Court of Appeals to remand the cause to the court an accused does not cease to have rights just
below for a new trial. PEOPLE v ESPARAS because of his conviction. This principle is implicit in
- CA remanded for new trial our Constitution which recognizes that an accused, to
260 SCRA 539
be right, while the majority, even if
ISSUE PUNO; August 20, 1996 overwhelming, has no right to be wrong.
WON the CA acquired jurisdiction of the appeal filed
FACTS
by him SAMSON v CA
- Accused Esparas was charged with violation of RA
No. 6425 as amended by RA No. 759 for importing [SUPRA, PAGE 84]
HELD
NO into the country 20 kilograms of "shabu" in Criminal
- The accused has rights, one of which is the right of Case No. 94-5897 before the RTC of Pasay City, Br. PEOPLE v CITY COURT OF MANILA
appeal; but this is a purely statutory, not a 114. After arraignment, the accused escaped from
[SUPRA, PAGE 72]
constitutional, right and this is not one of those jail and was tried in absentia. On March 13, 1995,
fundamental rights which cannot be waived. This the trial court found her guilty as charged
right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. and imposed on her the death penalty. The accused GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN
He may avail of it or not, as he pleases. He may remains at large up to the present time. [SUPRA, PAGE 82]
waive it either expressly or by implication. When the
accused flees after the case has been submitted to ISSUE
the court for decision, he will be deemed to have WON the Court will proceed to automatically review CAES v IAC
waived his right to appeal from the judgment her death sentence 179 SCRA 54
rendered against him. Such was the situation with CRUZ; November 6, 1989
reference to the the respondent Ang Gioc. He was HELD
duly notified to appear before the trial court for the YES FACTS
reading of the sentence, but failed to do so; and - The power of this Court to review a decision - Joel Caes was charged in 2 separate informations
when an order was issued for his arrest, the warrant imposing the death penalty cannot be waived either with ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND
could not be served on him because he could not be by the accused or by the courts. Ours is not only the ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA before the CFI
found. Whether or not he escaped to China is power but the duty to review all death penalty of Rizal. (SHORT version: this guy stayed in prison for
immaterial for our present purpose. The fact remains cases. No litigant can repudiate this power which is 3 yrs coz nothing was happening with his case-trial
that he succeeded in evading arrest for nearly bestowed by the Constitution. The power is more of was postponed 11 times-the court then decided to
thirteen years. The record shows that upon his failure a sacred duty which we have to discharge to assure dismiss it provisionally but was later on revived.
to appear for the reading of the sentence, the trial the People that the innocence of a citizen is our ***But if ma’am wants details, read on!)
court declared the confiscation of the bond filed by concern not only in crimes that slight but even more, - The cases were consolidated on Dec 10, 1981.
Ang Gioc, and later issued the corresponding order of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 140 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Arraignment was originally scheduled on January ISSUES motion was granted just the same, and ex parte at
11, 1982, but was for some reason postponed. 1. WON the motion to revive the cases was invalid that and without hearing, and the petitioner's
- August 31, 1982, Caes was arraigned and pleaded because it was not filed by the proper party nor was subsequent objection was brushed aside.
not guilty. a copy served to CAES 2. YES
- Trial was scheduled for October 13, 1982, but this 2. WON the revival of the cases would place the - Fittingly described as "res judicata in prison grey,"
was reset upon agreement of the parties. petitioner double jeopardy in violation of the Bill of the right against double jeopardy prohibits the
- Nov 15, 1982: the trial was again postponed for Rights prosecution of a person for a crime of which he has
reasons that do not appear in the record. been previously acquitted or convicted. The purpose
- Dec 20, 1982: the trial was again postponed HELD is to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at
because the prosecution witnesses were absent. 1. YES rest, assuring the accused that he shall not
- Jan 19, 1983: the third resetting of the case was - The trial judge erred in ordering the revival of the thereafter be subjected to the danger and anxiety of
also canceled, no reason appearing in the record. cases against Caes and that CFI also erred in a second charge against him for the same offense.
- Feb 21, 1983: no trial could be held again, because affirming that order. Caes having been denied his - People v. Ylagan, Mendoza v. Almeda Lopez, People
witnesses being absent. constitutional right to a speedy trial, and not having v. Obsania ~ To constitute double jeopardy, there
- March 21, 1983: the trial was reset once more, expressly consented to the "provisional" dismissal of must be: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b)
again because the prosecution witnesses were the cases against him, he was entitled to their final filed before a competent court; (c) to which the
absent. dismissal under the constitutional prohibition against defendant had pleaded; and (d) of which he had
- April 19, 1983: the trial of the case had not yet double jeopardy. been previously acquitted or convicted or which was
started. It was reset because the prosecution Reasoning dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
witnesses were again absent. - Rule 110, See. 5, par.1: It is axiomatic that the express consent.
- June 3, 1983, a sheriffs return informed the trial prosecution of a criminal case is the responsibility of - There is no question that the first three requisites
court that the prosecution witnesses, namely, Capt. the gov’t prosecutor and must always be under his are present in the case at bar.
Carlos Dacanay and Sgt. Bonifacio Lustado had been control. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE PROV. DISMISSAL?
personally served with subpoena to appear and - Herrero v. Diaz: This is true even if a private - People v Ylagan: It is settled that a case may be
testify at the hearing scheduled on June 6, 1983. prosecutor is allowed to assist him and actually dismissed if the dismissal is made on motion of the
- June 6, 1983: the trial was again postponed, this handles the examination of the witnesses and the accused himself or on motion of the prosecution with
time because there was no trial fiscal. introduction of other evidence. the express consent of the accused. Such a dismissal
- July 12, 1983: trial was reset for lack of material - The witnesses, even if they are the complaining is correctly denominated provisional. But a dismissal
time. witnesses, cannot act for the prosecutor in the is not provisional even if so designated if it is shown
- Sept 6, 1983: The trial was once more reset by handling of the case. Although they may ask for the that it was made without the express consent of the
agree-judgment of the parties. filing of the case, they have no personality to move accused. This consent cannot be presumed nor may
- Oct 19, 1983: the trial was reset to November 14, for its dismissal or revival as they are not even it be merely implied from the defendant's silence or
1983. parties thereto nor do they represent the parties to his failure to object.
- Nov 14, 1983: the prosecution moved for the the action. Their only function is to testify. - Pendatum v. Aragon, People v. Hinaut, Solis v.
provisional dismissal of the case because its - In a criminal prosecution, the plaintiff is Agloro: Such consent must be express, so as to leave
witnesses had not appeared. represented by the government prosecutor, or one no doubt as to the defendant's conformity.
- On the same date, Judge Gorgonio ordered the case acting under his authority, and by no one else. Otherwise, the dismissal will be regarded as final,
Provisionally Dismissed - It follows that the motion for the revival of the i.e., with prejudice to the refiling of the case.
- Jan 9, 1984: a motion to revive the cases was filed cases filed by prosecution witnesses (who never - There are instances in fact when the dismissal will
by Maj. Dacanay (he had been promoted in the even testified) should have been summarily be held to be final and to dispose of the case once
meantime) and Sgt. Lustado who alleged that they dismissed by the trial judge. and for all even if the dismissal was made on motion
could not attend the hearing scheduled on November - The mere fact that the government prosecutor was of the accused himself. - The first is where the
14, 1983, for lack of notice. furnished a copy of the motion and he did not dismissal is based on a demurrer to the evidence
- Copy of the motion was furnished the City Fiscal of interpose any objection was not enough to justify the filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested.
Caloocan City but not the petitioner. Said motion was action of these witnesses. Such dismissal has the effect of a judgment on the
granted by J. Gorgonio -The prosecutor should have initiated the motion merits and operates as an acquittal.
-Caes filed a MR but was denied and the revived himself if he thought it proper. The presumption that - The other exception is where the dismissal is
cases were set from hearing on Nov. 19, 1984. he approved of the motion is not enough, especially made, also on motion of the accused, because of the
- Caes questioned the judge's order on certiorari with since we are dealing here with the liberty of a person denial of his right to a speedy trial. This is in effect a
this Court, which referred his petition to the IAC. who had a right at least to be notified of the move to failure to prosecute.
- IAC dismissed it for lack of merit on May 20, 1986, prosecute him again. - SC said that this case is similar to Conde v. Rivera
and reconsideration was denied on June 17, 1986. - The fact that he was not so informed made the (so this doctrine applies in this case too) where a
irregularity even more serious. It is curious that the prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 141 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

postponements of the trial of a defendant against his - Father of victim filed Petition for Certiorari before - Rivera pleaded not guilty to all 13 cases. A pre-trial
protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this CA. CA nullified the orders of TC and held that was conducted. Prosecution presented its witnesses
instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled Godoy’s Motion to Acquit was a demurrer to and offered documentary exhibits.
to relief ... evidence. - September 29, 2003: The defense was scheduled to
- The circumstance that the dismissal of the cases present evidence; however, during the hearing,
against the petitioner was described by the trial ISSUE petitioner’s former counsel, Atty. Benjamin C.
judge as "provisional" did not change the nature of WON the Motion to Acquit is the same as a motion to Belarmino, Jr., informed the court that they have not
that dismissal. As it was based on the "lack of dismiss on demurrer to evidence yet received the resolution on the prosecution’s
interest" of the prosecutor and the consequent delay Formal Offer of Exhibits, further manifesting that
in the trial of the cases, it was final and operated as HELD upon receipt of the resolution, they will ask for leave
an acquittal of the accused on the merits. NO of court to file demurrer to evidence.
