Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

JARANTILLA v CA (SING) 171 SCRA 429 REGALADO; March 21, 1989

NATURE Appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the decision of the trial court awarding damages to the private respondent. FACTS - Private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swiped by a vehicle in the evening of July 7, 1971 in lznart Street, Iloilo City" The respondent Court of Appeals concurred in the findings of the court a quo that the said vehicle which figured in the mishap, a Volkswagen (Beetle type) car, was then driven by petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street toward the direction of the provincial capitol, and that private respondent sustained physical injuries as a consequence. - Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then City Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 47207 thereof. Private respondent, as the complaining witness therein, did not reserve his right to institute a separate civil action and he intervened in the prosecution of said criminal case through a private prosecutor. Petitioner was acquitted in said criminal case "on reasonable doubt". - On October 30, 1974, private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the former Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 9976, and which civil action involved the same subject matter and act complained of in Criminal Case No. 47027. In his answer filed therein, the petitioner alleged as special and affirmative detenses that the private respondent had no cause of action and, additionally, that the latter's cause of action, if any, is barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No. 47207 inasmuch as when said criminal case was instituted the civil liability was also deemed instituted since therein plaintiff failed to reserve the civil aspect and actively participated in the criminal case. - Thereafter, acting on a motion to dismiss of therein defendant, the trial court issued on April 3, 1975 an order of denial. Petitioner thereafter filed in this Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, which was docketed as G.R. No. L-40992, assailing the aforesaid order of the trial court. Said petition was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's resolution of July 23, 1975, and a motion for

a2010

page 110

Prof.
- The aforecited case of Lontoc vs. MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc., et al. involved virtually the same factual situation. The Court, in arriving at the conclusion hereinbefore quoted, expressly declared that the failure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his right to file a separate civil case is not fatal; that his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing a separate civil action for damages, especially considering that the accused therein was acquitted because his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; that the two cases were anchored on two different causes of action, the criminal case being on a violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code while the subsequent complaint for damages was based on a quasi-delict; and that in the judgment in the criminal case the aspect of civil liability was not passed upon and resolved. Consequently, said civil case may proceed as authorized by Article 29 of the Civil Code. - Under the present jurisprudential milieu, where the trial court acquits the accused on reasonable doubt, it could very well make a pronounce ment on the civil liability of the accused and the complainant could file a petition for mandamus to compel the trial court to include such civil liability in the judgment of acquittal. And that the failure of the court to make any pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as to the civil liability of the accused amounts to a reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated and determined in a separate action. The rules nowhere provide that if the court fails to determine the civil liability it becomes no longer enforceable. Dispositive Decision of CA affirmed, petion denied.

reconsideration thereof was denied for the same reason in a resolution of October 28, 1975. - After trial, the court below rendered judgment on May 23, 1977 in favor of the herein private respondent and ordering herein petitioner to pay damages. Thus, petitioner appealed said decision to the CA but said respondent court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court with a few changes in the amount of the damages to be paid. ISSUE WON the private respondent, who was the complainant in the criminal action for physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and who participated in the prosecution thereof without reserving the civil action arising from the act or omission complained of, can file a separate action for civil liability arising from the same act or omission where the herein petitioner was acquitted in the criminal action on reasonable doubt and no civil liability was adjudicated or awarded in the judgment of acquittal HELD YES - The action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure of the respondent to reserve his right to file a separate civil case and his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing such separate civil action for damages. Ratio The allegations of the complaint filed by the private respondent supports and is constitutive of a case for a quasi-delict committed by the petitioner. The Court has also heretofore ruled in Elcano vs. Hill that: ... a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is also actually charged criminally, to recover damages on both scores; and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasidelict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused . . .

PEOPLE v USANA and LOPEZ 323 SCRA 754 DAVIDE; January 28, 2000
NATURE Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting the two accused together with Julian D. Escano for the violation of R.A. 6425, as amended FACTS - On the 5th of April 1995 and during a COMELEC gun ban, some law enforcers of the Makati Police were manning a checkpoint at the corner of Senator Gil Puyat Ave. and the South Luzon Expressway. They were checking the cars going to Pasay City, stopping those they found suspicious, and imposing merely a running stop on the others. At about past midnight,

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

they stopped a Kia Pride car with Plate No. TBH 493. One of the policemen saw a long firearm on the lap of the person seated at the passenger seat, who was later identified as Virgilio Usana. They asked the driver, identified as Escao, to open the door. PO3 Suba seized the long firearm, an M-1 US Carbine, from Usana. When Escao, upon order of the police, parked along Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., the other passengers were search for more weapons. Their search yielded a .45 caliber firearm which they seized from Escao. - The three passengers were thereafter brought to the police station Block 5 in the Kia Pride driven by PO3 Nonato. Upon reaching the precinct, Nonato turned over the key to the desk officer. Since SPO4 de los Santos was suspicious of the vehicle, he requested Escao to open the trunk. Escao readily agreed and opened the trunk himself using his key. They noticed a blue bag inside it, which they asked Escao to open. The bag contained a parcel wrapped in tape, which, upon examination by National Bureau of Investigation, was found positive for hashish. - An information for violation of RA 6425 thereafter was filed against them. The trial court found the three accused guilty of the said crime. - Accused-appellants assail the manner by which the checkpoint in question was conducted. They contend that the checkpoint manned by elements of the Makati Police should have been announced. They also complain of its having been conducted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Also, they question the validity of the search. ISSUES 1. WON the check point was illegal 2. WON the search was valid 3. WON the accused are guilty of violation of RA 6425 HELD 1. NO - Not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. Ratio This Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For, admittedly, routine checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists right to "free passage without interruption," but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicles occupants are required to

