Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
54Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Crim Pro Digest 5

Crim Pro Digest 5

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,059 |Likes:
Published by cmv mendoza
A2010 Digest
A2010 Digest

More info:

Published by: cmv mendoza on Jan 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

12/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 79 Prof.Rowena Daroy Morales
 JARANTILLA v CA
171 SCRA 429
 JIMENEZ v AVERIA
22 SCRA 380DIZON; March 29, 1968
FACTS
- Ofelia V. Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olandaywere charged with estafa in the CFI of Cavite with theinformation alleging that they misappropriatedP20,000 received from Manuel Jimenez for thepurchase of a fishing boat named Basnig. They alsohave the obligation to return the money if they donot purchase the boat, which they did not do.- Before arraignment, the accused filed a civil suitagainst Jimenez in the Quezon CFI contesting thevalidity of a certain receipt signed by them onOctober 26, 1962 wherein they acknowledged havingreceived from him the sum of P20,000.00 with whichto purchase for him a fishing boat and itsaccessories, and the further sum of P240.00 asagent's commission, with the obligation, on theirpart, to return the aforesaid amounts on January 30,1963 in case they were unable to buy the fishingboat. They assert now that they never received anyamount from Jimenez and that they signatures weretaken through the means of fraud and deceit by Jimenez- After a few days, they filed a motion to suspend theproceedings of the criminal case pending theresolution of the prejudicial question in the civil case– whether or not their signatures were taken throughmeans of fraud and deceit by Jimenez.- Judge Averia granted the motion and hence thiscertiorari petition-
Pre-ratio
:
 Jimenez erred in the filing of a certioraripetition, and should have filed a mandamus to the SCinstead – to compel the lower court to proceed withthe case.
ISSUE
WON the determination of the issue raised in the civilcase mentioned heretofore is a prejudicial question,in the sense that it must be first resolved before theproceedings in the criminal case for estafa mayproceed
HELD
NO- The issue of fraud and deceit raised in the civil casedoes not constitute a prejudicial question. Thecriminal court must now try the estafa case againstthe two accused.
Reasoning
 -
A prejudicial question has been define to be onewhich arises in a case, the resolution of which,(question ) is a logical antecedent of the issuedinvolved in said case, and the cognizance of whichpertains to another tribunal. Simply put, thequestions must be determinative of the case beforethe court, and that jurisdiction to try and resolve saidquestion must be lodged in another tribunal.- Applying these to the case, it will be readily seenthat
the alleged prejudicial question is notdeterminative of the guilt or innocence of theparties charged with
estafa
,
because even on theassumption that the execution of the receipt whoseannulment they sought in the civil case was vitiatedby fraud, duress or intimidation, their guilt could stillbe established by other evidence showing, to thedegree required by law, that they had actuallyreceived from the complaint the sum of P20,000.00with which to buy for him a fishing boat, and that,instead of doing so, they misappropriated the moneyand refused or otherwise failed to return it to himupon demand. The contention of the privaterespondents herein would be tenable had they beencharged with falsification of the same receiptinvolved in the civil action.- If the ruling were otherwise, there would hardly bea case for estafa that could be prosecuted speedily,it being the easiest thing for the accused to block theproceedings by the simple expedient of filing anindependent civil action against the complainant,raising therein the issue that he had not receivedfrom the latter the amount alleged to have beenmisappropriated.
PEOPLE v VELOSO
112 SCRA 173PER CURIAM; February 25, 1982
 NATURE
Automatic review of CFI decision imposing the capitalpenalty of death on accused Veloso for the crime of robbery with homicide and double serious physicalinjuries
 FACTS
- Veloso and others entered the Odiamar’s house androbbed them around 7:30 in the evening. They stolemoney, tear gas gun, jewelry, old coins.- Hermenegildo Odiamar was shot and killed duringthe robbery, while the Odiamar spouses sustainedserious physical injuries.- Veloso, among others, was charged for robberywith homicide and double serious physical injuries- July 5, 1970 (the case says july but I think it’s atypo… probably june) : Judge Templo conductedpreliminary examination- June 22, 1970 – Judge Templo set the case forpreliminary investigation to afford the accused theoccasion to confront the witnesses against him andto present his own evidence- instead of availing himself of this opportunity, hefiled a manifestation stating that he “Waives his rightto present evidence at the second stage of thepreliminary investigation.”- the case was forwarded to the CFI, and it appearsthat accused entered his non-guilty plea withoutraising the question of lack of preliminaryinvestigation.
Petitioners' Claim
(1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the casefor want of preliminary investigation(2) the extrajudicial confession he executed wasobtained through force and intimidation and,therefore, inadmissible in evidence, and(3) in the absence of adequate proof that it was hewho killed the deceased Hermenegildo Odiamar, heshould be held guilty of the offense of robbery only,and not of the complex crime of robbery withhomicide and double serious physical injuries.
ISSUE
WON the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the casefor want of preliminary investigation
HELD
NO
Reasoning-
When Judge Templo set the case for preliminaryinvestigation to afford the accused occasion toconfront the witnesses against him, the accusedinstead filed a manifestation waiving his right topresent evidence at the second stage of thepreliminary investigation. When the case wasforwarded to the CFI, the accused entered his pleawithout raising the question of lack of preliminaryinvestigation. The aforesaid constitute waiver of theaccused’s right to preliminary investigation. It is well-settled that the right to preliminary investigation isnot a fundamental right and that the same may bewaived expressly or by silence. Such waiver carried
 