- No less importantly, there is no proof that Caes - Section 15 Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Crim Pro - The court directed Atty. Belarmino to file a
expressly concurred in the provisional dismissal. is relevant. The rule is explicit that in filing a Motion demurrer to evidence even without leave of court but
Implied consent, as we have repeatedly held, is not to Dismiss on ground of insufficiency of evidence, an the latter manifested that he would still discuss the
enough; neither may it be lightly inferred from the accused waives the right to present evidence. There matter with his collaborating counsel. However, in
presumption of regularity, for “we are dealing here is no material difference between the Motion to the order issued by the Sandiganbayan, it was stated
with the alleged waiver of a constitutional right. Any Acquit by Godoy and a demurrer to evidence. A that petitioner, through counsel, manifested that he
doubt on this matter must be resolved in favor of the different label doesn’t change the true nature of would be filing a demurrer to evidence without leave
accused.” pleading. of court within 10 days.
- Who’s fault was it then? The responsibility clearly - The rationale is that when accused moves for - October 20, 2003: Demurrer to Evidence was filed
lies with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan dismissal on ground of insufficiency of evidence, he without leave of court
City for its negligence and ineptitude. does so in belief that evidence is insufficient to - October 27, 2003: Prosecution filed its Opposition.
Dispositive PETITION IS GRANTED. DISMISSAL OF convict and any need for him to present evidence is - Pursuant to Section 23, Rule 119 of The Revised
THE CRIMINAL CASES declared as FINAL. negated. Accused cannot be allowed to wager on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Sandiganbayan
outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing considered the right of petitioner to present evidence
PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON inconsistent viewpoints. waived and deemed the case submitted for judgment
- HOWEVER, in this case, this rule is inapplicable. on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
[SUPRA, PAGE 74]
First, because the prosecution has not yet rested its - May 3, 2004: the Sandiganbayan found petitioner
case. The documentary exhibits are still in issue. guilty in all 13 cases.
GODOY v CA Second, the TC lost no time in denying Motion to - May 17, 2004: Petitioner moved for reconsideration
MELENCIO-HERRERA; August 30, 1988 Acquit and Godoy was ready to present evidence but of the decision and further moved that he be allowed
prosecution moved to disqualify him. The practice to present evidence.
NATURE sought to be avoided by the rule is inexistent. - June 10, 2004: MFR denied
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CA
RIVERA v PEOPLE ISSUE
FACTS WON the decision and resolution of the
YNARES-SANTIAGO; June 9, 2005
- Godoy is one of 6 accused of homicide. All pleaded Sandiganbayan should be set aside to allow
not guilty. Trial proceeded until prosecution petitioner to present evidence despite the demurrer
NATURE
concluded presentation of evidence after which to evidence filed
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
prosecution formally offered documentary exhibits.
Rules of Court
Before defense submitted objections to offer,
petitioner filed Motion to Acquit on ground of lack of
FACTS
evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. HELD
- Juan G. Rivera and Eric O. Garcia, municipal mayor
- TC denied Motion to Acquit and admitted Formal YES
and disbursement officer, respectively, of
Offer of Documentary Exhibits for prosecution. - A demurrer to evidence is defined as “an objection
Guinobatan, Albay, were charged before the
- Prosecution moved for disqualification of Godoy by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that
Sandiganbayan with 12 counts of falsification of
from presenting evidence as well as his exclusion the evidence which his adversary produced is
public documents and 1 count of malversation of
from proceedings on ground that the Motion to insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to
public funds involving the amount of P1,936,798.64
Acquit is equivalent to a demurrer to the evidence so make out a case or sustain the issue”. The party
given to the Municipality of Guinobatan as calamity
he had already waived his right to present evidence. demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole
fund for the victims of the Mayon volcanic eruption.
TC denied the disqualification and allowed Godoy to evidence to sustain a verdict. In passing upon the
Garcia died on August 25, 2001 and was accordingly
present evidence. Prosecution filed MFR but this was sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the
dropped from the amended information.
denied. court is merely required to ascertain whether there is
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 142 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

competent or sufficient proof to sustain the a. ask the defense counsel a series of question Rivera’s were personally encashed by her while she
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. to determine whether he had conferred with was allegedly accompanied by Garcia. Witnesses
- The order dated September 29, 2003, inaccurately and completely explained to the accused that who owned the forged receipts testified that they
stated that Atty. Belarmino manifested that he will he had the right to present evidence and be handed the blank receipts to Garcia and not to
be filing a demurrer to evidence even without leave heard as well as its meaning and consequences, petitioner. Then, after receipt of the cash, the
of court when the records show no such together with the significance and outcome of disbursement vouchers and other forms required to
manifestation was made. On the contrary, the the waiver of such right. If the lawyer for the liquidate the amount were allegedly prepared by Lim
records show that Atty. Belarmino asked for leave of accused has not done so, the trial court shall and thereafter, transmitted to Rivera for approval,
court to file a demurrer to evidence and for time to give the latter enough time to fulfill this and finally to the provincial Government. It has not
discuss the same with his co-counsel but was instead professional obligation. been satisfactorily established whether petitioner
ordered by the court to file the same without leave of b. inquire from the defense counsel with has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has
court within ten days. conformity of the accused whether he wants to consented to the taking by another person, of such
- Atty. Belarmino did not cite any ground when he present evidence or submit a memorandum funds.
moved for leave of court to file demurrer to elucidating on the contradictions and - The presentation of evidence by the defense would
evidence; neither did the Sandiganbayan make any insufficiency of the prosecution evidence, if any, resolve any doubt as to petitioner’s complicity and
inquiry thereon before issuing the order, directing or in default theory, file a demurrer to evidence avoid possible miscarriage of justice.
the petitioner to file a demurrer to evidence even with prior leave of court, if he so believes that - Clearly, when “transcendental matters” like life,
without leave of court. This is contrary to the the prosecution evidence is so weak that it need liberty or State security are involved, suspension of
provisions of Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised not even be rebutted. If there is a desire to do the rules is likely to be welcomed more generously.
Rules of Criminal Procedure which specifically so, the trial court shall give the defense enough The Rules on procedure are merely tools designed to
instructs that “the motion for leave of court to file time to this purpose. facilitate the attainment of justice. When they are
demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its c. elicit information about the personality profile rigid and strict in application, resulting in
grounds.” of the accused, such as his age, socio-economic technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
- Petitioner was not consulted nor did his counsel status, and educational background, which may promote justice, the Court is empowered to suspend
confer with him and ask whether he understood the serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to the rules.
significance of filing a demurrer to evidence. Atty. give a free and informed waiver. Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. Sandiganbayan
Belarmino was not given the opportunity to discuss d. all questions posed to the accused should be resolutions SET ASIDE. Records of Criminal Case Nos.
with petitioner the consequences of filing a demurrer in a language known and understood by the 26686-98 REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for
to evidence without leave of court. latter, hence, the record must state the further proceedings.
- People v. Bodoso: Henceforth, to protect the language used for this purpose as well as reflect
constitutional right to due process of every accused the corresponding translation thereof in English. HUN HYUNG PARK v EUNG WON CHOI
in a capital offense and to avoid any confusion about - People v. Flores: Though the Rules require no such
CARPIO-MORALES; February 12, 2007
the proper steps to be taken when a trial court inquiry to be undertaken by the court for the validity
comes face to face with an accused or his counsel of such waiver or any judgment made as result of the
FACTS
who wants to waive his client’s right to present waiver, prudence, however, requires the Court to
- Eung Won Choi, was charged for violation of BP 22,
evidence and be heard, it shall be the unequivocal ascertain the same to avoid any grave miscarriage of
otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, for
duty of the trial court to observe, as a prerequisite to justice. Any lawyer worth his salt ought to know that
issuing PNB Check No. 0077133 postdated August
the validity of such waiver, a procedure akin to a the filing of a demurrer to evidence with leave of
28, 1999 in the amount of P1,875,000 which was
“searching inquiry” as specified in People v. court has the beneficial effect of reserving the
dishonored for having been drawn against
Aranzado when an accused pleads guilty, particularly movant’s right to present evidence if the demurrer is
insufficient funds. He pleaded not guilty.
– denied by the court. Thus, a counsel who files a
- After the prosecution rested its case, respondent
1. The trial court shall hear both the prosecution demurrer with leave of court, but at the same time
filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to
and the accused with their respective counsel on expressly waives his right to present evidence should
Evidence to which he attached his Demurrer,
the desire or manifestation of the accused to waive put a judge on guard that said counsel may not
asserting that the prosecution failed to prove that he
the right to present evidence and be heard. entirely comprehend the consequences of the
received the notice of dishonor, hence, the
2. The trial court shall ensure the attendance of waiver.
presumption of the element of knowledge of
the prosecution and especially the accused with - The evidence on record do not clearly show where
insufficiency of funds did not arise.
their respective counsel in the hearing which must and to whom the allegedly malversed money were
- (2/27/03) The MeTC of Makati, Branch 65 granted
be recorded. Their presence must be duly given after it was encashed. What is clear is that the
the demurrer and dismissed the case. The
entered in the minutes of the proceedings. calamity fund was released to Almeda O. Lim, the
prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
3. During the hearing, it shall be the task of the Municipal Treasurer of Guinobatan, Albay to which
- Park appealed the civil aspect of the case to the
trial court to – Official Receipt No. 8749242H was issued.
