Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
9Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rem Digest Crimpro (Part1andrule110)

Rem Digest Crimpro (Part1andrule110)

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 673 |Likes:
Published by Joseph Rinoza Plazo

More info:

Published by: Joseph Rinoza Plazo on Feb 20, 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

11/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III
Alcisso, Antonio, Arriola, Bernardo, Cajucom, Claudio, Dialino, Dizon, Escueta, Imperial, Martin, Martinez, Mendoza, Raso, Rosales, Sia,Venzuela
 
PART I
A. VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES IS JURISDICTIONAL1. ISIP v PEOPLE
FACTS
Petitioner Manuel Isip (and his wife Marietta) wereconvicted of Estafa before the RTC of Cavite City.Marites, however, died during the pendency of theappeal before the CA. The spouses were engaged inthe buying and selling of pledged and unredeemed jewelry pawned by gambling habitués. However, intheir dealings with Complainant Atty. Leonardo Jose,they failed to account for the jewelries given to them tobe sold on commission. Also, certain checks they’veissued in favor of Jose bounced. Procedurally, petitionercontends that the RTC of Cavite has no jurisdictionover the case since the elements of the crime did notoccur there. Instead, he argues that the case shouldhave been filed in Manila where their supposedtransactions took place.
ISSUE:
Whether the RTC of Cavite has jurisdiction overthe case.
RULING:
 YES. The concept of venue of actions incriminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional. The place where the crime was committed determinesnot only the venue of the action but is an essentialelement of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases,the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place withinthe territorial jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case isdetermined by the allegations in the complaint orinformation. And once it is so shown, the court mayvalidly take cognizance of the case. However, if theevidence adduced during the trial shows that theoffense was committed somewhere else, the courtshould dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.Complainant had sufficiently shown that thetransaction covered by the case took place in hisancestral home in Cavite City when he was onapproved leave of absence from the Bureau of Customs. Since it has been shown that venue wasproperly laid, it is now petitioner's task to proveotherwise, since he claims that the transaction wasentered into in Manila. He who alleges must prove hisallegations applies.Here, petitioner failed to prove that the transactionhappened in Manila. He argues that since he and hislate wife actually resided in Manila, conveniencesuggests that the transaction was entered there. TheCourt wasn’t persuaded. The fact that Cavite is a bit farfrom Manila doesn’t necessarily mean that thetransaction cannot or did not happen there. Distancewill not prevent any person from going to a distantplace where he can procure goods that he can sell sothat he can earn a living. It is not improbable orimpossible them to have gone, not once, but twice inone day, to Cavite if that is the number of times theyreceived pieces of jewelry from complainant. Also, thefact that the checks issued were drawn againstaccounts with banks in Manila or Makati doesn’t meanthat the transactions were not entered into in CaviteCity.When it comes to credibility, the trial court'sassessment deserves great weight, and is evenconclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrarinessor oversight of some fact or circumstance of weightand influence.
2. LANDBANK of the PHILIPPINES vBELISATA
FACTS
Belista is the owner of 8 parcels of land placed by theDept. of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (PD No. 27 &EO No. 228). He and DAR/LBP disagreed on the amountof just compensation he deserved, which caused him tofile a Petition for Valuation and Payment of JustCompensation before the DARAB-Regional Adjudicatorfor Region V (RARAD-V). The RARAD-V decided in hisfavor. Aggrieved, LBP filed an original Petition forDetermination of Just Compensation at the same salaof the RTC sitting as SAC. It was dismissed on theground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
ISSUE
Whether it is necessary that in cases involving claimsfor just compensation under RA No. 6657 that thedecision of the Adjudicator must first be appealed tothe DARAB before a party can resort to the RTC sittingas SAC.
RULING
Sections 50 and 57 of RA No. 6657 provide:Section 50. Quasi-judicial Powers of the DAR. TheDAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction todetermine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and
1
 
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III
Alcisso, Antonio, Arriola, Bernardo, Cajucom, Claudio, Dialino, Dizon, Escueta, Imperial, Martin, Martinez, Mendoza, Raso, Rosales, Sia,Venzuela
 
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over allmatters involving the implementation of agrarianreform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) andthe Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) x x xSection 57. Special Jurisdiction. The Special AgrarianCourt shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction overall petitions for the determination of just compensationto landowners, and the prosecution of all criminaloffenses under this Act. x x xClearly, under Section 50, DAR has primary jurisdictionto determine and adjudicate agrarian reform mattersand exclusive original jurisdiction over all mattersinvolving the implementation of agrarian reform,except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DA and the DENR. Further exception to the DAR'soriginal and exclusive jurisdiction are all petitions forthe determination of just compensation to landownersand the prosecution of all criminal offenses under RANo. 6657, which are within the jurisdiction of the RTCsitting as a SAC. Thus, jurisdiction on justcompensation cases for the taking of lands under RANo. 6657 is vested in the courts.Here, the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction overWycoco’s complaint for determination of justcompensation. It must be stressed that although nosummary administrative proceeding was held beforethe DARAB, LBP was able to perform its legal mandateof initially determining the value of Wycoco's landpursuant to Executive Order No. 405, Series of 1990.In accordance with settled principles of administrativelaw, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR todetermine in a
preliminary
manner the justcompensation for the lands taken under the agrarianreform program, but such determination is subject tochallenge before the courts. The resolution of justcompensation cases for the taking of lands underagrarian reform is, after all, essentially a judicialfunction.
B. JURISDICTION TO ISSUE HOLDDEPARTURE ORDERS1. MONDEJAR v BUBAN
FACTS:
Mondejar seeks to hold Judge Buban of the TaclobanCity MTCC administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, partiality, serious irregularity and gravemisconduct, in relation to a BP 22 case againstMondejar. Judge Buban allegedly issued a “holddeparture order” against her, in violation of SC CircularNo. 39-97, which says that “hold departure ordersmay only be issued in criminal cases within theexclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. She also claims thatsaid order was issued without giving her an opportunityto be heard. The judge responded, stating that he was only madeaware of said order when he instructed his staff tosecure a copy from the Executive Judge of the RTC of  Tacloban. After which, he immediately issued an ordersetting aside and lifting the “hold departure order”. Asregards the supposed due process, he sent a notice of hearing to her and her counsel, but neither appeared.Court Administrator recommended a severe reprimandwith a stern warning that should it happen again, hewould be dealt with more severely.
ISSUE:
W/N the judge is administratively liable?
HELD:
 YES. The judge is administratively liable.Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of second level courts. Paragraph No. 1 of the said circular specifically provides that “hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal caseswithin the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trialcourts.” Clearly then, criminal cases within theexclusive jurisdiction of first level courts do not fallwithin the ambit of the circular, and it was an error onthe part of respondent judge to have issued one in theinstant case.
C. JURISDICTION DETERMINED BALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT1. FOZ v PEOPLE
Facts:
Vicente Foz (columnist) and Danny Fajardo (editor-publisher) of Panay News were charged with libel forwriting and publishing an article against Dr. EdgarPortigo
1
.The RTC found them guilty as charged which
1
 
