Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crim Pro Digest
Crim Pro Digest
Case 1
Agustin v. Pamintuan
Facts:
Issue:
Whether the RTC of Baguio City has jurisdiction over the offenses
charged in the four Informations.
Ruling:
The SC granted the petition, holding that the RTC of
Baguio has no jurisdiction.
The SC held that venue in criminal cases is an essential
element of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court over the
criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
Case 2
Macasaet v. People
Facts:
Petitioners were charged with the crime of libel before the RTC of
Quezon City. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the libel case
on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the
offense charged. According to petitioners, as the information
2
Issue:
Whether the RTC of QC had jurisdiction.
Ruling:
The RTC of QC had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that
for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the
offense should have been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court.
In libel cases, the criminal action and civil action for
damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this
chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the Court
of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article
is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.
Case 3
Campamano vs Datuin
Facts:
Seishin International Corporation, represented by its
president-herein petitioner David B. Campanano, Jr. filed against
respondent. An Information for violation ofB.P. Blg. 22.
respondent was convicted of Estafa by the Regional Trial Court,
of Pasig City by Decision of May 3, 1999. Meanwhile, sometime
Held:
It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an essential element
of jurisdiction; and that the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal
case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information.
Issue:
4
Complaint/Information
Case 4
LUIS MARCOS P. LAURELvs. HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR,
Facts:
Petitioner is one of the accused in Criminal action filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150. The
Amended Information charged the accused with theft under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner filed a Motion
to Quash with Motion to Defer Arraignment, on the ground that
the factual allegations in the Amended Information do not
constitute the felony of theft. The trial court denied the Motion to
Quash the Amended Information, as well petitioners subsequent
Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner then went to the Court of
Appeals which reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC. The
CA then, directed the RTC to issue an order grating the motion of
the petitioner to quash the Amended Information, holding that
Amended Information does not contain material allegations
charging petitioner with theft of personal property since
international long distance calls and the business of providing
telecommunication or telephone services are not personal
properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
Respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT) filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion
to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc. It maintains that
the Amended Information charging petitioner with theft is valid
and sufficient; that it states the names of all the accused who were
specifically charged with the crime of theft of PLDTs international
Issue:
whether the information should be quashed for being insufficient.
Ruling
The SC resolved to grant the Motion for Reconsideration
but remanded the case to the trial court for proper clarification of
the Amended Information.
Petitioners acts constitute theft of respondent PLDTs
business and service, committed by means of the unlawful use of
the latters facilities. In this regard, the Amended Information
inaccurately describes the offense by making it appear that what
petitioner took were the international long distance telephone
5
case 5
NOTAN
LUMBOS, complainant, vs.JUDGE
MARIE
ELLENGRID S.L.BALIGUAT, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Branch 1, General Santos City, respondent.
Issue
Facts
Whether or not the acts committed by the respondent judge
constitute gross ignorance of the law, abuse of authority,
dereliction of duty, and oppression warranting dismissal from
judicial service and disbarment.
Ruling:
SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT
Case 6
Catiis vs. CA anent to SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT
G.R. NO. 153979
February 6, 2006
that the offense charged is bailable. In finding that the accused are
entitled to bail.
Issue:
Whether Judge Bersamin is correct in finding that the crime
charged is bailable despite that the imposable penalty ranges from
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua?
Held:
The Court held that since the crime charged was not committed by
a syndicate as defined under the law, the penalty of life
imprisonment to death cannot be imposed on private respondents.
Judge Bersamin is correct when he ruled that private respondents
could only be punished with reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua in case of conviction since the amount of the fraud
exceeds P100,000.00.
The Court further held that Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on
December 1, 2000, provide:
Case 7
JOHN ERIC LONEY VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Ruling:
There is no duplicity of charges in the present case.