a2010

page 111

Prof.
no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that they saw the same before it was seized. Ratio Despite the validity of the search, we cannot affirm the conviction of Usana and Lopez for violation of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The following facts militate against a finding of conviction: (1) the car belonged to Escao; (2) the trunk of the car was not opened soon after it was stopped and after the accused were searched for firearms; (3) the car was driven by a policeman from the place where it was stopped until the police station; (4) the cars trunk was opened, with the permission of Escao, without the presence of Usana and Lopez; and (5) after arrival at the police station and until the opening of the cars trunk, the car was in the possession and control of the police authorities. No fact was adduced to link Usana and Lopez to the hashish found in the trunk of the car. Their having been with Escao in the latters car before the "finding" of the hashish sometime after the lapse of an appreciable time and without their presence left much to be desired to implicate them to the offense of selling, distributing, or transporting the prohibited drug. In fact, there was no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that they saw the same before it was seized. Dispositive Accused appellants are hereby acquitted.

answer a brief question or two. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individuals right against unreasonable search. In fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive. - The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban enforced by the COMELEC. The COMELEC would be hard put to implement the ban if its deputized agents were limited to a visual search of pedestrians. It would also defeat the purpose for which such ban was instituted. Those who intend to bring a gun during said period would know that they only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate their malicious designs. - The facts adduced do not constitute a ground for a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused against illegal search and seizure. PO3 Suba admitted that they were merely stopping cars they deemed suspicious, such as those whose windows are heavily tinted just to see if the passengers thereof were carrying guns. At best they would merely direct their flashlights inside the cars they would stop, without opening the cars doors or subjecting its passengers to a body search. There is nothing discriminatory in this as this is what the situation demands. We see no need for checkpoints to be announced, as the accused have invoked. Not only would it be impractical, it would also forewarn those who intend to violate the ban. Even so, badges of legitimacy of checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed location and the regularized manner in which they are operated. 2. YES - Escano consented to the search and consented warrantless search is one of the exceptions from the warrant requirement. Ratio Jurisprudence recognizes six generally accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement: (1) search incidental to an arrest; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3) evidence in plain view; (4) customs searches; (5) consented warrantless search; and (6) stop-and-frisk situations. - Even though there was ample opportunity to obtain a search warrant, we cannot invalidate the search of the vehicle, for there are indications that the search done on the car of Escao was consented to by him. 3. NO - No fact was adduced to link Usana and Lopez to the hashish found in the trunk of the car and there was

PEOPLE v DORIA 301 SCRA 668 PUNO; January 22, 1999

FACTS - Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from two (2) civilian informants (CI) that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. They decided to entrap him via a buy-bust operation. -The poseur-buyer, PO2 Manlangit set aside 1600 pesos as marked money for the entrapment operation, which was then handed to Jun upon transaction. Jun returned an hour later bringing marijuana where he and his associates subsequently arrested Jun but did not find the marked bills on him. Jun said he left the bills to his associate Neneth. Jun led the police to Neneths house.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

- The police went to Neneths house. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. He saw that one of the box's flaps was open and inside the box was something wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper and its contents appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to him by "Jun." His suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit entered "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and found that it contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. They also found the marked bills. They arrested Jun and Neneth and brought them to headquarters. It was only then that the police learned that "Jun" is Florencio Doria y Bolado while "Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. - The trial court found them guilty. ISSUES 1. WON the warrantless arrest of Doria and Gaddao, the search of the latters person and house, and the admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained therefrom is valid 2. WON the marijuana was seized validly for being in plain view of the police officers HELD 1. YES - We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accusedappellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; - Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." - In the case, Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buybust operation, the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. - However, the warrantless arrest, search and seizure of Gaddao is invalid - Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught redhanded during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule

a2010

page 112

Prof.
- The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos of marijuana 137 was found in the house of accusedappellant Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged. Dispositive the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City acting as a Special Court in Criminal Case No. 3307-D is reversed and modified as follows: 1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). 2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao y Catama is acquitted.

113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." 114 In fact, she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her. - Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule 113. "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion." In case, there was no reasonable suspicion especially as she was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by her coaccused - Doria did not point to appellant Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that appellant Gaddao conspired with her co-accused in pushing drugs as Doria may have left the money in her house, with or without her knowledge, with or without any conspiracy. Save for accused-appellant Doria 's word, the Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. - As the arrest was illegal, the search and seizure is not incidental to the arrest 2. NO - The marijuana was not in plain view of the police officers and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution as the contents of the box where the marijuana was partially hidden was not readily apparent to PO Manlangit, one of the arresting officers. - As a general rule, objects in plain view of arresting officers may be seized without a search warrant but must follow these requisites: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. - However, if it is not plain view of the police officers, it may not be seized without a warrant except if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized.