 That a certain Lita Payunan consulted with Dr. Portigo\ that she hadrectum myoma and had to undergo an operation. Even after surgeryshe still experienced difficulty in urinating and defecating. On her 2
nd
operation, she woke to find that her anus and vagina were closed anda hole with a catheter punched on her right side.\ she found out shehad cancer.\ they spent P150,000 for wrong diagnosis\
2
 
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III
Alcisso, Antonio, Arriola, Bernardo, Cajucom, Claudio, Dialino, Dizon, Escueta, Imperial, Martin, Martinez, Mendoza, Raso, Rosales, Sia,Venzuela
 
was affirmed by the CA hence this petition for review.Foz and Fajardo raised for the first time that theinformation charging them with libel did not containallegations sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo City.
Issue:
W/N the RTC of Iloilo had jurisdiction over theoffense
Held:
NOVenue in criminal cases is an essential element of  jurisdiction. The offense should have been committedor any one of its essential elements took place withinthe territorial jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdictionof the court is determined by the allegations in thecomplaint or information. The rules on venue for written defamation are asfollows:
1.
When offended party is a public official or aprivate person = filed in RTC of province or citywhere the libelous article is printed and firstpublished
2.
When offended party is a private individual =filed in RTC of province where he actuallyresided at the time of commission of offense
3.
When offended party is a public officer whoseoffice is in Manila = filed in RTC of Manila4.When offended party is a public officer holdingoffice outside Manila = filed in RTC of provinceor city where he held office at the time of commission of the offenseDr. Portigo is a private individual at the time of thepublication of the libelous article, the venue may bethe RTC of the province/city where the libelous articlewas printed and first published OR where he actuallyresided at the time of the commission of the offense. The Information [relevant to REM] states only that “x xx both the accused as columnists and editor-publisher,respectively of Panay News, a daily publication with aconsiderable circulation in the City of Iloilo andthroughout the region x x x”. such did not establishthat the said publication was printed and published inIloilo City. As cited in 2 other cases, the SC held that if it would be held that the information sufficiently vests jurisdiction on the allegation that the publication was ingeneral circulation in [place where case is filed], therewould be no impediment to the filing of the libel actionin other location where the publication is in generalcirculation. Such was not the intent of RA 4363.On residence – the information failed to allege theresidence of Dr. Portigo. While the information allegesthat “Dr. Portigo is a physician and medical practitionerin Iloilo City”, it did not clearly and positively indicatethat he was actually residing in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the offense. It was possible that hewas actually residing in another place.Residence of a person is his personal, actual orphysical habitation or his actual residence or place of abode provided he resides therein with continuity andconsistency; no particular length of time is required.Residence must be more than temporary.
D. JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN1. PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Victoria Amante was a member of the
SangguniangPanlungsod 
of Toledo City, Province of Cebu at thetime pertinent to this case. On January 14, 1994, shewas able to get hold of a cash advance in the amountof P71,095.00 under a disbursement voucher in orderto defray seminar expenses of the Committee onHealth and Environmental Protection, which sheheaded. As of December 19, 1995, or after almost twoyears since she obtained the said cash advance, noliquidation was made. Commission on Audit sent areport to Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, which thenissued a resolution recommending the filing of anInformation for violating the Auditing Code of thePhilippines against respondent Amante. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), upon review of the OMB-Visayas' Resolution, on April 6, 2001, prepared amemorandum finding probable cause to indictrespondent Amante. The OSP filed an Information with the Sandiganbayanaccusing Victoria Amante of violating Section 89 of P.D.No. 1445 alleging that “with deliberate intent andintent to gain, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfullyand criminally fail to liquidate said cash advances of P71,095.00.” The OSP filed an Information with theSandiganbayan accusing Victoria Amante of violatingSection 89 of P.D. No. 1445,Amante countered by saying amongst others thatSandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the saidcriminal case because respondent Amante was then alocal official who was occupying a position of salarygrade 26, whereas Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall haveoriginal jurisdiction only in cases where the accusedholds a position otherwise classified as Grade 27 andhigher, of the Compensation and Position ClassificationAct of 1989, R.A. No. 6758.
3

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Donna Gragasin liked this
luis_m_dr liked this
Joreyna Mae liked this
Gerry Atibo liked this
Rice RS liked this
Claire Culminas liked this
Christy Tiu liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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