Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2009 Criminal Procedure Cases

2009 Criminal Procedure Cases

Ratings: (0)|Views: 700|Likes:
Published by Victoria Ruiz

More info:

Categories:Topics, Art & Design
Published by: Victoria Ruiz on Oct 22, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





VILLAROSA (G.R. No. 165924 - January 19, 2009)2MIAQUE
PATAG (G.R. Nos. 170609-13 - January 30, 2009)5DE VERA
DE VERA (G.R. No. 172832 - April 7, 2009)8POLINTAN vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 161827 -April 21, 2009)13SY TIONG SHIOU vs SY CHIM (G.R. No. 174168 - March 30, 2009)17VERGARA, vs THE HON. OMBUDSMAN (G.R. No. 174567 -March 12, 2009)33
HON. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of San Jose City Regional Trial Court, Branch 39G.R. No. 165924 January 19, 2009NACHURA,
Assailed through a
petition before this Court are the September 7,2004
and the September 28, 2004
and the 3 June 2004 resolution
Ordersof the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39 of San Jose City in CriminalCase Nos. SJC-78-04 and SJC-79-04. The case originates from an incident that happened on August 2, 2003,when petitioner Resty Jumaquio allegedly threatened and assaulted twoyoung men, then ages 13 and 17. As narrated by the minors, in the morningof the said date, Resty, a neighbor, upon seeing the younger child, beltedout his anger and yelled,
" Putang ina mong bata ka namumuro ka na saakin, at susunugin ko ‘yung pamilya mo!"
(You, son of a bitch, I’ve hadenough of you, I’ll burn your family!). That evening too, while the minorsand their mother were traversing the road fronting another neighbor’shouse, petitioner, who was then having a drinking session, cursed them.Aghast, the mother cursed him back. Resty thence threw a stone towardsthe older child, but missed him. When the children’s father went out of theirnearby house, Resty picked up another stone to fling towards the father, butthe older child rushed to Resty to grab it. At that moment, Resty repeatedlypunched the 17-year-old. The younger child came to the rescue, but he tooreceived a blow on his left cheek. The family hurried home when Restybellowed at his son for the latter to get a gun. Resty then pelted stones atthe family’s house, shouting,
"Putang ina ninyo, zone leader ako papatayinko [kayong] lahat!"
(You, sons of bitches, I am a zone leader, I will kill youall!).On account of that altercation, two separate Informations
were filedwith the RTC of San Jose City, which pertinently read as follows:Criminal Case No. SJC-78-04x x x x The undersigned Prosecutor II accuses RESTY JUMAQUIO, with thecrime of GRAVE THREATS in relation to R.A. No. 7610, committed asfollows: That on or about August 2, 2003, in the City of San Jose, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, thesaid accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniouslythreaten the minor [name withheld], a 13-year-old boy, with theinfliction of a wrong amounting to a crime, that is, by uttering thefollowing words, to wit:"PUTANG INA MONG BATA KA NAMUMURO KA NA SA AKIN ATSUSUNUGIN KO YONG PAMILYA MO"to the damage and prejudice of [name withheld]. That the above acts of the accused debases, degrades, anddemeans the dignity of the complainant and impairs his normalgrowth and development.CONTRARY TO LAW. April 29, 2004.
x x x xCriminal Case No. SJC-79-04--x x x x The undersigned Prosecutor II accuses RESTY JUMAQUIO, with thecrime of PHYSICAL INJURIES in relation to R.A. No. 7610, committed asfollows: That on or about August 2, 2003, in the City of San Jose, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, thesaid accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniouslyattack, box and hit the minors [names withheld], 13 years old and 17years old, respectively, thereby causing physical injuries to the latter,which required medical treatment for a period of three to five (3 to 5)days, to their damage and prejudice. That the above acts of the accused debases, degrades, and demeansthe dignity of the complainant (sic) and impairs their normal growthand development.CONTRARY TO LAW. April 29, 2004.x x x x
 The trial court consequently issued the warrant of arrest and fixed the bailat P80,000.00 for each case, which, on motion of petitioner, was reduced toP40,000.00 each in surety bond.
After posting bail and before the arraignment, petitioner moved for thequashal of the informations for being duplicitous. He argued that, under theinformations, he stood charged with several crimes - grave threats andviolation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, and physical injuries and anotherviolation of the aforesaid law; that grave threats in relation to R.A. No. 7610could not be considered a crime; and that the said separate crimes couldnot even be complexed, as neither may be considered to fall within theambit of Section 10, R.A. No. 7610.
Following Section 3(e), Rule 117
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the informations should thereforebe quashed.
In his opposition to the motion, the City Prosecutor countered that theallegations in the questioned informations, and not the designation of thecrimes therein, should prevail. The informations charged separate violationsof R.A. No. 7610 - Criminal Case No. SJC-78-04 for the single offense of childabuse committed through the use of threatening words, and Criminal CaseNo. SJC-79-04 for the separate offense of child abuse through the inflictionof physical injuries.
The crimes committed by petitioner would bepunishable under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
In the assailed September 7, 2004 Order,
the RTC denied the motion. Thetrial court further denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in thelikewise assailed September 28, 2004 Order.
Discontented, petitioner filed directly before this Court the instant petitionfor
under Rule 65.We dismiss the petition.Immediately apparent is that the instant petition disregards the hierarchy of courts. While our original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs is notexclusive – it is shared with the Court of Appeals (CA) and the RTC – thechoice of where to file the petition for
is not left entirely to the

Activity (11)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Mav Zamora liked this
Irish Villamor liked this
Renie Mairina liked this
Renie Mairina liked this
artcorbe052545 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->