RTC of Makati, contending that the dismissal of the
Thereafter, checks bearing her signature and that of
criminal case should not include its civil aspect. The
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 143 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

RTC held that while the evidence presented was - Park argues that the word “or” is a disjunctive term accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure
insufficient to prove Choi’s criminal liability, it did not signifying disassociation and independence, hence, an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
altogether extinguish his civil liability. It accordingly he chose to affirm in his petition he filed before the Reasoning
granted Park’s appeal and ordered Choi to pay him court a quo that its contents are “true and correct of - The materiality of those documents is very
P1,875,000 with legal interest. my own personal knowledge,” and not on the basis of apparent since the civil aspect of the case, from
- Upon Choi’s motion for reconsideration, however, authentic documents. On the other hand, Choi which Park is appealing, was likewise dismissed by
the RTC set aside its decision and ordered the counters that the word “or” may be interpreted in a the trial court on account of the same Demurrer. The
remand of the case to the MeTC “for further conjunctive sense and construed to mean as “and,” Rules require that the petition must “be
proceedings, so that Choi may adduce evidence on or vice versa, when the context of the law so accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or
the civil aspect of the case.” Park’s motion for warrants. true copies of the judgments or final orders of both
reconsideration of the remand of the case having - A pleading may be verified under either of the two lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court
been denied, he elevated the case to the CA which given modes or under both. The veracity of the [Sec 2(d) Rule 42].
dismissed his petition. allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on - The only duplicate original or certified true copies
either one’s own personal knowledge or on authentic attached as annexes to the petition are the RTC
ISSUES records, or both, as warranted. The use of the Order granting respondent’s MFR and the RTC Order
1. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition for preposition “or” connotes that either source qualifies denying petitioner’s MFR. The copy of the September
not fully complying with verification requirements as a sufficient basis for verification and, needless to 11, 2003 RTC Decision, which petitioner prayed to be
2. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition on state, the concurrence of both sources is more than reinstated, is not a certified true copy and is not even
the ground that it was not accompanied by copies of sufficient. Bearing both a disjunctive and conjunctive legible. Petitioner later recompensed though by
certain pleadings and other material portions of the sense, this parallel legal signification avoids a appending to his MFR a duplicate original copy.
record as would support the allegations of the construction that will exclude the combination of the - While petitioner averred before the CA in his MFR
petition alternatives or bar the efficacy of any one of the that the February 27, 2003 MeTC Order was already
3. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition for alternatives standing alone. attached to his petition as Annex “G,” Annex “G”
failure to implead the People of the Philippines as a - However, the range of permutations is not left to bares a replicate copy of a different order. It was to
party the pleader’s liking, but is dependent on the this Court that petitioner belatedly submitted an
4. WON the respondent has a right to present surrounding nature of the allegations which may uncertified true copy of the said MeTC Order as an
evidence on the civil aspect of the case in view of his warrant that a verification be based either purely on annex to his Reply to respondent’s Comment. The
demurrer personal knowledge, or entirely on authentic records, copy of the other MeTC Order, dated May 5, 2003,
or on both sources. “Authentic records” as a basis for which petitioner attached to his petition before the
HELD verification bear significance in petitions where the CA is similarly uncertified as true. Since both Orders
1. NO greater portions of the allegations are based on the were adverse to him even with respect to the civil
Ratio Verification is not an empty ritual or a records of the proceedings in the court of origin, and aspect of the case, petitioner was mandated to
meaningless formality. Its import must never be not solely on the personal knowledge of the submit them in the required form.
sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer petitioner. 3. YES
caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity - To sustain petitioner’s explanation that the basis of Reasoning
attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an verification is a matter of simple preference would - The MeTC acquitted respondent. As a rule, a
assurance that the allegations in the pleading have trivialize the rationale and diminish the resoluteness judgment of acquittal is immediately final and
been made in good faith, or are true and correct and of the rule. It would play on predilection and pay no executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the
not merely speculative. heed in providing enough assurance of the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition
Reasoning correctness of the allegations. against double jeopardy. Either the offended party or
- Section 4 of Rule 7 of the RoC: 2. NO the accused may, however appeal the civil aspect of
Verification – Except when otherwise specifically Ratio Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused.
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike The public prosecutor has generally no interest in
oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And appealing the civil aspect of a decision acquitting the
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant while the Court, in some instances, allows a accused. The acquittal ends his work. The case is
has read the pleading and that the allegations relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we terminated as far as he is concerned. The real
therein are true and correct of his personal stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are
knowledge or based on authentic records. erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. the offended party and the accused.
- A pleading required to be verified which contains a The liberality in the interpretation and application of 4. YES
verification based on “information and belief,” or the rules applies only in proper cases and under Reasoning
upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true - In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of
proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is court, the accused may adduce countervailing
pleading. equally true that every case must be prosecuted in evidence if the court denies the demurrer. Such
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 144 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

denial bears no distinction as to the two aspects of right to present evidence must be positively reception of further evidence after the parties have
the case because there is a disparity of evidentiary demonstrated. Any ambiguity in the voluntariness of closed their evidence, such action is addressed to the
value between the quanta of evidence in such the waiver is frowned upon; hence, courts must sound discretion of the court, to be exercised only
aspects of the case. In other words, a court may not indulge every reasonable presumption against it. on valid and justifiable reasons (which are absent in
deny the demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at Dispositive Petition is DENIED. this case).
the same time grant the demurrer as to the civil REASONING: The failure of the accused to complete
aspect, for if the evidence so far presented is not PEOPLE v CRUZ his testimony was of his own making, on the
insufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable initiation, confirmation and reiteration of his own
177 SCRA 451
doubt, then the same evidence is likewise not counsel. Verily, the present stance of the accused is
insufficient to establish civil liability by mere REGALADO; SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 a blatant disregard of solemn agreements submitted
preponderance of evidence. FACTS to and approved by a court of justice and would
- On the other hand, if the evidence so far presented The information for rape with homicide (based on make a mockery of the judicial process.
is insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt, it witness testimonies, postmortem report, police Coming now to the conclusion of the trial court that
does not follow that the same evidence is insufficient interrogation, and admission by the accused) was the accused raped and, on the occasion thereof,
to establish a preponderance of evidence. For if the filed against Danilo Gole Cruz with the then CFI. killed Teresita Gumapay, the Court has painstakingly
court grants the demurrer, proceedings on the civil Accused pleaded not guilty in the arraignment and scrutinized the record, with the concomitant
aspect of the case generally proceed. The only trial on the merits followed wherein several calibration of the evidence and the consequent
recognized instance when an acquittal on demurrer witnesses were presented. The suspension of the determination as to whether the quantum thereof
carries with it the dismissal of the civil aspect is direct examination of the accused was at his passes the test of moral certainty of guilt. There is no
when there is a finding that the act or omission from instance and as moved by his counsel. Upon doubt that it was the accused who killed Teresita
which the civil liability may arise did not exist. medical examination, accused was found to be Gumapay, the evidence thereon being capped by his
Absent such determination, trial as to the civil aspect suffering from schizophrenia, and was admitted to own written confession of the same before the
of the case must perforce continue. a mental hospital. He however tried to escape. investigating officers. The authenticity of and the fact
- In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer Later, Dr. Maaba recommended on March 22, 1982 that he and the witnesses thereto knowingly affixed
and dismissed the case without any finding that the the discharge of the accused from the mental their signatures on said extrajudicial confession were
act or omission from which the civil liability may arise hospital and for his return to the provincial jail of never questioned. Buttressing the foregoing
did not exist. Choi did not assail the RTC order of Bulacan, he having been found fit to stand trial. evidence is the positive identification of the accused
remand. He thereby recognized that there is basis This unrebutted fact notwithstanding, the accused at the situs and during the occurrence of the crime.
for a remand. refused to take the witness stand without any We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the trial
- Park posits that Choi waived his right to present plausible justification. In addition, it was the court that the accused is not entitled to the
evidence on the civil aspect of the case (1) when the defense itself which moved to terminate the exempting circumstance of insanity. Against the
grant of the demurrer was reversed on appeal, citing testimony of the accused, which fact became the effete efforts in the accused's afterthought to create
Section 1 of Rule 33, and (2) when respondent orally basis for such testimony being stricken from the an insanity defense is the whole weight of the
opposed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration records for lack of cross-examination. In fact, presumption of sanity provided by law, amply
pleading that proceedings with respect to the civil when the former presiding judge thereafter supported by convincing circumstances laudably
aspect of the case continue. ordered the reopening of the case sua pointed out by the trial court.
- Petitioner’s citation of Section 1 of Rule 33 is sponte, it was the defense that objected to
incorrect. Where a court has jurisdiction over the the same and insisted that the case be DISPOSITION
subject matter and over the person of the accused, deemed submitted for decision. WHEREFORE, with the modifications that the death
and the crime was committed within its territorial Defense then motioned for a reopening of the case sentence imposed by the trial court is reduced to
jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises which was denied for lack of merit. Trial Court reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 19(l), Article
jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt III of the Constitution, and the indemnification for the
resolve. One of the issues in a criminal case being of the crime of rape with homicide and found his death of Teresita Gumapay is hereby increased from
the civil liability of the accused arising from the defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance P12,000.00 to P30,000.00, consonant with present
crime, the governing law is the Rules of Criminal unavailing. jurisprudence.
Procedure, not the Rules of Civil Procedure which ISSUE
WON accused was denied of his constitutional right
pertains to a civil action arising from the initiatory PEOPLE v CONCEPCION
pleading that gives rise to the suit. to be heard and to defend himself. (NO.)
HELD 84 PHIL 787
- As for petitioner’s attribution of waiver to
respondent, it cannot be determined with certainty RATIO: The mere filing of a motion to reopen a case PARAS; October 25, 1949
from the records the nature of Choi’s alleged oral must not in any way automatically vacate an
objections to Park’s motion for reconsideration of the agreement and order submitting the case for NATURE
grant of the demurrer to evidence. Any waiver of the decision. While the court may reopen a case for
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 145 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court finding That on or about the 25th day of April, 1999, in the According to Judge Maceda, since the prosecution
the appellant, Concepcion, guilty of treason, and City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the was not able to present its evidence on the first four
sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named hearing dates and there was either no return on the
of P10,000. accused, without justifiable motive with intent to kill subpoenas subsequently issued or there was no
and by means of treachery and evident subpoena issued at all to Pedrosa and Dr. Salen, the
FACTS premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully prosecution should have been given a last chance to
(the case is really short, there aren’t many facts or and feloniously attack, assault, and stab with a present the alleged eyewitness and the doctor.
anything) deadly weapon (fan knife) one Antonio Callosa, - Judge Maceda denied Cabarles’s MFR and set the
- Appellant was found guilt of treason on 3 counts: which directly caused his death. case for hearing on May 8, 2003 to hear the
- Apprehension on December 7, 1944 of Basilio - Cabarles pleaded not guilty. The trial court testimonies of Pedrosa and Dr. Salen. The subpoena
Severino. scheduled the case for hearing on the following issued to Pedrosa for that hearing was duly served,
- Apprehension on December 3, 1944, of dates, to wit: pre-trial on November 22, 2000; but service upon Dr. Salen failed since the doctor
Clemente Chica presentation of prosecution’s evidence on April 18, was no longer assigned to the SPD Crime Laboratory.