JOHNSON v ZERBST 304 US 458 BLACK; May 23, 1938

NATURE Appeal from the decision of the District Court denying the petition for habeas corpus which the Court of Appeals affirmed FACTS - Petitioner and one Bridwell were arrested in Charleston, S.C., November 21, 1934, charged with feloniously uttering and passing four counterfeit twenty-dollar Federal Reserve notes and possessing twenty-one such notes. Both were then enlisted men in the United States Marine Corps, on leave. They were bound over to await action of the United States Grand July, but were kept in jail due to inability to give bail. January 21, 1935, they were indicted; January 23, 1935, they were taken to court and there first give notice of the indictment; immediately were arraigned, tried, convicted, and sentenced that day to four and one-half years in the penitentiary; and January 25, were transported to the Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta. While counsel had represented them in the preliminary hearings before the commissioner in which they-some two months before their trial-were bound over to the Grand Jury, the accused were unable to employ counsel for their trial. Upon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty, said that they had no lawyer, and-in response to an

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

inquiry of the court-stated that they were ready for trial. They were then tried, convicted, and sentenced, without assistance of counsel. - It appears from the opinion of the District Judge denying habeas corpus that he believed petitioner was deprived, in the trial court, of his constitutional right under the provision of the Sixth Amendment, that, 'In all criminal prosecutions,the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.' However, he held that proceedings depriving petitioner of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel were not sufficient 'to make the trial void and justify its annulment in a habeas corpus proceeding, but that they constituted trial errors or irregularities which could only be corrected on appeal.' - The Court of Appeals affirmed ISSUE WON the remedy of habeas corpus render the conviction of the petitioner void when there is a violation of the right to counsel, the sixth amendment HELD YES - Compliance with this constitutional mandate is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court's authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty. When this right is properly waived, the assistance of counsel is no longer a necessary element of the court's jurisdiction to proceed to conviction and sentence. If the accused, however, is not represented by counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his life or his liberty. Ratio The purpose of the constitutional guaranty of a right to counsel is to protect an accused from conviction resulting from his own ignorance of his legal and constitutional rights, and the guaranty would be nullified by a determination that an accused's ignorant failure to claim his rights removes the protection of the Constitution. True, habeas corpus cannot be used as a means of reviewing errors of law and irregularities-not involving the question of jurisdiction-occurring during the course of trial; and the 'writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error.' These principles, however, must be construed and applied so as to preserve-not destroy-constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty. The scope of inquiry in habeas corpus

a2010

page 113

Prof.
acquiesces in a trial resulting in his conviction and later seeks release by the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus, the burden of proof rests upon him to establish that he did not competently and intelligently waive his constitutional right to assistance of Counsel. If in a habeas corpus hearing, he does meet this burden and convinces the court by a preponderance of evidence that he neither had counsel nor properly waived his constitutional right to counsel, it is the duty of the court to grant the writ. Dispositive The cause is reversed and remanded to the District Court for determination whether petitioner did not competently and intelligently waive his right to counsel. If court finds for petitioner the decision of the district court convicting petitioner must be declared void.

proceedings has been broadened-not narrowed-since the adoption of the Sixth Amendment. In such a proceeding, 'it would be clearly erroneous to confine the inquiry to the proceedings and judgment of the trial court' and the petitioned court has 'power to inquire with regard to the jurisdiction of the inferior court, either in respect to the subject-matter or to the person, even if such inquiry involves an examination of facts outside of, but not inconsistent with, the record.' Congress has expanded the rights of a petitioner for habeas corpus and the '... effect is to substitute for the bare legal review that seems to have been the limit of judicial authority under the common-law practice, and under the act of 31 Car. II, chap. 2, a more searching investigation, in which the applicant is put upon his oath to set forth the truth of the matter respecting the causes of his detention, and the court, upon determining the actual facts, is to 'dispose of the party as law and justice require.' - 'There being no doubt of the authority of the Congress to thus liberalize the common-law procedure on habeas corpus in order to safeguard the liberty of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States against infringement through any violation of the Constitution or a law or treaty established thereunder, it results that under the sections cited a prisoner in custody pursuant to the final judgment of a state court of criminal jurisdiction may have a judicial inquiry in a court of the United States into the very truth and substance of the causes of his detention, although it may become necessary to look behind and beyond the record of his conviction to a sufficient extent to test the jurisdiction of the state court to proceed to judgment against him. ... '... it is open to the courts of the United States, upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus, to look beyond forms and inquiry into the very substance of the matter ....' - If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas corpus. A judge of the United States-to whom a petition for habeas corpus is addressed-should be alert to examine 'the facts for himself when if true as alleged they make the trial absolutely void.' - It must be remembered, however, that a judgment cannot be lightly set aside by collateral attack, even on habeas corpus. When collaterally attacked, the judgment of a court carries with it a presumption of regularity. Where a defendant, without counsel,

ALLADO v DIOKNO 232 SCRA 192 BELLOSILLO; May 5, 1994

NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order FACTS - Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza, alumni of the College of Law, University of the Philippines, are partners of the Law Firm of Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. In the practice of their profession, and on the basis of an alleged extrajudicial confession of a security guard (Umbal), they have been accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder of a German national named Van Twest by the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by respondent judge. - Petitioners filed this petition and principally contended that respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in "whimsically holding that there is probable cause against petitioners without determining the admissibility of the evidence against petitioners and without even stating the basis of his findings," and in "relying on the Resolution of the Panel and their certification that probable cause exists when the certification is flawed." Petitioners maintain that the records of the preliminary investigation which respondent judge solely relied upon failed to establish probable cause against them to justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Petitioners likewise