Duplicity of charges simply means a single complaint or
information charges more than one offense, as Section 13 of Rule
110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. In short, there is
duplicity of charges when a single Information charges more than
one offense. Petitioners contention that they should be charged
with one offense only for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Damage to Property because all the charges filed against them
"proceed from and are based on a single act or incident of
polluting the Boac and Makalupnit rivers thru dumping of mine
tailings" has no merit because this Court had ruled that a single act
or incident might offend against two or more entirely distinct and
unrelated provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution of the
accused for more than one offense. The only limit to this rule is
the Constitutional prohibition that no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for "the same offense. Here, double
jeopardy is not at issue because not all of its elements are present.
Issue:
10
Case 8
Title: Andaya vs. People of the Philippines
Facts: Complainant Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loan
Association, Inc. (AFPSLAI) is a non-stock and non-profit
association authorized to engage in savings and loan transactions.
In 1986, petitioner Noe S. Andaya was elected as president and
general manager of AFPSLAI. During his term, he sought to
increase the capitalization of AFPSLAI to boost its lending
capacity to its members. Consequently, on June 1, 1988, the Board
of Trustees of AFPSLAI passed and approved Resolution No. RS88-006-048 setting up a Finders Fee Program whereby any
officer, member or employee, except investment counselors, of
AFPSLAI who could solicit an investment of not less than
P100,000.00 would be entitled to a finders fee equivalent to one
percent of the amount solicited.
While the first and second elements of the offense charged in the
information were satisfactorily established by the prosecution, it is
the third element which is decisive in the instant case. In the
information, it was alleged that petitioner caused damage in the
amount of P21,000.00 to AFPSLAI because he caused it to appear
in the disbursement voucher that Diosdado Guilas was entitled to
a P21,000.00 finders fee when in truth and in fact AFPSLAI
owed no such sum to him. However, contrary to these allegations
in the information, petitioner was able to prove that AFPSLAI
owed a finders fee in the amount of P21,000.00 although not to
Guilas but to Ernesto Hernandez.
Case 9
People vs. Malngan
Facts:
12
Case 10
Jumaquio vs. Villarosa
Facts:
The undersigned Prosecutor II accuses Resty Jumaquio, with the
crime of grave threats in relation to RA 7610 and also accuses
with the crime of physical injuries. That on or about August 2,
2003, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously threaten the minor, a 13 year old boy, and that on
the same date the said accused, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, box and hit the minors, 13
years old and 17 years old, thereby causing physical injuries to the
latter, which required medical treatment for a period of three to
five days, to their damage and prejudice.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appelant is liable of the crime of arson
with multiple homicide and whether or not the crime charged is
not defined and penalized by law.
Held:
What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the
designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part
thereof allegedly violated, but the description of the crime charged
and the particular facts therein recited. As stated in the body of
information, accused-appellant was charged with having
intentionally burned the house. Consequently, if proved at the
That the above acts of the accused debases, degrades and demeans
the dignity of the complaint and impairs their normal growth and
development.
13
Issue:
Case 11
Whether or not the several crimes charged with the accusedappellant should be dismissed on the grounds of could not be
considered a crime and could not even be complexed.
Held:
As correctly argued by the City Prosecutor, the questioned
information separately charged two distinct offense of child abuse
committed through the use of threatening words and child abuse
through the infliction of physical injuries.
Petitioner is not in jeopardy of being convicted of grave threats
and child abuse in the first case and slight physical injuries and
child abuse in the second. In the first information, petitioner
charged with child abuse uttering debasing, demeaning and
degrading words to the minor. In the second, he is charged with
child abuse by inflicting physical injuries. What controls is not the
title of the information or the designation of the offense but the
actual facts recited therein. Moreover, an information is not
duplicitous if it charges several related acts, all of which constitute
a single offense, although the acts may in themselves be distinct
offenses.
Amendment
14
was denied. Hence, this recourse was filed before the highest
court.
Case 12
Eduardo G. Ricarze vs. CA, Caltex Phils. Inc., PCIBank
G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007
Issue:
Whether or not amendment to information can be allowed
subsequent to a grant of a Motion to Quash.