- Apprehension on January 9 of Gavino Moras May 4, 11, 18, and 23, 2001; and presentation of Notwithstanding the service upon Pedrosa, the
- the three individuals were apprehended by the defense evidence on June 20 and 27, July 4 and 18, prosecution still failed to present a witness during
appellant or at his instigation, due to their guerrilla and August 1, 2001. the May 8, 2003 hearing. Nonetheless, Judge
connections, all in Cebu City, and the appellant was -The prosecution had subpoenas issued to its Maceda, upon motion, again decided to extend to the
accompanied by Japanese during all 3 apprehensions witnesses: Flocerfina Callosa, the mother of the prosecution another chance, giving the People June
deceased; Imelda Pedrosa, the alleged eyewitness; 19 and July 3, 2003 as additional hearing dates.
ISSUE Carlos Callosa, brother of the deceased; and Dr. Finally, on June 19, 2003, Pedrosa took the witness
WON the lower court committed an error by allowing Romeo T. Salen, Police Senior Inspector of the stand and completed her direct examination. A few
the prosecution to present evidence of appellant’s Southern Police District (SPD) Crime Laboratory to days thereafter, Cabarles filed the present petition
Filipino citizenship after the prosecution had rested testify on the contents of the death certificate of questioning Judge Maceda’s order, alleging that it
its case and the defense had moved for dismissal Antonio Callosa. was issued with grave abuse of discretion. Since trial
- Through no fault of its own, the prosecution was in the lower court continued, on July 3, 2003, the
HELD unable to present its evidence on the first four Public Attorney’s Office conducted its cross-
NO hearing dates. examination of Pedrosa.
Reasoning - A day before the scheduled promulgation of Cabarles was then given a chance to adduce further
- The matter of reopening a case for the reception of judgment on April 2, 2003, Judge Maceda motu evidence on his behalf.1avvphi1.net
further evidence after either the prosecution or the proprio issued the questioned order reopening the On August 9, 2004, Judge Maceda deferred the
defense has rested is within the discretion of the trial case. In it, he observed that the prosecution may not promulgation of judgment and ordered the case
court. have been given its day in court resulting in a archived pending this Court’s resolution of the case.
Dispositive The appealed judgment, being in miscarriage of justice. He explained that because
conformity with the facts and the law, is affirmed. there was a mix-up in the dates specified in the ISSUES
subpoena and the hearing dates of when the case 1. WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of
CABARLES v MACEDA was actually heard, the prosecution was unable to discretion in issuing the assailed order
present its evidence on the first four of the five 2. WON petitioner’s right to due process and speedy
QUISUMBING; February 20, 2007
hearing dates: April 18, May 4, 11 and 18, 2001 disposition of his case was violated
assigned to it. Judge Maceda found that there was no
NATURE
hearing conducted on April 18, 2001. Thereafter, the HELD
Petitioner seeks to annul the Order issued by
subpoena issued to Pedrosa required her to appear 1. YES
respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda in Criminal
on April 11, 2001, which was not a date assigned for Ratio Section 24, Rule 119 and existing
Case No. 99-0878, entitled People of the Philippines
the prosecution but May 11, 2001. Also, Judge jurisprudence stress the following requirements for
v. Rene "Nonoy" Cabarles y Adizas, for murder, filed
Maceda noted that another subpoena was issued to reopening a case: (1) the reopening must be before
with the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City,
Pedrosa and Dr. Salen requiring them to appear on the finality of a judgment of conviction; (2) the order
Branch 275.
May 11 and June 20, 2001. But, the May 11, 2001 is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon
hearing was reset to May 25, 2001 because the motion; (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is
FACTS
judge was indisposed, and insofar as the June 20, conducted; (4) the order intends to prevent a
- On June 18, 1999, Cabarles was charged with
2001 setting was concerned, it was not one of the miscarriage of justice; and (5) the presentation of
murder under the following information:
days set by the court for the prosecution. Judge additional and/or further evidence should be
The undersigned Prosecutor II accuses RENE
Maceda further observed that the May 18, 2001 terminated within thirty days from the issuance of
"NONOY" CABARLES Y ADIZAS of the crime of
hearing was never scheduled and May 25, 2001 was the order.
Murder, committed as follows:
likewise not a hearing date set by the court. Reasoning
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 146 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Generally, after the parties have produced their provision, and considering the irregularities in the (6) months' imprisonment and to pay the
respective direct proofs, they are allowed to offer issuance of the April 1, 2003 Order, it is necessary to complainant the amount of P200.00, plus costs
rebutting evidence only. However, the court, for good resolve the issues raised in this petition.
reasons, in the furtherance of justice, may allow new - In fine, we are not unmindful of the gravity of the
evidence upon their original case, and its ruling will crime charged; but justice must be dispensed with an
not be disturbed in the appellate court where no even hand. Regardless of how much we want to ISSUES
abuse of discretion appears. A motion to reopen may punish the perpetrators of this ghastly crime and 1. WON the application of the Rules on Summary
thus properly be presented only after either or both give justice to the victim and her family, the procedure was valid
parties had formally offered and closed their protection provided by the Bill of Rights is bestowed 2. WON he was afforded due process
evidence, but before judgment is rendered, and even upon all individuals, without exception, regardless of
after promulgation but before finality of judgment race, color, creed, gender or political persuasion - HELD
and the only controlling guideline governing a motion whether privileged or less privileged - to be invoked NO
to reopen is the paramount interest of justice. This without fear or favor. Hence, the accused deserves - The Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases
remedy of reopening a case was meant to prevent a no less than an acquittal; ergo, he is not called upon applies only to criminal cases where the penalty
miscarriage of justice. to disprove what the prosecution has not proved. prescribed by law for the offense charged does not
- However, while Judge Maceda is allowed to reopen Dispositive instant petition is GRANTED. We hold exceed six (6) months imprisonment or a fine of one
the case before judgment is rendered, Section 24 that the assailed Order dated April 1, 2003 was thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or both
requires that a hearing must first be conducted. issued with grave abuse of discretion. Said Order is - The crime of Theft as charged herein is penalized
Judge Maceda issued the April 1, 2003 Order without hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, any with arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
notice and hearing and without giving the evidence received and offered in this case as a result correccional in its minimum period, or, from two (2)
prosecution and accused an opportunity to manifest of the April 1, 2003 Order is hereby stricken off the months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4)
their position on the matter. This failure, to our mind, record. Let the records of this case be REMANDED months. 6 Clearly, the Rule on Summary Procedure is
constitutes grave abuse of discretion and goes immediately to the trial court concerned for its inapplicable
against the due process clause of the Constitution appropriate action without further delay. - But even assuming that the case falls under the
which requires notice and opportunity to be heard. coverage of said Rule, the same does not dispense
The issuance of the said order, without the benefit of COMBATE v SAN JOSE with trial
a hearing, is contrary to the express language of "Section 11. When case set for arraignment and
135 SCRA 693
Section 24, Rule 119. trial.- Should the court, upon a consideration of the
2. YES MELENCIO-HERRERA; April 15, 1985 complaint or information and the affidavits
Ratio The concept of speedy disposition is relative or submitted by both parties, find no cause or ground
flexible. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time NATURE to hold the defendant for trial, it shall order the
involved is not sufficient. Particular regard must be Petition for Certiorari dismissal of the case; otherwise, the court shall set
taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each the case for arraignment and trial.
case. FACTS "Section 14. Procedure of Trial.- Upon a plea of not
Reasoning - petitioner was charged with the crime of Theft of guilty being entered, the trial shall immediately
- The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the one (1) Rooster [Fighting Cock] color red, belonging proceed. The affidavits submitted by the parties
right to speedy trial, is deemed violated when the to Romeo Posada worth P200.00. shall constitute the direct testimonies of the
proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and - Following the procedure laid down in the Rule on witnesses who executed the same. Witnesses who
oppressive delays; or when unjustified Summary Procedure in Special Cases, respondent testified may be subjected to cross-examination.
postponements of the trial are asked for and Judge required petitioner and his witnesses to submit Should the affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall
secured; or when without cause or justifiable motive, counter-affidavits to the supporting affidavits of the not be considered as competent evidence for the
a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the complainant party presenting the affidavit, but the adverse
party having his case tried. - On June 5, 1984, petitioner was subpoenaed to party may utilize the same for any admissible
- Cabarles invokes the jurisdiction of this Court in the appear before respondent Judge and was arraigned purpose.
interest of speedy justice since the information without the assistance of counsel. He pleaded not "No witness shall be allowed to testify unless he
against him was filed way back in June 1999, and guilty. had previously submitted an affidavit to the court
almost eight years thereafter, no judgment has yet - Subsequently, in an Order dated July 5, 1984, in accordance with Sections 9 and 10 hereof."
been rendered. Any further delay in the resolution of respondent Judge deemed the case submitted for - since petitioner-accused had pleaded not guilty,
the instant petition will be prejudicial to Cabarles. resolution purportedly pursuant to the Rule on trial should have proceeded immediately. But not
Also, the Court has full discretionary power to take Summary Procedure. only was petitioner unrepresented by counsel upon
cognizance of the petition filed directly to it for - In a Decision promulgated on July 16, 1984, without arraignment; he was neither accorded the benefit of
compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of benefit of trial, petitioner was sentenced to suffer six trial
the issues raised. Since Section 24 is a new
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 147 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Dispositive Judge's Decision promulgated on July Philippine National Police. It appears that one of the (e) Said accused has not at any time been
16, 1994, is hereby ANNULLED for having been suspects was a member of an NPA rebel returnee convicted of any offense involving moral
issued with grave abuse of discretion. The case is group headed by Armando Rodrigo, Jr. Upon the turpitude.
remanded to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of killing of Bert Liwanag, his girlfriend, dela Cruz, who Evidence adduced in support of the discharge
Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur, for proceedings was a suspected member of the group, was invited shall automatically form part of the trial. If the
strictly in accordance with law. for questioning. On that occasion, she admitted her court denies the motion for discharge of the
participation in the kidnapping of Oliver Caparas and accused as state witness, his sworn statement
PEOPLE v RODRIGO implicated appellants. shall be inadmissible in evidence.