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

assail the prosecutors' "clear sign of bias and partiality." - On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General argues that the determination of probable cause is a function of the judge who is merely required to personally appreciate certain facts to convince him that the accused probably committed the crime charged. ISSUE WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest HELD - In the Order of respondent judge, it is expressly stated that "[t]his court after careful evaluation of the evidence on record, believes and rules that probable cause exists; and therefore, a warrant of arrest should be issued." However, we are unable to see how respondent judge arrived at such ruling. We have painstakingly examined the records and we cannot find any support for his conclusion. On the contrary, we discern a number of reasons why we consider the evidence submitted to be insufficient for a finding of probable cause against petitioners. - The PACC relies heavily on the sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal who supposedly confessed his participation in the alleged kidnapping and murder of Van Twest. For one, there is serious doubt on Van Twest's reported death since the corpus delicti has not been established, nor have his remains been recovered. Umbal claims that Van Twest was completely burned into ashes with the use of gasoline and rubber tires from around ten o'clock in the evening to six o'clock the next morning. This is highly improbable, if not ridiculous. A human body cannot be pulverized into ashes by simply burning it with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an open field. Even crematoria use entirely closed incinerators where the corpse is subjected to intense heat. Thereafter, the remains undergo a process where the bones are completely ground to dust. - Strangely, if not awkwardly, after Van Twest's reported abduction which culminated in his decimation by cremation, his counsel continued to represent him before judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Hence, even Asst. Solicitor General Estoesta believes that counsel of Van Twest doubted the latter's death. - Verily, respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of

a2010

page 114

Prof.
call for the complainant and the witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case. There is no reason to hold the accused for trial and further expose him to an open and public accusation of the crime when no probable cause exists. Dispositive Petition granted

petitioners it appearing that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. Instead, he merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed. For, otherwise, he would have found out that the evidence thus far presented was utterly insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioners. - In Soliven v. Makasiar, we said that the judge (a) shall personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or, (b) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion on the existence of probable cause. - In People v. Inting, we emphasized the important features of the constitutional mandate: (a) The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge; it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. Only the judge and the judge alone makes this determination; (b) The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. It merely assists him in making the determination of probable cause. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge in his determination of probable cause; and, (c) Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released. Even if the two inquiries be conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding, there should be no confusion about their objectives. The determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial is a function of the prosecutor. - ALLADO DOCTRINE: If upon the filing of the information in court, the trial judge, after reviewing the information and the document attached thereto, finds that no probable cause exists, he must either

PEOPLE v MARK JIMENEZ G.R. No. 148571 PANGANIBAN; September 24, 2002
NATURE Petition for certiorari praying for the lifting of the bail Order, the cancellation of the bond, and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody FACTS - The US govt through diplomatic channels sent to the Phil. govt a note requesting the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of the Extradition Law. - Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of Manila, which prohibited the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. The TRO was assailed byt the Sec. of Justice. Initially, the court dismissed the petition but after acting upon the motion for reconsideration, it reversed its earlier decision. It held that Jimenez was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. - Finding no more legal obstacle, the US govt, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC the appropriate Petition for Extradition. The Petition alleged that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15, 1999. The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit certain offenses; (2) tax evasion; (3) wire fraud (4) false statements, and (5) illegal campaign contributions. - In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his "immediate arrest" pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069 - Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,"which prayed that application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. RTC grantes the motion of Jimenez. In that hearing, he manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. After the hearing, the court a quo required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000. The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing. Thereafter, the court below issued its questioned July 3, 2001 Order, directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty. Hence, this Petition. ISSUE WON he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending HELD NO Ratio. After being taken into custody, potential extraditees may apply for bail. Since the applicants have a history of absconding, they have the burden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger to the community; and (b) there exist special, humanitarian or compelling circumstances. The grounds used by the highest court in the requesting state for the grant of bail therein may be considered, under the principle of reciprocity as a special circumstance. In extradition cases, bail is not a matter of right; it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case. Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, is worded as follows: Art. III, Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required." - the constitutional right to bail "flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt." It

a2010

page 115

Prof.
April 3, 2003
NATURE Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 28, 2002 FACTS - Respondent and his co-accused were charged with multiple murder for the shooting and killing of eleven male persons identified as members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang. - The Court ruled in the Resolution sought to be reconsidered that the provisional dismissal of Criminal Cases against the accused were with the express consent of the respondent as he himself moved for said provisional dismissal when he filed his motion for judicial determination of probable cause and for examination of witnesses. The Court also held therein that although Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure could be given retroactive effect, there is still a need to determine whether the requirements for its application are attendant. The trial court was thus directed to resolve the following: ... (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the accused; (2) whether it was ordered by the court after notice to the offended party; (3) whether the 2-year period to revive it has already lapsed; (4) whether there is any justification for the filing of the cases beyond the 2-year period; (5) whether notices to the offended parties were given before the cases of respondent Lacson were dismissed by then Judge Agnir; (6) whether there were affidavits of desistance executed by the relatives of the three (3) other victims; (7) whether the multiple murder cases against respondent Lacson are being revived within or beyond the 2-year bar. - The Court further held that the reckoning date of the two-year bar had to be first determined whether it shall be from the date of the order of then Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissing the cases, or from the dates of receipt thereof by the various offended parties, or from the date of effectivity of the new rule. According to the Court, if the cases were revived only after the two-year bar, the State must be given the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with the said time-bar. It emphasized that the new rule fixes a time-bar to penalize the State for its inexcusable delay in prosecuting cases already filed in court. However, the State is not precluded from presenting compelling reasons to justify the revival of cases beyond the two-year bar.

follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at issue. - That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is not an argument to grant him one in the present case. To stress, extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. He should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him, not before the extradition court. - Also, we cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives, cowards and weaklings who, instead of facing the consequences of their actions, choose to run and hide. Hence, it would not be good policy to increase the risk of violating our treaty obligations if, through overprotection or excessively liberal treatment, persons sought to be extradited are able to evade arrest or escape from our custody. In the absence of any provision -- in the Constitution, the law or the treaty -- expressly guaranteeing the right to bail in extradition proceedings, adopting the practice of not granting them bail, as a general rule, would be a step towards deterring fugitives from coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their prosecutors. > - The denial of bail as a matter of course in extradition cases falls into place with and gives life to Article 14 of the Treaty, since this practice would encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the requesting state to cut short their detention here. Likewise, their detention pending the resolution of extradition proceedings would fall into place with the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary nature of extradition cases and the need for their speedy disposition. Dispositive the Petition is GRANTED. The bail bond posted by private respondent is CANCELLED. The Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it, with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as well as our Extradition Law.

PEOPLE v AMBROSIO 56 PHIL 801 PEOPLE v RELOVA 148 SCRA 292 PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON G.R. No. 149453

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

- The petitioners aver that Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to the Criminal Cases because the essential requirements for its application were not present when Judge Agnir, Jr., issued his resolution of March 29, 1999. The petitioners maintain that the respondent did not give his express consent to the dismissal by Judge Agnir, Jr. of the Criminal Cases. The respondent allegedly admitted in his pleadings filed with the Court of Appeals and during the hearing thereat that he did not file any motion to dismiss said cases, or even agree to a provisional dismissal thereof. Moreover, the heirs of the victims were allegedly not given prior notices of the dismissal of the said cases by Judge Agnir, Jr. According to the petitioners, the respondents express consent to the provisional dismissal of the cases and the notice to all the heirs of the victims of the respondents motion and the hearing thereon are conditions sine qua non to the application of the time-bar in the second paragraph of the new rule. - The petitioners further contend that even on the assumption that the respondent expressly consented to a provisional dismissal of the Criminal Cases and all the heirs of the victims were notified of the respondents motion before the hearing thereon and were served with copies of the resolution of Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissing the eleven cases, the two-year bar in Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should be applied prospectively and not retroactively against the State. To apply the time limit retroactively to the criminal cases against the respondent and his co-accused would violate the right of the People to due process, and unduly impair, reduce, and diminish the States substantive right to prosecute the accused for multiple murder. ISSUES 1. WON Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is applicable to the Criminal Cases 2. WON the time-bar in said rule should be applied retroactively HELD 1. YES - Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reads: Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal. A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party.

a2010

page 116

Prof.
motion for a provisional dismissal of the case or his failure to object to a provisional dismissal does not amount to express consent. A motion of the accused for a provisional dismissal of a case is an express consent to such provisional dismissal. If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused, the case may be revived only within the periods provided in the new rule. On the other hand, if a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without the express consent of the accused or over his objection, the new rule would not apply. The case may be revived or refiled even beyond the prescribed periods subject to the right of the accused to oppose the same on the ground of double jeopardy or that such revival or refiling is barred by the statute of limitations. - In this case, the respondent has failed to prove that the first and second requisites of the first paragraph of the new rule were present when Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissed the Criminal Cases. Irrefragably, the prosecution did not file any motion for the provisional dismissal of the said criminal cases. The respondent did not pray for the dismissal, provisional or otherwise of the Criminal Cases. Neither did he ever agree, impliedly or expressly, to a mere provisional dismissal of the cases. - The Court also agrees with the petitioners contention that no notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal or of the hearing thereon was served on the heirs of the victims at least three days before said hearing as mandated by Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. It must be borne in mind that in crimes involving private interests, the new rule requires that the offended party or parties or the heirs of the victims must be given adequate a priori notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal of the criminal case. Such notice may be served on the offended party or the heirs of the victim through the private prosecutor, if there is one, or through the public prosecutor who in turn must relay the notice to the offended party or the heirs of the victim to enable them to confer with him before the hearing or appear in court during the hearing. - In the case at bar, even if the respondents motion for a determination of probable cause and examination of witnesses may be considered for the nonce as his motion for a provisional dismissal of the Criminal Cases, however, the heirs of the victims were not notified thereof prior to the hearing on said motion on March 22, 1999. It must be stressed that the respondent filed his motion only on March 17, 1999 and set it for hearing on March 22, 1999 or barely five days from the filing thereof. Although the

The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel of prosecutors and before the Court of Appeals, the respondent is burdened to establish the essential requisites of the first paragraph thereof, namely: 1. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution and the accused move for a provisional dismissal of the case; 2. the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case; 3. the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally; 4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case. - The foregoing requirements are conditions sine qua non to the application of the time-bar in the second paragraph of the new rule. The raison d etre for the requirement of the express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is to bar him from subsequently asserting that the revival of the criminal case will place him in double jeopardy for the same offense or for an offense necessarily included therein. Although the second paragraph of the new rule states that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after the issuance thereof without the case having been revived, the provision should be construed to mean that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after service of the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution without the criminal case having been revived. The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order of dismissal. - Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct, unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning. Where the accused writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a provisional dismissal of the case No objection or With my conformity, the writing amounts to express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case. The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