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 80 Prof.Rowena Daroy Morales
with it the waiver of any procedural error orirregularity that may have attended the preliminaryinvestigation.
Dispositive
 The judgment under review is herebyaffirmed
ALLADO v DIOKNO
232 SCRA 192
PEOPLE v CA (CERBO)
(Republic v CA in page 5 of the outline)301 SCRA 475PANGANIBAN
;
 January 21, 1999
NATURE
Petition for Review
FACTS
- Private Respondent Jonathan Cerbo shot, atpointblank range, Rosalinda Dy in the presence andat the office of his father private respondent BillyCerbo.- An information for murder was filed against Jonathan Cerbo.- The daughter of the victim executed an affidavit-complaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of conspiracy in the killing.- Accordingly, the prosecution filed an amendedinformation including Billy Cerbo in the murder case.A warrant for his arrest was later issued.- Billy Cerbo filed a motion to quash warrant of arrestarguing that the same was issued without probablecause.- The respondent judge issued an order dismissingthe case against Billy Cerbo and recalling the warrantfor his arrest.- The Court of Appeals debunked the petitioner’sassertion that the trial judge committed grave abuseof discretion and that the evidence presented thusfar did not substantiate the charge.. Hence thispetition.
ISSUE
WON the CA erred in finding that no probable causeexists to merit the filing of charges against privaterespondent Billy Cerbo
HELD
 YES- The petition is meritorious.- The determination of probable cause duringpreliminary investigation is a function that belongs tothe public prosecutor. It is an
executive
function.- The public prosecutor has the quasi-judicialauthority to determine whether or not a criminal casemust be filed in court.- The
 primary objective
of a preliminary investigationis to free respondent from the inconvenience,expense, ignominy, and stress of defendinghimself/herself in the course of a formal trial, untilthe reasonable probability of his or her guilt in amore or less summary proceeding by a competentoffice designated by law for that purpose.
1
- Secondarily, such summary proceeding alsoprotects the state from the burden of theunnecessary expense of an effort in prosecutingalleged offenses and in holding trials arising fromfalse, frivolous, or groundless charges.
2
- The determination of probable cause to hold aperson for trial must be distinguished from thedetermination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest, which is a
 judicial
function.- A judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is no probablecause for doing so.- Corrollarily, the judge should not override the publicprosecutor’s determination of probable cause to holdan accused for trial, on the ground that the evidencepresented to substantiate the issuance of an arrestwarrant was insufficient, as in the present case.- Therefore, if the information is valid on its face, andthere is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion and prejudice on the part of the publicprosecutor, the trial court should respect suchdetermination.
Dispositive
 