Facts:
Eduardo Ricarze (employed as a collector-messenger of City
Service Corporation) is assigned to collect checks payable to
Caltex. He opened a bank account in the name of Dante Gutierrez,
a regular customer of Caltex, forged the signatures on the dorsal
portions of the stolen check and deposited it in that same bank
account. He was charged by the officers of Caltex with estafa
through falsification of commercial documents. In the original
information filed by the prosecutor, Caltex appeared to be the
offended party because the prosecutor was not informed that
PCIBank credited certain amount to Caltex. After arraignment and
plea, PCIBank appeared as the complainant. Ricarze averred that
the information can no longer be amended because he had already
been arraigned under the original information, and that doing so
would place him in double jeopardy. On one hand, PCIBank
contended that PCIBank had re-credited the amount to Caltex to
the extent of the indemnity, hence, the PCIBank had been
subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex as private
complainant.
Holding:
Not all defects in an information can be cured by amendment. In
this case, the amendment of the information to vest jurisdiction
upon a court is not permissible. Sec. 4 of Rule 117 applies if the
trial court finds that there is a defect in the information and the
defect can be cured by amendment, in which case the court shall
order the prosecution to amend the information. Once the court
has granted the motion to quash the information and such order
became final and executory, then, there is nothing more to amend.
The trial court has the discretion to order the filing of another
information and if warranted, must be contained in the same order
granting the motion to quash.
In this case, the petitioner failed to assert the propriety of
amending the information within the reglementary period, thus,
the order quashing the information became final and executory.
Furthermore, the petition of Gonzales is denied.
Issue:
15
Holding:
FACTS: On July 4, 2002, an Information for Homicide was filed
in the RTC against Petitioner Jose M. Pacoy. Upon arraignment,
petitioner, duly assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to
the charge of Homicide. However, on the same day and after the
arraignment, the respondent judge issued another Order directing
the trial prosecutor to correct and amend the Information to
Murder in view of the aggravating circumstance of disregard of
rank alleged in the Information which public respondent
registered as having qualified the crime to Murder. Acting upon
such Order, the prosecutor entered his amendment by crossing out
the word Homicide and instead wrote the word Murder in the
caption and in the opening paragraph of the Information. The
accusatory portion remained exactly the same as that of the
original Information for Homicide.
The Supreme Court held that the amendment in the name of the
complainant is of form. The test as to whether a defendant is
prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense under the
information as it originally stood would be available after the
amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might
have would be equally applicable to the information in one form
as in the other. In this case, the amendment made which does not
change the nature of the crime alleged does not affect the essence
of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an
opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be
one of form and not of substance. As provided by the Rules of
Court, after the entry of the plea, only a formal amendment may
be made but with leave of court and if it does not prejudice the
rights of the accused. In the case at bar, the amendment is allowed
because it is settled that the same does not prejudice the rights of
Ricarze. In addition, it was held that in case of offenses against
property, the designation of the name of the offended party is not
absolutely indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged in
the complaint or information can be properly identified.
Case 13
PACOY VS. CAJIGAL
16
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion
and exceeds his jurisdiction in ordering the amendment of the
information from homicide to murder.
HELD:
The petition is not meritorious. The change of the offense charged
from Homicide to Murder is merely a formal amendment and not
a substantial amendment or a substitution.
Prosecution of Offenses
Case 14
CHUA VS. PADILLO
G.R. 163797
HELD: The Court of Appeals did not err in directing the City
Prosecutor to include Wilson and Renita Chua in the Information
for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
commercial documents.
19
Case 16
Tupaz IV Vs. Court of Appeals
475 SCRA
Facts:
Issue:
Issue:
Whether or not the acquittal of the petitioners operates to
extinguished their civil liability.
Held:
Case 17
SAMSON CHING, Petitioner, vs. CLARITA NICDAO and HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents
I. Facts of the Case
Clarita Nicdao was accused of BP22 by
Samson Ching. Eleven (11) Informations were filed with the First
20
III-Issue
Repondent Nicdaos acquittal by the CA,does the Supreme
Court has the jurisdiction and authority to resolve and rule on her
civil liability, under Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of
Court which, prior to its amendment
III-Held by SC
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
Notwithstanding respondent Nicdaos acquittal, petitioner Ching
is entitled to appeal the civil aspect of the case within the
reglementary period
It is axiomatic that "every person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable."34 Under the pertinent provision of the Revised
Rules of Court, the civil action is generally impliedly instituted
with the criminal action. At the time of petitioner Chings filing of
the Informations against respondent Nicdao, Section 1,35 Rule
111 of the Revised Rules of Court, quoted earlier, provided in
part:
SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a
criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action,
unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right
to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action.