public prosecutor was served with a copy of the motion, the records do not show that notices thereof were separately given to the heirs of the victims or that subpoenas were issued to and received by them - Since the conditions sine qua non for the application of the new rule were not present when Judge Agnir, Jr. issued his resolution, the State is not barred by the time limit set forth in the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State can thus revive or refile the Criminal Cases or file new Informations for multiple murder against the respondent. 2. NO - The Court agrees with the petitioners that to apply the time-bar retroactively so that the two-year period commenced to run on March 31, 1999 when the public prosecutor received his copy of the resolution of Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissing the criminal cases is inconsistent with the intendment of the new rule. Instead of giving the State two years to revive provisionally dismissed cases, the State had considerably less than two years to do so. Thus, Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissed the Criminal Cases on March 29, 1999. The new rule took effect on December 1, 2000. If the Court applied the new timebar retroactively, the State would have only one year and three months or until March 31, 2001 within which to revive these criminal cases. The period is short of the two-year period fixed under the new rule. - On the other hand, if the time limit is applied prospectively, the State would have two years from December 1, 2000 or until December 1, 2002 within which to revive the cases. This is in consonance with the intendment of the new rule in fixing the time-bar and thus prevent injustice to the State and avoid absurd, unreasonable, oppressive, injurious, and wrongful results in the administration of justice. The period from April 1, 1999 to November 30, 1999 should be excluded in the computation of the twoyear period because the rule prescribing it was not yet in effect at the time and the State could not be expected to comply with the time-bar. It cannot even be argued that the State waived its right to revive the criminal cases against respondent or that it was negligent for not reviving them within the two-year period under the new rule. To require the State to give a valid justification as a condition sine qua non to the revival of a case provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused before the effective date of the new rule is to assume that the State is obliged to comply with the time-bar under the new rule before it took effect. This would be a

a2010

page 117

Prof.
NO - The appellate tribunal will indulge reasonable presumptions, in favor of the legality and regularity of all the proceedings of the trial court, including the presumption that the accused was not denied the right to have counsel. (U. S. vs. Labial, 27 Phil., 82.) It is presumed that the procedure prescribed by law has been observed unless it is made to appear expressly to the contrary. (U. S. vs. Escalante, 36 Phil., 743.) The fact that the attorney appointed by the trial court to aid the defendant in his defense expressed reluctance to accept the designation because, as the present counsel assumes, he did not sympathize with the defendant's cause, is not sufficient to overcome this presumption. The statement of the counsel in the court below did no necessarily imply that he did not perform his duty to protect the interest of the accused. As a matter of fact, the present counsel "sincerely believes that the said Attorney Carin did his best, although it was not the best of a willing worker." We do not discern in the record any indication that the former counsel did not conduct the defense to the best of his ability. If Attorney Carin did his best as a sworn member of the bar, as the present attorney admits, that was enough; his sentiments did not cut any influence in the result of the case and did not imperil the rights of the appellant.

rank denial of justice. The State must be given a period of one year or two years as the case may be from December 1, 2000 to revive the criminal case without requiring the State to make a valid justification for not reviving the case before the effective date of the new rule. Although in criminal cases, the accused is entitled to justice and fairness, so is the State. Dispositive Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED

PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON October 2003

PEOPLE v PRIETO (alias EDDIE VALENCIA) 80 Phil 138 TUASON: January 29, 1948
NATURE APPEAL from a judgment of the People's Court FACTS - The appellant was prosecuted in the People's Court for treason on 7 counts. After pleading not guilty he entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7, and maintained the original plea as to counts 4, 5 and 6. The special prosecutor introduced evidence only on count 4, stating with reference to counts 5 and 6 that he did not have sufficient evidence to sustain them. - The attorney de officio manifested that he would like to be relieved from his assignment. The defendant was found guilty on count 4 as well as counts 1, 2, 3 and 7 and was sentenced to death and to pay a fine of P20,000. ISSUE WON the judgment must be reversed because of the trial court's failure to appoint "another attorney de oficio for the accused in spite of the manifestation of the attorney de oficio (who defended the accused at the trial) that he would like to be relieved for obvious reasons." HELD

PEOPLE v AYSON G.R. No. 85215 NARVASA; July 7, 1989

FACTS - Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket flight clerk of PALs Baguio station. PAL management notified him of an investigation due to his alleged involvement in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. On the day before the investigation, Ramos gave his superiors a handwritten note (exhibit K) expressing his willingness to settle the irregularities (in the amount of P76k). At the investigation, Ramos admitted his non-disclosure of the tickets mentioned, that the proceeds had been misused by him, and that although he planned on paying back the money,

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

he had been prevented from doing so out of shame. He also stated his willingness to settle the obligation on a staggered basis, the amount of which would be known at the next investigation which he desired to be held at Baguio CTO, that he be represented by Nieves Blanco, and that he was willing to sign his statement (exhibit A). - 2 months later, an information was filed against Ramos charging him with estafa against PAL. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty. At the close of the case, private prosecutors presented Ramos (above mentioned) statement, including his handwritten admission as evidence. Defendants attorneys objected, particularly as regards the handwritten confession as it was taken without Ramos having counsel. Respondent Judge declared exhibits A and K inadmissible as evidence as it appears he was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remains silent and have counsel. The private prosecutors filed an MFR, but respondent Judge justified his order citing the constitutional precept that the rights in custodial investigation cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. - Said orders are now assailed in this petition for certiorari and prohibition. The Court required respondent Judge Ayson and Ramos to comment, and directed the issuance of a TRO enjoining respondents from further proceeding with the trial/hearing. The Solgen, who was also required to comment, sided with petitioner, praying that respondent judges orders be set aside and further ordering the admittance of exhibits A and K of the prosecution. ISSUE WON it was grave abuse of discretion for respondent judge to exclude exhibits A and K HELD YES - At the core of the controversy is Sec. 20, Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution which provides: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. - There are 2 rights dealt with in the section: the right against self-incrimination (now embodied in