Reversed.
BURGOS SR v CHIEF OF STAFF
133 SCRA 800ESCOLIN; December 26, 1984
NATURE
Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus withpreliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction
FACTS
- December 7, 1982 Judge Ernani Cruz-Paño CFI Rizal[Quezon City], issued two search warrants underwhich the premises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project
1
Ledesma v. CA, 278 SCRA 657, Sept. 5, 1997.
2
 
Id.
6, Quezon City, business address of Metropolitan Mailnewspaper, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building,Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business address of the "We Forum" newspaper were searched.- office and printing machines, equipment,paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles usedin the printing, publication and distribution of thesaid newspapers, as well as numerous papers,documents, books and other written literaturealleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "WeForum" newspaper, were seized.- The questioned search warrants were issued byrespondent judge upon application of Col. Rolando N.Abadilla, Intelligence Officer of the P.C. Metrocom. The application was accompanied by the JointAffidavit of Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U. Tango, members of the Metrocom Intelligence andSecurity Group under Col. Abadilla which conducteda surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the application for the search warrants on December7, 1982.- Respondents aver that the case should bedismissed on the ground that petitioners had cometo SC without having previously sought the quashalof the search warrants before the issuing judge. Butthis procedural flaw notwithstanding, SC tookcognizance of this petition in view of the seriousnessand urgency of the constitutional issues raised, notto mention the public interest generated by thesearch.- Respondents likewise urge dismissal of the petitionon ground of laches, since said search warrants wereissued on December 7, 1982, but the instant petitionimpugning the same was filed only on June 16, 1983.However, SC found that the extrajudicial effortsexerted by petitioners quite evidently negate thepresumption that they had abandoned their right tothe possession of the seized property, therebyrefuting the charge of laches against them.
Petitioners' Claims
> Petitioners fault respondent judge for his allegedfailure to conduct an examination under oath oraffirmation of the applicant and his witnesses, asmandated by the constitution as well as Sec. 4, Rule126 of the Rules of Court. However, SC found that aspetitioners themselves conceded during the hearingon August 9, 1983, that an examination had indeedbeen conducted by respondent judge of Col. Abadillaand his witnesses, this issue is moot and academic.> Search Warrants No. 20-82[a] and No. 20-82[b]were used to search two distinct places: No. 19, Road3, Project 6, Quezon City and 784 Units C & D, RMS
 
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 81 Prof.Rowena Daroy Morales
Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. Objection isinterposed to the execution of Search Warrant No.20-82[b] at the latter address on the ground that thetwo search warrants pinpointed only one place wherepetitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was allegedly keeping andconcealing the articles listed therein, i.e., No. 19,Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City.> although the warrants were directed against JoseBurgos, Jr. alone, articles belonging to his co-petitioners Jose Burgos, Sr., Bayani Soriano and the J.Burgos Media Services, Inc. were seized.
 