A painstaking review of the case leads to the conclusion that
respondent Nicdaos acquittal likewise carried with it the
extinction of the action to enforce her civil liability. There is
simply no basis to hold respondent Nicdao civilly liable to
petitioner Ching.
First, the CAs acquittal of respondent Nicdao is not merely based
on reasonable doubt. Rather, it is based on the finding that she did
not commit the act penalized under BP 22. In particular, the CA
found that the P20,000,000.00 check was a stolen check which
was never issued nor delivered by respondent Nicdao to petitioner
Ching. As such, according to the CA, petitioner Ching "did not
21
acquire any right or interest over Check No. 002524 and cannot
assert any cause of action founded on said check,"41 and that
respondent Nicdao "has no obligation to make good the stolen
check and cannot, therefore, be held liable for violation of B.P.
Blg. 22."42
With respect to the ten (10) other checks, the CA established that
the loans secured by these checks had already been extinguished
after full payment had been made by respondent Nicdao. In this
connection, the second element for the crime under BP 22, i.e.,
"that the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account
or for value," is not present.
Second, in acquitting respondent Nicdao, the CA did not adjudge
her to be civilly liable to petitioner Ching. In fact, the CA
explicitly stated that she had already fully paid her obligations.
The CA computed the payments made by respondent Nicdao vis-vis her loan obligations in this manner:
Clearly, adding the payments recorded at the back of the cigarette
cartons by Emma Nuguid in her own handwriting totaling
P5,780,000.00 and the P1,200,000.00 demand draft received by
Emma Nuguid, it would appear that petitioner [respondent herein]
had already made payments in the total amount of P6,980,000.00
for her loan obligation of only P2,100,000.00 (P950,000.00 in the
case at bar and P1,150,000.00 in CA-G.R. CR No. 23054).43
On the other hand, its finding relative to the P20,000,000.00 check
that it was a stolen check necessarily absolved respondent Nicdao
of any civil liability thereon as well.
Third, while petitioner Ching attempts to show that respondent
Nicdaos liability did not arise from or was not based upon the
criminal act of which she was acquitted (ex delicto) but from her
loan obligations to him (ex contractu), however, petitioner Ching
miserably failed to prove by preponderant evidence the existence
of these unpaid loan obligations. Significantly, it can be inferred
from the following findings of the CA in its decision acquitting
respondent Nicdao that the act or omission from which her civil
liability may arise did not exist. On the P20,000,000.00 check, the
CA found as follows:
True, indeed, the missing pre-signed and undated check no.
002524 surfaced in the possession of complainant Ching who, in
cahoots with his paramour Emma Nuguid, filled up the blank
check with his name as payee and in the fantastic amount of
P20,000,000.00, dated it October 6, 1997, and presented it to the
bank on October 7, 1997, along with the other checks, for
payment. Therefore, the inference that the check was stolen is
anchored on competent circumstantial evidence. The fact already
established is that Emma Nuguid , previous owner of the store,
had access to said store. Moreover, the possession of a thing that
was stolen , absent a credible reason, as in this case, gives rise to
the presumption that the person in possession of the stolen article
is presumed to be guilty of taking the stolen article (People v.
Zafra, 237 SCRA 664).
Therefore. CA decision is affirmed and petitioners appeal is deny
for lack of merit.