- An Information was filed on 11 March 1997 against - The power to prosecute includes the initial
TINGA; January 23, 2007
appellants Plata, Fajardo and Rodrigo, together with discretion to determine who should be utilized by the
dela Cruz, Armando Rodrigo, Helen Joven, Boyong government as a state witness. The prosecution has
NATURE
Catindig, Jun Parubrob, and a John Doe. gathered the evidence against the accused and is in
Automatic review
- Four of the accused were apprehended, namely: a better position to decide the testimonial evidence
Plata, Rodrigo, Fajardo and dela Cruz. The rest needed by the State to press its prosecution to a
FACTS
remained at large. The trial court, upon motion of successful conclusion. Under our Rules, however, it
- On 10 September 1996, Oliver Caparas, then 13
the prosecution, discharged Dela Cruz to serve as is the courts that will finally determine whether the
years of age, was waiting for a ride to school in a
state witness. requirements have been satisfied to justify the
corner near his house in Matimbo, Malolos, Bulacan,
- On arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. discharge of an accused to become a witness for the
when four (4) men forcibly seized and boarded him
- On 31 May 2000, the RTC rendered its decision government.
into a car. While inside the car, he was blindfolded.
finding all appellants guilty beyond reasonable - The testimony of dela Cruz was an absolute
He was later transferred to a van. The van, tailed by
doubt. necessity.
a car, traveled to Baguio. While there, they slept
- Appellants elevated the case to the Court of - Neither does dela Cruz appear to be the most guilty
overnight inside the van in a parking lot.
Appeals. of the accused. The trial court held that dela Cruz
- The following day, Eleazar Caparas, the father of
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s was not privy to the kidnap plan and was merely
Oliver, received a call from the kidnappers initially
decision except that it acquitted Rodrigo. taken in later by the group because they suspected
asking for P10 million ransom
- Appellants Plata and Fajardo submitted their that she already knew too much.
- The kidnappers proceeded to Bonita’s Resort in
individual appeal briefs. - Did the lower courts properly consider the
Pangasinan. Oliver was then brought to a room and
testimony of dela Cruz? It is a jurisprudential rule
his blindfold removed. He stayed inside the room for
ISSUE that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or
one week. During his stay, a woman, later identified
WON Dela Cruz was eligible to be a state witness co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating
as Lanie dela Cruz, took care of him by feeding him
his co-accused cannot, by itself and without
three times a day.
HELD corroboration, be regarded as proof with a moral
- After three days of negotiation, the kidnappers
- Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides: certainty that the latter committed or participated in
agreed to lower the ransom to P1.7 million. On 17
When two or more persons are jointly charged the commission of the crime. The testimony must be
September 1996, Pedro Navarro, an uncle of Oliver,
with the commission of any offense, upon motion substantially corroborated in its material points by
was instructed by Eleazar Caparas to deliver the
of the prosecution before resting its case, the unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances
ransom money. After receiving a call from the
court may direct one or more of the accused to be and must be to such an extent that its
kidnappers, he proceeded to follow the instructions
discharged with their consent so that they may be trustworthiness becomes manifest. The testimony of
on the drop-off.
witnesses for the state when, after requiring the dela Cruz was substantially corroborated by no less
- Later that night, Oliver was made to board the
prosecution to present evidence and the sworn than the victim himself, Oliver, as well as Pedro.
same van and brought to the Petron Gas Station in
statement of each proposed state witness at a - As noted by the trial court, there may have been
Meycauayan Highway. Upon alighting from the van,
hearing in support of the discharge, the court is inconsistencies in the narration of dela Cruz. These,
he was given P500.00 and was told that he would be
satisfied that: however, were minor details and simply could be
fetched by his uncle inside a canteen in the gas
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony attributed to the frailty of human memory. It cannot
station. At around 1:00 a.m. of 18 September 1997,
of the accused whose discharge is requested; be expected that her testimony would be entirely
the kidnappers called Eleazar again and asked them
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for flawless. Inconsistencies as to minor details and
to go to the Petron Gas Station located between
the proper prosecution of the offense committed, collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the
Meycauayan and Marilao along the Expressway.
except the testimony of said accused; witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their
Upon arriving at the Petron Station at 3:00 a.m,
(c) The testimony of said accused can be testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even
Pedro Navarro saw Oliver eating inside the canteen
substantially corroborated in its material points; serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate
and brought him home where he was reunited with
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most any suspicion that the testimonies have been
his father.
guilty; and rehearsed. Moreover, the testimony of dela Cruz
- After the kidnapping incident, an investigation was
coincides with that of Oliver and Pedro relating to the
conducted by the Intelligence Section of the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 148 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

principal occurrence and the positive identification of desires to a witness for the State, can apply and, if right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide
appellants. qualified as determined in this Act and by the range of discretion, the discretion of whether, what
- Plata insists that dela Cruz harbored a grudge Department, shall be admitted into the Program and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends
against him because he was apparently a member of whenever the following circumstances are present: on a smorgasbord of factors which are best
the Armando Rodrigo group, the lone suspect in the (a) the offense in which his testimony will be used appreciated by prosecutors. We thus hold that it is
murder of Bert Liwanag, dela Cruz’s boyfriend. is a grave felony as defined under the R.P.C. or its not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to
Plata’s effort to impute ill-motive on the part of de la equivalent under special laws; enact R.A. No. 6981 vesting in the Department of
Cruz to falsely testify against him does not hold (b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony; Justice the power to determine who can qualify as a
water. Even granting that De la Cruz may have an (c) there is no other direct evidence available for witness in the program and who shall be granted
axe to grind is of no moment. Plata was positively the proper prosecution of the offense committed; immunity from prosecution. Section 9 of Rule 119
identified by Oliver. His statement was corroborated (d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated does not support the proposition that the power to
by dela Cruz. Motive becomes essential only when on its material points; choose who shall be a state witness is an inherent
the identity of the culprit is in doubt and not when he (e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and judicial prerogative. Under this provision, the court, is
is positively identified by a credible witness. (f) he has not at anytime been convicted of any given the power to discharge a state witness only
Dispositive Affirmed with modification crime involving moral turpitude. because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the
An accused discharged from an information crime and the accused. The discharge of an accused
WEBB v DE LEON or criminal complaint by the court in order that he is part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a
may be a State Witness pursuant to Sections 9 and recognition of an inherent judicial function. Moreover,
247 SCRA 652
10 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court may the Rules of Court have never been interpreted to be
PUNO; August 23, 1995 upon his petition be admitted to the Program if he beyond change by legislation designed to improve
complies with the other requirements of this Act. the administration of our justice system. R.A. No.
NATURE Nothing in this Act shall prevent the discharge of 6981 is one of the much sought penal reform laws to
Petitions for the issuance of the extraordinary writs an accused so that he can be used as a Witness help government in its uphill fight against crime, one
of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. certain cause of which is the reticence of witnesses
- Upon qualification of Alfaro to the program, Section to testify.
FACTS 12 of the said law mandates her non-inclusion in the - The rationale for the law is well put by the
- Petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, criminal Complaint or Information, thus: Department of Justice, viz.: "Witnesses, for fear of
Antonio J. Lejano and six (6) other persons were Sec. 12. Effect of Admission of a State Witness into reprisal and economic dislocation, usually refuse to
charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide the Program. The certification of admission into appear and testify in the investigation/prosecution of
(Vizconde massacre). the Program by the Department shall be given full criminal complaints/cases. Because of such refusal,
- Petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for not including faith and credit by the provincial or city prosecutor criminal complaints/cases have been dismissed for
Alfaro in the Information considering her alleged who is required NOT TO INCLUDE THE WITNESS IN insufficiency and/or lack of evidence. For a more
conspiratorial participation in the crime of rape with THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION and if effective administration of criminal justice, there was
homicide. It is urged that this constitutes ". . . an included therein, to petition the court for his a necessity to pass a law protecting witnesses and
intrusion into judicial prerogative for it is only the discharge in order that he can be utilized as a granting them certain rights and benefits to ensure
court which has the power under the Rules on State Witness. The court shall order the discharge their appearance in investigative bodies/courts."
Criminal Procedure to discharge an accused as a and exclusion of the said accused from the Petitioner Webb's challenge to the validity of R.A. No.
state witness" based on Section 9, Rule 119 which information. 6981 cannot therefore succeed.
gives the court the prerogative to approve the - Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Dispositive Petitions dismissed
discharge of an accused to be a state witness. Witness to immunity from criminal prosecution for
the offense or offenses in which his testimony will be PEOPLE v BUBAN
ISSUE given or used and all the rights and benefits provided
WON Alfaro should be included as one of the accused [SUPRA, PAGE 6]
under Section 8 hereof
in the information - Petitioner's argument lacks appeal for it lies on the
faulty assumption that the decision whom to PEOPLE v SAPAL
HELD prosecute is a judicial function, the sole prerogative 328 SCRA 417
- The non-inclusion of Alfaro is anchored on Republic of courts and beyond executive and legislative KAPUNAN; December 22, 1997
Act No. 6981, entitled "An Act Providing For A interference. In truth, the prosecution of crimes
Witness Protection, Security And Benefit Program appertains to the executive department of NATURE
And For Other Purposes" enacted on April 24, 1991. government whose principal power and responsibility Automatic Review of the Decision
Alfaro qualified under its Section 10, which provides: is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A
Sec. 10. State Witness. Any person who has necessary component of this power to execute our FACTS
participated in the commission of a crime and laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The - The RTC of Manila sentenced accused-appellant
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 149 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Jimmy Sapal to DEATH after he was found guilty which explicitly stated that said accused Jimmy Sapal NATURE
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of unlawful be “brought before him as soon as possible.” Petition for certiorari and prohibition
possession of three (3) kgs. of marijuana. However, contrary to the clear directive of the
- The prosecution presented two witnesses, namely warrant, the law enforcers never brought him before FACTS
P03 Jesus Gomez and Renee Checa, a forensic the said judge. Gomez himself admitted the same - Petitioner Tarcisio Icao was a provincial guard
chemist. Gomez testified that the office of the Drug and did not offer any convincing explanation for this employed by the Province of Zamboanga del Norte.