a2010

page 118

Prof.
be cross-examined as any other witness; his neglect of refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him. Thus, unlike an ordinary witness, the accused may refuse to take the witness stand, be sworn, or answer any question altogether. The accused, if he chooses to testify, may refuse to answer only questions which could incriminate him of a crime for which he isnt charged. - It appears that respondent Judge mistakenly applied the rights set forth in Sec 20 Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution. It is clear from the undisputed facts that Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation, and thus his constitutional rights in relation thereto dont apply. Also, Ramos had voluntary answered the questions posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation and agreed that the proceedings be recorded and filed as exhibits A and K, spontaneously offering to compromise his liability. Said exhibits may not be excluded as the so-called Miranda rights had not been accorded to Ramos. Dispositive the writ of certiorari is granted annulling and setting aside the Orders of respondent Judge, and he is hereby ordered to admit in evidence exhibits A and K

Sec. 17 Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution) and the rights of a person in custodial interrogation (Sec 12 Art. 3). - The first right, against self-incrimination, is NOT to be compelled to be a witness against himself and applies to any person testifying in any proceeding, civil, criminal or administrative. It prescribes an option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry. However, it can only be claimed when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness and cannot be claimed at any other time. The witness thus may not disregard a subpoena or refuse to testify altogether. - The provision of the 1973 Constitution does not impose on the judge or any other presiding officer, any affirmative obligation to advise a witness of this right, which the witness should know, as ignorance of the law excuses no one. The right against selfincrimination is not automatically operational but must be claimed. Failure to claim it is an implied waiver of said right. - The second right, or rather, group of rights, are a persons rights in custodial interrogation, which means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. These section can be broken down into 3 rights: (1) the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such right (2) no force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him (3) any confession obtained in violation of this shall be inadmissible in evidence. - The accused must be informed of these rights prior to any questioning, after which the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. Statements not made under custodial interrogation are not protected. - It is important now to inquire whether the rights mentioned apply to persons under preliminary investigation or already charged in court for a crime. It is evident that a defendant under preliminary investigation is not under custodial interrogation, and there is thus no occasion to speak of such rights under custodial interrogation; however, the accused still possesses the right against self-incrimination. - Under the Rules of Court, the accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness and is entitled, among others: (1) not be a witness against himself (2) to testify as a witness on his own behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness, he may

PEOPLE v CRUZ 177 SCRA 451

WEBB v DE LEON 247 SCRA 652 PUNO; August 23, 1995

NATURE Petitions for the issuance of the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus FACTS - Petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio J. Lejano and six (6) other persons were charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide (Vizconde massacre). - Petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for not including Alfaro in the Information considering her alleged conspiratorial participation in the crime of rape with homicide. It is urged that this constitutes ". . . an intrusion into judicial prerogative for it is only the court which has the power under the Rules on Criminal Procedure to discharge an accused as a state witness" based on Section 9, Rule 119 which gives the court the prerogative to approve the discharge of an accused to be a state witness.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

ISSUE WON Alfaro should be included as one of the accused in the information HELD - The non-inclusion of Alfaro is anchored on Republic Act No. 6981, entitled "An Act Providing For A Witness Protection, Security And Benefit Program And For Other Purposes" enacted on April 24, 1991. Alfaro qualified under its Section 10, which provides: Sec. 10. State Witness. Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires to a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by the Department, shall be admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances are present: (a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the R.P.C. or its equivalent under special laws; (b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony; (c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed; (d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points; (e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and (f) he has not at anytime been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. An accused discharged from an information or criminal complaint by the court in order that he may be a State Witness pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court may upon his petition be admitted to the Program if he complies with the other requirements of this Act. Nothing in this Act shall prevent the discharge of an accused so that he can be used as a Witness under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. - Upon qualification of Alfaro to the program, Section 12 of the said law mandates her non-inclusion in the criminal Complaint or Information, thus: Sec. 12. Effect of Admission of a State Witness into the Program. The certification of admission into the Program by the Department shall be given full faith and credit by the provincial or city prosecutor who is required NOT TO INCLUDE THE WITNESS IN THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION and if included therein, to petition the court for his discharge in order that he can be utilized as a State Witness. The court shall order the discharge and exclusion of the said accused from the information. - Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Witness to immunity from criminal prosecution for the offense or offenses in which his testimony will be

a2010

page 119

Prof.