Case 18
CRUZ v. MINA
G.R. No. 154207, 27 April 2007
Case Summary:
On May 9, 2002, the petitioner filed before the RTC, a Motion for
Reconsideration. The petitioner argues that nowhere does the law
provide that the crime of Grave Threats has no civil aspect. On
June 5, 2002 however, the RTC issued its Order denying the
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not the crime of Grave Threats carries with it civil
liability
Preliminary Investigation
Case 19
23
2005 Jan 31
G.R. No. 144692
CARPIO
The Case
FACTS:
later endorsed to the DECS, was not the same as her complaint
in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 and (2) it was Yabut and not respondent
Pascua who called the 16 July 1998 meeting.
Private respondents denied the charge against them and sought the
dismissal of the complaint. Public respondent found no evidence
to indict respondents for perjury, hence, dismissed the complaint.
Petitioner sought reconsideration but public respondent denied her
motion in the 19 June 2000 Order.
ISSUE:
HELD:
25
Case 20
CARPIO
The Case
FACTS:
26
ISSUE:
Whether or not the findings of the Secretary of Justice of
probable cause for estafa valid?
HELD:
Angs contentions are untenable.
matters that must be presented and heard during the trial. Whether
Lucero granted Ang the authority to sell and mortgage the
Property is a question which requires an examination of the
parties evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not evidence of a respondent in a criminal case should
be considered during the preliminary investigation in determining
if probable cause exists to indict him for the crime charged.
Held:
Preliminary investigation is executive in character. It does not
contemplate a judicial function. It is essentially an inquisitorial
proceeding, and often, the only means of ascertaining who may be
reasonably charged with a crime. It is not a trial on the merits and
has no purpose except to determine whether a crime has been
Case 21.
TORRES VS AGUINALDO
Facts:
Issue:
his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his
Whether or not the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of
discretion in denying petitioners motion to dismiss the
preliminary investigation?
Ruling:
evidence.
Case 22
Romualdez vs Marcelo
470 SCRA 763
Facts :
Case 23
Matalam vs Sandiganbayan
455 SCRA 737
Facts :
Ruling :
The amendment was indeed substantial. The recital of
facts constituting the offense charged was definitely altered. In
the original information, the prohibited act allegedly committed
by petitioner was the illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay the
monetary claims of the private complainants, while in the
amended information, it is the illegal dismissal from the service of
the private complainants. However, it cannot be denied that the
alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay monetary claims is
related to, and arose from, the alleged illegal dismissal from the
service of the private complainants.Thus, before or after a plea, a
substantial amendment in an information entitles an accused to
another preliminary investigation.However, if the amended
information contains a charge related to or is included in the
original information, a new preliminary investigation is not
required.
Case 24
DR. BENITA F. OSORIO, petitioner,
Versus
HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, G.R. No. 156652
Promulgated October 13, 2005
Issue :
Facts:
5.
Treatment of money from the school canteen as her personal
money;
6.
Conspiracy with treasure hunters in digging under the main
ground of the school building for Yamashita treasures;
7.
Falsification of travel
representation allowances; and
8.
2.
Non-remittance to the school trust funds of money from the
sale of old newspapers to the school and appropriation of the said
amount to herself;
document
to
claim
bigger
Acting on the complaint, the Office of the OmbudsmanManila, on 29 January 1998, requested the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) to conduct an investigation to verify the
alleged anomalies at the Dr. Cecilio Putong National High School.
In the course of that investigation, the NBI found:
3.
Ready-made bidding with supplier of school-needed
materials;
4.
Double mandatory collection supposedly for the Boy and
Girl Scouts of the Philippines, from all students of Bohol National
High School and non-remittance of all the contributions to BSP
and GSP;
Issues:
1.
Whether the Court of Appeals is correct in ruling that the
Honorable Office of the Ombudsman did not commit any grave
32
2.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the other
issues raised by the petitioner on certiorari are purely questions of
evidence and not of law.