Enforcement Unit received a call that accused who omission. His chief function was to guard prisoners confined in
had a standing warrant of arrest had been seen at - Moreover, the records reveal that the documents the provincial jail located in Dipolog City. He was
Jocson St., Sampaloc Manila. relating to the arrest of the accused and his wife charged with the felony of infidelity in the custody of
- Their group spotted the car frequently used by the were prepared three (3) days after the arrest. prisoners in the CFI Dipolog City, and after due
accused. The police operatives approached the car, - Further, the case was submitted to the inquest arraignment and trial, was convicted.
told the accused and his wife, along with two other prosecutor only on April 25, 1995 and the - On the same day that the judgment was
companions, to get down of the car. Forthwith, information against accused and his wife was promulgated, private respondent Icao filed a petition
Gomez conducted a search of the vehicle and in the subsequently filed on April 26, 1995. for probation pursuant to the provisions of the
course thereof, allegedly found a light green plastic - It was not likewise shown that accused was fully Probation Law of 1976, and was released from
bag in the back seat containing three bricks of apprised of his rights under custodial arrest. custody on his own recognizance. He never
marijuana. Specifically, accused was not assisted by counsel thereafter sought to take an appeal or have the
- The accused testified that the police operatives when he was under custodial investigation. verdict reversed or modified. According to Sol-Gen.,
took his wallet which contained cash and several - Admittedly, accused is deemed to have waived his Icao's application for probation was approved.
ATM cards and that the latter coerced him into right to question the irregularities attending his Nothing in the record clearly supports this assertion.
divulging the PIN numbers of the ATM cards. arrest for his failure to raise the same before he Whether or not probation was granted is not,
- Accused gave them the correct PIN number to his entered his plea. Nonetheless, the peculiar factual however, material. The case will be resolved on other
Far East Bank account but purposely mixed up the circumstances surrounding the case effectively considerations.
other PIN numbers to his other bank accounts. destroy the presumption of regularity in the - A month later, the respondent Judge's attention was
- The accused and his companions were brought to performance by Gomez and his colleagues of their drawn to a letter of the Probation Officer of Dipolog
the WPD headquarters where their male companion, duties. Such being the case, the presumption of City, replying to an inquiry of the Office of the
Jerry, was mauled to force him to admit that drugs regularity cannot be made the sole basis of the Provincial Governor, stating that pending final action
were recovered from their group. The accused’s wife conviction of the accused. on his petition for probation, Icao could continue
and her other companion were likewise coerced to - It has been sufficiently established that several performing his duties as provincial guard in
admit the same. However, they all insisted that no withdrawals were made from the Far East Bank accordance with the spirit and intent of the Probation
illegal drugs were recovered from any of them. account of accused through ATM on April 22, 1995 Law. The respondent Judge issued an order,
- After trial, the trial court rendered the decision and these withdrawals could not have been made by announcing his amendment of the judgment of
under review. the accused and his wife because they were then conviction by specifying the period of temporary
already under arrest. special disqualification of Icao, and requiring the
ISSUE - The Court cannot completely disregard this piece of latter's presence for the promulgation of the
WON the guilt of the accused was proven beyond evidence as it strongly corroborates the testimony of amended decision.
reasonable doubt to warrant the supreme penalty of accused that law enforcers were able to withdraw - Icao moved for reconsideration, arguing that the
death money from is Far East Bank account through ATM. Court had already lost jurisdiction over the case, the
- It is well-settled that “where the circumstances judgment having become final, and the alteration by
HELD shown to exist yield two (2) or more inferences, one the respondent Judge of the decision under the
The Court finds for the accused. of which consistent with the presumption of circumstances would place him in double jeopardy.
- While the Court is mindful that law enforcers enjoy innocence while the other or others may be His motion was denied, as was, too, a second MFR.
the presumption of regularity in the performance of compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition now
their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the acquit the accused: for the evidence does not fulfill before this Court.
constitutional right of the accused to be presumed the test or moral certainty and is insufficient to
innocent and it cannot, by itself, constitute proof of support a judgment of conviction. ISSUE
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Dispositive Reversed. WON respondent Judge had the authority to modify
- In the present case, there is sufficient evidence to the judgment of conviction
show that the manner by which the law enforcers ICAO v APALISOK
effected the arrest of the accused was highly HELD
180 SCRA 680
irregular and suspect. NO
- Gomez claimed that they arrested accused NARVASA; December 29, 1989 Ratio A judgment of conviction may be modified or
pursuant to the warrant issued by Judge Barrios set aside by the court rendering it before the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 150 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

judgment has become final or appeal has been lost jurisdiction over the case in view of the constitutes a grave abuse of discretion which calls for
perfected. A judgment in a criminal case becomes perfection of the appeal by the accused on the very relief from this Court.
final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an date the decision was promulgated. - We do not question the correctness of the findings
appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or - The records were then elevated to the Court of of the Court of Appeals that the evidence sought to
totally satisfied or served, or the defendant has Appeals where petitioner as accused-appellant raised be presented by the petitioner do not fall under the
expressly waived in writing his right to appeal. ( Sec. the issues of (1) an erroneous conviction for illegal category of newly-discovered evidence because the
7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court of 1964) possession of explosives when there was no proof of same his alleged appointment as an agent of the
Reasoning an essential element of the crime, and (2) erroneous Philippine Constabulary and a permit to possess a
- Under said rule, the respondent Judge had clearly denial of his motion to reopen the case for the handgrenade were supposed to be known to
lost the authority to modify the judgment of reception of his permit to possess the handgrenade. petitioner and existing at the time of trial and not
conviction. [a] The judgment in this case became Jose prayed for his acquittal or in the alternative for discovered only thereafter.
final and executory because the 15-day period of the remand of the case back to the trial court for a - It is indeed an established rule that for a new trial
appeal provided by law had lapsed without an appeal new trial. CA affirmed RTC. to be granted on the ground of newly discovered
being taken. A judgment which has become final and - A motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was evidence, it must be shown that (a) the evidence was
executory can no longer be amended or corrected filed but was denied. discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not
except only as regards clerical errors. Hence, even - Jose filed before the SC but was denied. Thus this have been discovered and produced at the trial even
the subsequent discovery of an erroneous imposition Motion for Reconsideration. with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) the
of a penalty will not justify correction of the judgment - Manifestation was submitted by the Solicitor evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
after it has become final. [b] Under Art. 44 of RPC, General informing the Court that in view of the corroborative, or impeaching; and (d) it must go to
the penalty of arresto imposed on Icao carries with it "persistence of accused petitioner Lorenzo Jose both the merits as ought to produce a different result if
that of suspension of the right to hold office and the before this Honorable Court and respondent Court of admitted.
right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. The Appeals as to his alleged existing appointment as PC - However, petitioner herein does not justify his
plain implication would appear to be that courts have Agent and/or authority to possess handgrenade," in motion for a new trial on newly discovered evidence,
no power to fix a longer term for that accessory the interest of justice, he was constrained to make but rather on broader grounds of substantial justice
penalty of disqualification pertinent inquiries from the PC Chief, Gen. Fidel V. under Sec. 11, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court which
Dispositive Petition GRANTED. Challenged Orders Ramos who in reply sent his letter dated December provides:
annulled and set aside. 27, 1974 that states that Mr. Lorenzo Jose was "Power of appellate court on appeal. Upon appeal
appointed as PC Agent. The Solicitor General now from a judgment of the Court of First Instance, the
JOSE v CA concedes that the interests of justice will best be appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify the
served by remanding this case to the court of origin judgment and increase or reduce the penalty
70 SCRA 257
for a new trial. imposed by the trial court, remand the case to the
MUÑOZ PALMA; March 31, 1976 Court of First Instance for new trial or retrial, or
ISSUE dismiss the case."
FACTS WON CA committed an error of law and gravely - Petitioner asserts, and correctly so, that the
- Jose was convicted of illegal possession of abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's authority of respondent appellate court over an
explosives (handgrenade) and sentenced to suffer motion for new trial "for the reception of (1) the appealed case is broad and ample enough to
imprisonment of five years. He seeks a new trial but written permit of petitioner to possess and use embrace situations as the instant case where the
was denied by the CFI of Pampanga and affirmed by handgrenade, and (2) the written appointment of court may grant a new trial or a retrial for reasons
the CA. petitioner as PC agent with Code No. P-36-68 and other than that provided in Section 13 of the same
- Jose was arrested by the local police for illegal Code Name 'Safari' (both documents are dated 31 Rule, or Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court.
discharge of firearm, robbery and illegal possession January 1968)" While Section 13, Rule 124, and Section 2, Rule 121,
of explosives. Hon. Romero acquitted accused Jose of provide for specific grounds for a new trial, i.e. newly
illegal discharge of firearm and robbery, but HELD discovered evidence, and errors of law or
convicted him for illegal possession of the YES irregularities committed during the trial, Section 11,
handgrenade that was found on his person at the - This is a situation where a rigid application of rules Rule 124 quoted above does not so specify, thereby
time of his arrest. of procedure must bow to the overriding goal of leaving to the sound discretion of the court the
- After promulgation of the judgment, petitioner on courts of justice — to render justice where justice is determination, on a case to case basis, of what would
that same day, filed his notice of appeal. Petitioner due to secure to every individual all possible legal constitute meritorious circumstances warranting a
filed a motion praying that the case be reopened to means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he new trial or retrial.
permit him to present, pursuant to a reservation he is charged. The failure of the Court of Appeals to - Thus, admittedly, courts may suspend its own rules
had made in the course of the trial, a permit to appreciate the merits of the situation, involving as it or except a case from them for the purposes of
possess the handgrenade in question. The trial court does the liberty of an individual, thereby closing its justice or, in a proper case, disregard them. In this
denied the motion mainly on the ground that it had ear to a plea that a miscarriage of justice be averted, jurisdiction, in not a few instances, this Court ordered
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 151 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

a new trial in criminal cases on grounds not of the final outcome of the case within a reasonable - The respondents appealed to the DOJ. The DOJ
mentioned in the statute, viz: retraction of witness, time. reversed the resolution and ordered that the
negligence or incompetency of counsel, improvident informations be withdrawn. The corporation moved
plea of guilty, disqualification of an attorney de oficio FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT v BAYBAY to reconsider but was denied by the DOJ. They then
to represent the accused in the trial court, and where assailed the DOJ order before the CA.