> real properties were seized under the disputedwarrants.> that documents relied on by respondents could nothave provided sufficient basis for the finding of aprobable cause upon which a warrant may validlyissue in accordance with Section 3, Article IV of the1973 Constitution
ISSUES
WON the two search warrants are:1. defective for stating only one and the same placeto be searched2. null and void for including properties not owned bythe person named in the warrants3. null and void for including real properties4. null and void for being violative of the constitution,thus encroaching on petitioners' fundamental rights
HELD
1. NO- The defect pointed out is a typographical error. Twosearch warrants were applied for and issued becausethe purpose and intent were to search two distinctpremises. The addresses of the places sought to besearched were specifically set forth in theapplication, and since it was Col. Abadilla himself who headed the team which executed the searchwarrants, the ambiguity that might have arisen byreason of the typographical error is more apparentthan real.- In the determination of whether a search warrantdescribes the premises to be searched with sufficientparticularity, it has been held "that the executingofficer's prior knowledge as to the place intended inthe warrant is relevant. This would seem to beespecially true where the executing officer is theaffiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued,and when he knows that the judge who issued thewarrant intended the building described in theaffidavit. And it has also been said that the executingofficer may look to the affidavit in the official courtfile to resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to theplace to be searched."2. NO- Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court,enumerates the personal properties that may beseized under a search warrant. The rule does notrequire that the property to be seized should beowned by the person against whom the searchwarrant is directed. It may or may not be owned byhim. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, andit is sufficient that the person against whom thewarrant is directed has control or possession of theproperty sought to be seized.3. NO- Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code , "machinery,receptables, instruments or implements intended bythe owner of the tenement for an industry or workswhich may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works" are consideredimmovable property. Petitioners do not claim to bethe owners of the land and/or building on which themachineries were placed. This being the case, themachineries in question, while in fact bolted to theground remain movable property susceptible toseizure under a search warrant.4. YES- Probable cause for a search is defined as such factsand circumstances which would lead a reasonablydiscreet and prudent man to believe that an offensehas been committed and that the objects sought inconnection with the offense are in the place soughtto be searched. And when the search warrant appliedfor is directed against a newspaper publisher oreditor in connection with the publication of subversive materials, as in the case at bar, theapplication and/or its supporting affidavits mustcontain a specification, stating with particularity thealleged subversive material he has published or isintending to publish. Mere generalization will notsuffice.- In mandating that "no warrant shall issue exceptupon probable cause to be determined by the judge, . . . after examination under oath oraffirmation of the complainant and the witnesses hemay produce” the Constitution requires no less thanpersonal knowledge by the complainant or hiswitnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of asearch warrant may be justified. In Alvarez v. CFI, SCruled that "the oath required must refer to the truthof the facts within the personal knowledge of thepetitioner or his witnesses, because the purposethereof is to convince the committing magistrate, notthe individual making the affidavit and seeking theissuance of the warrant, of the existence of probablecause."- the search warrants are in the nature of generalwarrants.- As a consequence of the search and seizure, thepremises were padlocked and sealed, with thefurther result that the printing and publication of saidnewspapers were discontinued. Such closure is in thenature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrentto the freedom of the press guaranteed under thefundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print.
Dispositive
 
Search Warrants Nos. 20-82[a] and 20-82[b] issued by respondent judge on December 7,1982 are
null and void.
All articles seizedthereunder are ordered released to petitioners.
PEOPLE v USANA
323 SCRA 754
PEOPLE v DORIA
301 SCRA 668
PEOPLE v MARK JIMENEZPEOPLE v FITZGERALD
505 SCRA 573AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; October 27, 2006
NATURE
Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing theresolution of CA which granted the Motion for bail of accused-appellant and herein respondent VictorKeith Fitzgerald. 
FACTS
- An information was filed in the RTC chargingFitzgerald, an Australian citizen, with the violation of Art.III Sec 5, par (a), subpar (5) of RA 7610
3
statingthat, “…said Fitzgerald, actuated by lust, and by theuse of drugs willfully, unlawfully and feloniouslyinduced complainant “AAA”, a minor, 13 years of age, to engage in prostitution by then and thereshowering said “AAA” with gifts, clothes and foodand thereafter having carnal knowledge of her inviolation of the aforesaid law and to her damage andprejudice.”
3
Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation andDiscrimination Act

Activity (54)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Agz Macalalad added this note
SOCRATES
ambonulan liked this
attyalan liked this
jadifer_anne liked this
Paola Labajo liked this
Juvy Alogbate liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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