given or used and all the rights and benefits provided under Section 8 hereof - Petitioner's argument lacks appeal for it lies on the faulty assumption that the decision whom to prosecute is a judicial function, the sole prerogative of courts and beyond executive and legislative interference. In truth, the prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive department of government whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion, the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors. We thus hold that it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. 6981 vesting in the Department of Justice the power to determine who can qualify as a witness in the program and who shall be granted immunity from prosecution. Section 9 of Rule 119 does not support the proposition that the power to choose who shall be a state witness is an inherent judicial prerogative. Under this provision, the court, is given the power to discharge a state witness only because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The discharge of an accused is part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an inherent judicial function. Moreover, the Rules of Court have never been interpreted to be beyond change by legislation designed to improve the administration of our justice system. R.A. No. 6981 is one of the much sought penal reform laws to help government in its uphill fight against crime, one certain cause of which is the reticence of witnesses to testify. - The rationale for the law is well put by the Department of Justice, viz.: "Witnesses, for fear of reprisal and economic dislocation, usually refuse to appear and testify in the investigation/prosecution of criminal complaints/cases. Because of such refusal, criminal complaints/cases have been dismissed for insufficiency and/or lack of evidence. For a more effective administration of criminal justice, there was a necessity to pass a law protecting witnesses and granting them certain rights and benefits to ensure their appearance in investigative bodies/courts." Petitioner Webb's challenge to the validity of R.A. No. 6981 cannot therefore succeed. Dispositive Petitions dismissed

PEOPLE v SAPAL 328 SCRA 417 KAPUNAN; December 22, 1997

NATURE Automatic Review of the Decision FACTS - The RTC of Manila sentenced accused-appellant Jimmy Sapal to DEATH after he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of unlawful possession of three (3) kgs. of marijuana. - The prosecution presented two witnesses, namely P03 Jesus Gomez and Renee Checa, a forensic chemist. Gomez testified that the office of the Drug Enforcement Unit received a call that accused who had a standing warrant of arrest had been seen at Jocson St., Sampaloc Manila. - Their group spotted the car frequently used by the accused. The police operatives approached the car, told the accused and his wife, along with two other companions, to get down of the car. Forthwith, Gomez conducted a search of the vehicle and in the course thereof, allegedly found a light green plastic bag in the back seat containing three bricks of marijuana. - The accused testified that the police operatives took his wallet which contained cash and several ATM cards and that the latter coerced him into divulging the PIN numbers of the ATM cards. - Accused gave them the correct PIN number to his Far East Bank account but purposely mixed up the other PIN numbers to his other bank accounts. - The accused and his companions were brought to the WPD headquarters where their male companion, Jerry, was mauled to force him to admit that drugs were recovered from their group. The accuseds wife and her other companion were likewise coerced to admit the same. However, they all insisted that no illegal drugs were recovered from any of them. - After trial, the trial court rendered the decision under review. ISSUE WON the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the supreme penalty of death

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

HELD The Court finds for the accused. - While the Court is mindful that law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. - In the present case, there is sufficient evidence to show that the manner by which the law enforcers effected the arrest of the accused was highly irregular and suspect. - Gomez claimed that they arrested accused pursuant to the warrant issued by Judge Barrios which explicitly stated that said accused Jimmy Sapal be brought before him as soon as possible. However, contrary to the clear directive of the warrant, the law enforcers never brought him before the said judge. Gomez himself admitted the same and did not offer any convincing explanation for this omission. - Moreover, the records reveal that the documents relating to the arrest of the accused and his wife were prepared three (3) days after the arrest. - Further, the case was submitted to the inquest prosecutor only on April 25, 1995 and the information against accused and his wife was subsequently filed on April 26, 1995. - It was not likewise shown that accused was fully apprised of his rights under custodial arrest. Specifically, accused was not assisted by counsel when he was under custodial investigation. - Admittedly, accused is deemed to have waived his right to question the irregularities attending his arrest for his failure to raise the same before he entered his plea. Nonetheless, the peculiar factual circumstances surrounding the case effectively destroy the presumption of regularity in the performance by Gomez and his colleagues of their duties. Such being the case, the presumption of regularity cannot be made the sole basis of the conviction of the accused. - It has been sufficiently established that several withdrawals were made from the Far East Bank account of accused through ATM on April 22, 1995 and these withdrawals could not have been made by the accused and his wife because they were then already under arrest. - The Court cannot completely disregard this piece of evidence as it strongly corroborates the testimony of accused that law enforcers were able to withdraw money from is Far East Bank account through ATM. - It is well-settled that where the circumstances

a2010

page 120

Prof.
be truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty of the felony charged against him. If the private offended party, upon extinction of the civil liability ex delicto desires to recover damages from the same act or omission complained of, he must, subject to Section 1, Rule 111, file a separate civil action, this time predicated not on the felony previously charged but on other sources of obligation. We summarize our ruling herein: 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. 3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action 4. The private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, we hold that the death of appellant Bayotas extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the act complained of, i.e., rape. Dispositive The appeal is DISMISSED.

shown to exist yield two (2) or more inferences, one of which consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other or others may be compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the accused: for the evidence does not fulfill the test or moral certainty and is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction. Dispositive Reversed.

PEOPLE v BAYOTAS 236 SCRA 239 ROMERO; September 2, 1994

FACTS - Rogelio Bayotas was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died at the National Bilibid Hospital. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it required the Solicitor General to file its comment with regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising from his commission of the offense charged. In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view that the death of accused-appellant did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense charged. - Counsel for the accused-appellant argues that the death of the accused while judgment of conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil penalties. Said counsel invoked the ruling of the CA in People v. Castillo and Ocfemia which held that the civil obligation in a criminal case takes root in the criminal liability and, therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before final judgment is rendered. ISSUE WON death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his civil liability HELD YES Ratio Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code is the controlling statute. It reads, in part: Criminal liability is totally extinguished By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to the pecuniary penalties liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. The term final judgment employed in the RPC means judgment beyond recall. Really, as long as a judgment has not become executory, it cannot