CARPIO MORALES; January 31, 2007
a judgment was rendered on a stipulation of facts - In the meantime, respondents filed a motion to
entered into by both the prosecution and the dismiss the criminal cases. Judge Baybay granted the
FACTS
defense. motion.
- Characteristically, a new trial has been described as - First Women’s Credit Corp filed a petition before
a new invention to temper the severity of a judgment the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ISSUES
or prevent the failure of justice. against the corporation’s officers Jacinto, Colayco, 1. WON the judge correctly dismissed the criminal
- Petitioner cites certain peculiar circumstances Sangil and Cruz, for alleged mismanagement of the case
obtaining in the case now before Us which may be corporation. 2. WON the only remedy for the petitioners was a
classified as exceptional enough to warrant a new - The SEC, in SEC Case No. 11-97-5816, created an petition fro certiorari, not an ordinary appeal
trial if only to afford human opportunity to establish Interim Management Committee (IMC) for the
his innocence of the crime charged. corporation by Order of November 17, 1999. The HELD
- Thus petitioner was facing a criminal prosecution Order was upheld by the SEC en banc on July 4, 1. NO
for illegal possession of a handgrenade in the court 2000. - As to what mode of review petitioners may avail of
below. He claimed to be an agent of the Philippine - The IMC thereupon issued directives to the after a court grants an accused’s motion to withdraw
Constabulary with a permit to possess explosives corporation’s president Antonio Tayao and corporate information and/or to dismiss the case, Section 1 of
such as the handgrenade in question. However, he secretary and treasurer Glicerio Perez. Rule 122 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
found himself in a situation where he had to make a - Allegedly in conspiracy with Jacinto and Colayco, Procedure instructs: "Any party may appeal from a
choice reveal his identity as an undercover agent of Tayao and Perez defied the implementation of the judgment or final order, unless the accused will be
the Philippine Constabulary assigned to perform SEC November 17, 1999 Order6 when IMC attempted placed in double jeopardy."
intelligence work on subversive activities and face to enter the main office of the corporation in Makati - In availing of the remedy of certiorari before the
possible reprisals or even liquidation at the hands of on December 3, 1999, December 29, 1999 and RTC, petitioners claim that they had no plain,
the dissidents considering that Floridablanca, the site January 28, 2000 adequate and speedy remedy to question the MeTC’s
of the incident, was in the heart of "Huklandia", or - The IMC then preventively suspended Tayao and grant of the motion.
ride on the hope of a possible exoneration or Perez. However, Tayao and Perez continued to issue -The records of the cases show, however, that the
acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence of memoranda to the employees to disobey the IMC. motion was granted by the MeTC before respondents
the prosecution. Without revealing his identity as an Later, the IMC dismissed them both. were arraigned. Thus, the prohibition against appeal
agent of the Philippine Constabulary, he claimed - The corporation, represented by Katayama in case a criminal case is dismissed as the accused
before the trial judge that he had a permit to possess (minority stockholder), filed before the Makati City would be placed in double jeopardy does not apply.
the handgrenade and prayed for time to present the Prosecutor criminal complaints against Jacinto, - Petitioners not having availed of the proper remedy
same. The permit however could not be produced Colayco, Tayao and Perez for: to assail the dismissal of the cases, the dismissal had
because it would reveal his intelligence work a) Article 151 which punishes resistance and become final and executory. On this score alone, the
activities. Came the judgment of conviction and with disobedience to person in authority or the agents of present petition must fail.
it the staggering impact of a five-year imprisonment. such person (20 counts); 2. YES
The competent authorities then realized that it was b) Article 154 which punishes the unlawful use of - The judge made a finding independent of that of
unjust for this man to go to jail for a crime he had not means of publication and unlawful utterances (2 the DOJ’s.
committed, hence, came the desired evidence counts); - The trial court did stress in its December 3, 2002
concerning petitioner's appointment as a Philippine c) Article 172(2) which punishes falsification by Order denying the motion for reconsideration that it
Constabulary agent and his authority to possess a private individuals and use of falsified documents (2 was bound to make, as it did, a preliminary finding
handgrenade for the protection of his person, but, it counts); independently of those of the Secretary of Justice.
was too late according to the trial court because in d) Article 315, paragraph 2(a) Estafa by falsely - The trial judge need not state with specificity or
the meantime the accused had perfected his appeal. pretending to be officers of FWCC (23 counts) make a lengthy exposition of the factual and legal
Dispositive PREMISES CONSIDERED, We hereby set - The investigating prosecutor found no probable foundation relied upon by him to arrive at his
aside the judgment of conviction of the herein cause for violations under A151, A154 and A315. decision. It suffices that upon his own personal
petitioner, Lorenzo Jose, and remand the case to the However, it found probable cause for 2 counts of evaluation of the evidence and the law involved in
court a quo for a new trial only for the purpose of violation of A 172(2) against Jacinto, Colayco and the case, he is convinced that there is no probable
allowing said accused to present additional evidence Perez, and 3 counts of grave coercion against Tayao cause to indict the accused.
in his defense. The trial court shall inform this Court and 3 secuirty guards.. The City prosecutor approved Dispositive Petition denied
the investigating prosecutor’s resolution.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 152 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN time predicated not on the felony previously charged - Martinez filed a "Motion for Reinvestigation" which
but on other sources of obligation. We summarize was denied by Judge Manuel E. Yuzon. The case was
[SUPRA, PAGE 82]
our ruling herein: set for arraignment and pre-trial conference on July
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his 31, 1990, but this setting was cancelled in view of
PEOPLE v BAYOTAS conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well Judge Yuzon's retirement.
236 SCRA 239 as the civil liability based solely thereon. - Martinez filed a petition with the DOJ seeking review
ROMERO; September 2, 1994 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives of the resolution of the City Prosecutor finding a
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same prima facie case of libel against him. Accordingly, 3rd
FACTS may also be predicated on a source of obligation Asst. City Prosecutor Lourdes C. Tabanag filed before
- Rogelio Bayotas was charged with Rape and other than delict. the trial court a motion to suspend proceedings
eventually convicted thereof. Pending appeal of his 3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for pending resolution by the DOJ of Martinez' petition
conviction, Bayotas died at the National Bilibid recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of for review, which was granted by Judge Pepito.
Hospital. Consequently, the Supreme Court filing a separate civil action - Complainant Laurel attempted once more to have
dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. 4. The private offended party need not fear a the case set for arraignment and trial. No action was
However, it required the Solicitor General to file its forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action taken on his said motion.
comment with regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising by prescription, in cases where during the - August 16, 1991: Acting Justice Secretary Silvestre
from his commission of the offense charged. In his prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its H. Bello III declared inter alia that while the language
comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view extinction, the private-offended party instituted used in the article may be unsavory and unpleasant
that the death of accused-appellant did not together therewith the civil action. In such case, the to complainant, the same was not actionable as libel,
extinguish his civil liability as a result of his statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed as it embodied merely an opinion protected as a
commission of the offense charged. interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, privileged communication under Article 354 of the
- Counsel for the accused-appellant argues that the conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the RPC. The appealed resolution was set aside and the
death of the accused while judgment of conviction is Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any City Prosecutor was directed to cause the dismissal
pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and apprehension on a possible privation of right by of the information filed against Manuel F. Martinez.
civil penalties. Said counsel invoked the ruling of the prescription. Consequently, a motion to dismiss was filed on
CA in People v. Castillo and Ocfemia which held that Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, we August 26, 1991 and set for hearing on December
the civil obligation in a criminal case takes root in the hold that the death of appellant Bayotas 17, 1991. At the hearing, upon manifestation of
criminal liability and, therefore, civil liability is extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability complainant's counsel, as private prosecutor, that he
extinguished if accused should die before final based solely on the act complained of, i.e., rape. had received no copy of the motion to dismiss, the
judgment is rendered. Dispositive The appeal is DISMISSED. trial court directed the case prosecutor to furnish
said counsel the desired copy, giving the latter ten
ISSUE MARTINEZ v CA (LAUREL) (10) days to respond thereto.
- Motion to dismiss was granted by Judge Roberto
WON death of the accused pending appeal of his 237 SCRA 575
conviction extinguishes his civil liability Barrios.
NARVASA; October 13, 1994 - Laurel went to CA ascribing error to the lower court.