Decision:
On the first issue raised by petitioner, she bewails
respondent courts ruling decreeing that a clarificatory hearing in
the instant criminal case is optional on the part of the investigating
prosecutor. Petitioner believes that without a clarificatory hearing,
it is impossible for the investigating prosecutor to resolve
numerous irreconcilable issues and arrive at a lawful indictment.
arriving home at about six in the evening and then vomited. When
asked what happened, Ronald replied that petitioner, who was
Ronalds teacher, banged his head against that of his classmate
Lorendo Orayan ("Lorendo"). Magdalena inspected Ronalds head
and saw a woundless contusion. Due to Ronalds continued
vomiting, Magdalena brought him to a quack doctor (arbularyo)
on 5 December 1999. The following morning, Magdalena brought
Ronald to the East Avenue Medical Center where he underwent an
x-ray. The attending physician informed Magdalena that Ronalds
head had a fracture. Blood oozed out of Ronalds nose before he
died on 9 December 1999.
Case 25
G.R. No. 147932
further investigation since the case was not proper for inquest and
the evidence was then insufficient.
Issues:
Ruling:
The investigating prosecutor issued a Resolution finding probable
cause against petitioner for the offenses charged. Petitioner filed a
petition for review with the DOJ.
The DOJ Secretary denied the petition for review. The DOJ
Secretary held that there was no bias in complainants favor when
the investigating prosecutor did not conduct a clarificatory hearing
and unilaterally procured the autopsy report as nothing precluded
her from doing so.
The DOJ Secretary rejected petitioners claim that she is innocent
as held by the inquest prosecutor. The inquest prosecutor did not
dismiss the case. She merely recommended petitioners release for
Arrest
Case 26
People of the Philippines Vs German Agojo
As alleged in the complaint, accused appellant German Luna was
apprehended on August 24, 1999 in Poblacion, Tanauan,
Batangas for violation of PD 1866 and RA 6425.
Concomitantly, the police team headed by Major Ablang secured
an entrapment operation against the accused appellant through a
buy-bust. A civilian informant, under the name of Rodolfo Alonzo
was able to purchase 206.32 grams of shabu which was positively
identified by a chemist from the PNP crime laboratory in camp
Vicente Lim.
In light of the foregoing decision of the RTC, the accused was
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of RA 6425,
however, he was acquitted for the charge of violation of PD 1866
for lack of sufficient evidence.
Petitioner was not deprived of due process since both parties were
accorded equal rights in arguing their case and presenting their
respective evidence during the preliminary investigation. Due
process is merely an opportunity to be heard.
Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial. It is not a trial of
the case on the merits. Its sole purpose is to determine whether a
crime has been committed and whether the respondent isprobably
guilty of the crime. It is not the occasion for the full and
exhaustive display of the parties evidence.
There is probable cause for the offenses charged against petitioner.
Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as
would excite the belief in a reasonable mind that a crime has been
committed and the respondent is probably guilty of the crime. In
effect, petitioner admits the occurrence of the head-banging
incident but denies committing it.
Issues:
1.
shabu and it was duly accorded the immediacy between the time
of commission of the offense and the time of the arrest.
Further review of the record reveals that the second
instance of lawful warrantless arrest covered by paragraph (B)
were met in this case in which the offense has just been committed
and the person marking the arrest has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
As regards to the issue of framed up, the buy bust team
has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant
accepted payment for the contraband. It was also proven that the
VHS tape containing drugs were examined in PNP crime
laboratory and positively tested for shabu. Thus, there was no
evidence that such an attempt to frame him up was made in this
case.
Case 27
People of the Phil. Vs Cesar Givera
Held:
The court finds the petition devoid of merit
Case 28
G.R. No. 117952-53
Facts:
38
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court
and found that the contention of the accused untenable.
Case 29
The Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall
under the exceptions allowed by the rules.Hence, thesearch
conducted on their person was likewise illegal.Consequently, the
marijuana seized by the peace officers could not beadmitted as
evidence.WHERE FORE accused are ACQUITTED
Case 30
People of the philippines versus Galvez
Case 31
42
the woman as the owner of the said bag. Hence both were
arrested.
The court found for the prosecution, disbelieved the defense, and
convicted appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation
of Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425 as amended, and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P20,000.00 and the costs.
43
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo
City, Branch 39, finding appellant ERLINDA GONZALES Y
EVANGELISTA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
transport of marijuana is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION
that appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00) and the costs.
44