- CA issued a Resolution granting the appeal and
NATURE remanding the case for arraignment of the accused
HELD
This petition for review prays for the reversal of the and trial on the merits. The Appellate Court ruled
YES
resolutions of the Court of Appeals. that private complainant had "sufficient personality
Ratio Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code is the
controlling statute. It reads, in part: Criminal liability and a valid grievance against the order of dismissal
FACTS before arraignment" and that the remedy of appeal
is totally extinguished … By the death of the convict,
- Manuel P. Martinez actually seeks the dismissal of was property available because the order of
as to the personal penalties; and as to the pecuniary
the information for libel filed against him in the Trial dismissal was a final order which terminated all
penalties liability therefor is extinguished only when
Court. proceedings in the case.
the death of the offender occurs before final
- On complaint of then Vice-President Salvador H. - The fault or error tainting the order of dismissal of
judgment. The term final judgment employed in the
Laurel, an Information was filed before the RTC of the lower court consists in its failure to observe
RPC means judgment beyond recall. Really, as long
Manila by Assistant Prosecutor Antonio J. Ballena, procedural due process and to exercise its discretion
as a judgment has not become executory, it cannot
charging Manuel P. Martinez with libel arising from properly and judiciously.
be truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty of
the allegedly derogatory and scurrilous imputations - The dismissal was based merely on the findings of
the felony charged against him. If the private
and insinuations against Laurel contained in the Acting Secretary of Justice that no libel was
offended party, upon extinction of the civil liability ex
Martinez' article entitled "The Sorrows of Laurel" committed. The trial judge did not make an
delicto desires to recover damages from the same
published on January 8, 1990 in his Manila Times independent evaluation or assessment of the merits
act or omission complained of, he must, subject to
column. of the case.
Section 1, Rule 111, file a separate civil action, this
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 153 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The grant of the motion to dismiss was based upon - The remedy against such a judgment is an appeal, - Warden of Bilibid Prison says Cruz is now serving
considerations other than the judge's own personal regardless of the questions sought to be raised on the subsidiary imprisonment on account of his failure
individual conviction that there was no case against appeal, whether of fact, or of law, whether involving to pay the P1,000 fine in case#1. At the rate of P2.50
the accused. The trial judge must himself be jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion of the Trial a day, said subsidiary imprisonment will expire about
convinced that there was indeed no sufficient Court. . . . (T)he party aggrieved . . . did not have the the 9th of July, 1911.
evidence against the accused, and this conclusion option to substitute the special civil action of - Oct 21, 1910: writ as prayed for was issued.
can be arrived at only after an assessment of the certiorari under Rule 65 for the remedy of appeal Hearing was set the next day.
evidence in the possession of the prosecution. provided for in Rule 41. Indeed, the existence and
Petitioner’s Claim availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to ISSUE
- Martinez moved to dismiss the appeal on the the availment of the special civil action of certiorari. WON that part of the sentence of the CFI
ground that no appeal lies from the dismissal of a - The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a condemning Cruz to subsidiary imprisonment in case
criminal case, and certainly not by the private complaint or information is filed in Court any of insolvency in the payment of the P1,000 fine is
complainant, particularly where dismissal was at the disposition of the case as its dismissal or the legal
instance of the City Prosecutor upon orders of the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
Department of Justice. sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal HELD
- If any remedy was available to private complainant, retains the direction and control of the prosecution of NO
it was a petition for certiorari, not an appeal. criminal cases even while the case is already in Court - CFI had jurisdiction of the offense complained of. It
he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The had jurisdiction of the prisoner who was properly
ISSUE Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with brought before it. It had jurisdiction to hear and
WON complainant is allowed to file an appeal the case before it. (Crespo v. Mogul) decide upon the defense offered by him, but it did
Dispositive Petition is denied. not have power to sentence the petitioner to
HELD subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the
YES CRUZ v DIRECTOR OF PRISONS payment of the fine imposed. It is therefore clear
Ratio The right to appeal from a final judgment or that that part of the judgment is void.
17 PHIL 269
order in a criminal case is granted to "any party", - Act No. 1732 (effective November 1, 1907): when a
except when the accused is placed thereby in double TRENT; November 3, 1910 fine is imposed as a whole, or as any part of the
jeopardy. punishment for any criminal offense made
Reasoning NATURE punishable by any Act of the Philippine Commission,
Section 2, Rule 122 RCP Petition for writ of habeas corpus the court shall also sentence the guilty person to
"Who may appeal. Any party may appeal from a final subsidiary imprisonment until the fine is satisfied;
judgment or order, except if the accused would be FACTS provided that such subsidiary imprisonment shall
placed thereby in double jeopardy.” - Juan M. Cruz was tried, convicted, and sentenced by not, in any case, exceed one year; but in case the
- Court ruled that the word "party" must be CFI Manila for violation of the provisions of Act No. court imposes both a fine and imprisonment the
understood to mean not only the government and 292 by the Phil Commission (effective Nov 4, 1901). subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third
the accused, but also other persons who may be - Case#1: conspiracy against the government. He of the term of imprisonment imposed by such
affected by the judgment rendered in the criminal was sentenced to 3 yrs imprisonment, and fine of sentence.
proceeding. Thus, the party injured by the crime has P1,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of - This provision is not applicable to Cruz because the
been held to have the right to appeal from a insolvency in the payment of the fine. penalty was imposed upon him long before Act No.
resolution of the court which is derogatory to his - Case#2: sedition. He was sentenced to 1732 went into effect. Penal statutes can not have a
right to demand civil liability arising from the offense. imprisonment of 2 yrs, and fine of US $2,000 retroactive effect for the reason that such effect
(People v. Guido) (=PhP4000). This last case was appealed to, and would not be beneficial to the petitioner. (Art. 22,
- “Offended parties in criminal cases have sufficient affirmed by SC, without subsidiary imprisonment. Penal Code; US v Macasaet)
interest and personality as 'person(s) aggrieved' to - Nov 15, 1905: Cruz commenced to serve these - Prior to the passage of Act No. 1732, CFIs had no
file the special civil action of prohibition and sentences. authority to impose subsidiary imprisonment for
certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 in line - Nov 15, 1910: supposed expiry of 5yr total prison failure to pay fines in cases of conviction for
with the underlying spirit of the liberal construction term. violations of the Acts issued by the Philippine
of the Rules of Court…” - June 4, 1910: expiry of prison term on account of Commission. Such errors (regarding authority to
- The procedural recourse of appeal taken by private good conduct allowance, as provided by Act No. 1533 impose the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment in
complainant Laurel is correct because the order of (Cruz was not allowed the full time for good conduct case of insolvency) when committed have been
dismissal was a final order. It finally disposed of the on account of certain violations of prison corrected by SC in those cases which were appealed:
pending action so that nothing more could be done regulations). US v Hutchinson, US v Lineses, and US v Macasaet,
with it in the lower court. - Oct 14, 1910: petition for writ oh habeas corpus among them.
was filed in behalf of Cruz.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 154 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- CFI did not have power to sentence Cruz to of the appellate court to correct an error in the exemplary damages to deter other fathers with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the appealed judgment, whether this is assigned as an perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior
payment of the fine imposed. error or not. from sexually abusing their own daughters
- SC at this time has no power to correct this error - In the case at bar, the trial court, pursuant to Dispositive Judgment appealed from was affirmed
committed by the court below, neither has it power Section 11 of Republic 7659, imposed the penalty of with the modification.
to remand the case to the trial court for that death upon accused-appellant Manuel Cula, taking
purpose. The fact that Cruz did not appeal can not into account the minority of Maricel as she is said to
affect the question as the two penalties imposed are have been only 16 years old at the time of the rape
separate and distinct. incident, as well as the relationship of father and
- The courts uniformly hold that where a sentence daughter between them.
imposes a punishment in excess of the power of the - People vs. Javier: However it is significant to note
court to impose, such sentence is void as to the that the prosecution failed to present the birth
excess, and some of the courts hold that the certificate of the complainant. Although the victim’s
sentence is void in toto; but the weight of authority age was not contested by the defense, proof of age
sustains the proposition that such a sentence is void of the victim is particularly necessary in this case
only as to the excess imposed in case the parts are considering that the victim's age which was then 16
separable, the rule being that the petitioner is not years old is just two years less than the majority age
entitled to his discharge on a writ of habeas corpus of 18.
unless he has served out so much of the sentence as - At all events, it is the burden of the prosecution to
was valid. prove with certainty the fact that the victim was
- Warden agrees Cruz has served out the entire part below 18 when the rape was committed in order to
of the sentences which CFI had power to impose, and justify the imposition of the death penalty. The
adhering to the rule that that part of the sentences record of the case is bereft of any independent
imposed by the court below in excess of its evidence, such as the victim's duly certified
jurisdiction is void, the petitioner is entitled to his Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing private
release. complainant's age.
Dispositive Cruz ordered discharged from custody. - The fact that accused-appellant Manuel has not
denied the allegation in the complaint that Maricel
PEOPLE v CULA was 16 years old when the crime was committed
cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to
329 SCRA 101
discharge its burden in this regard.
MELO; March 28, 2000 - Because of this lapse, as well as the corresponding
failure of the trial court to make a categorical finding
FACTS as to the minority of the victim, we hold that the
- Accused-appellants Manuel Cula Y Bandilla and qualifying circumstance of minority under Republic
Joselito Lopez Y Roco were charged for raping the Act No. 7659 cannot be appreciated in this case, and
former’s 16-year old daughter, Maricel Cula. accordingly the death penalty cannot be imposed.
- Accused-appellants were found guilty beyond - The award of damages made by the trial court
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged in should likewise be modified. As regards the civil
the Information. indemnity, this Court has to date consistently ruled
- Manuel Cula was sentenced to suffer the penalty of that if, in the crime of rape, the death penalty is
death while Joselito Lopez, the penalty of Reclusion imposed, the indemnity ex delicto for the victim
Perpetua. should be in the amount of P75,000.00; and if the
death penalty is not decreed by the Court, the victim
ISSUE would instead be entitled to P50,000. Accordingly,
WON the court erred in imposing the penalty of accused~appellants shall each pay the amount of
death P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of rape.
In addition, as held in People vs. Prades, both
HELD accused-appellants must each indemnify the victim
YES the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages for
- It is a well-established rule in criminal procedure each count of rape without the need of pleading or
that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the proof as the basis thereof. Lastly, accused~appellant
whole case open for review and it becomes the duty Manuel is also liable to pay the sum of P20,000.00 as

You might also like