This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Facts: Defendant was a tenant of a large tract of land belonging to the Insular Government and known as the Hacienda de los Frailes, and that such tenant and by virtue of a waiver by the Government of its claim to compensation in his favor, he is entitled to compensation for the value of the mejoras (improvements) on the land held by him as tenant and condemned in favor of the plaintiff company. The mejoras (improvements) on the tract of land in question consisted largely of plants and trees, such as naranjitos, abacas, platanos, and trees of many other varieties. Defendant questions the value of certain mejoras which are alleged to have been either destroyed or used by the agents and employees of the plaintiff company. Plaintiffs also claim the value of certain improvements destroyed by fire alleged to have been caused by agents and employees of plaintiff In addition to the mejoras there was a claim for P400, for money which defendant claimed he paid out in clearing and preparing for cultivation certain tracts of the land which where thereafter occupied and appropriated by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff's contention is that the amount of damages awarded is grossly excessive and unjust and that the amount awarded in the report of the commissioners should have been reduced. Issue: Whether or not the defendant is liable for the damages caused by the fire. Held: No. The item of damages, which relates to the destruction of improvements on lands adjoining the condemned lands and which is alleged to have been caused by fire, was not, a proper item for the consideration of the commissioners. The land on which the mejoras (improvements) alleged to have been destroyed by fire were located, was not property taken and used by the plaintiff company for the construction of its railway line. If the plaintiff is liable for this item of damages such liability cannot be enforced in these proceedings. No part of the damages which are alleged to have resulted form the negligent or willful acts of the agents of the company in setting fire to the mejoras (improvements) on lands adjoining the lands actually condemned should have been considered or allowed in these proceedings.
Rodolfo Dela Cruz v. Hon. Felix Moya G.R. No. L-65192; April 27, 1988 Cortes, J. Facts: On February 23, 1979, Rodolfo Dela Cruz, a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, together with other PC men, received a mission order to proceed to Barangay Pangi, Maco, Sto. Tomas, Davao for the purpose of verifying and apprehending persons who were allegedly engaged in illegal cockfighting. In compliance with said mission order, Dela Cruz and company proceeded to Maco, Davao del Norte and caught in flagrante the operators of said illegal cockfighting, but said operators resisted arrest. The soldiers left the place and brought with them to the PC Headquarters the evidence of the crime. The operators of the illegal cockfights, including the deceased Eusebio Cabilto, followed the soldiers on their way back to the PC Headquarters, catching up with them on the Tagum-Mati National Highway. Fighting ensued and in the scuffle, Dela Cruz shot Cabilto. Dela Cruz was charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Davao.While the case was pending trial, Presidential Decree Nos. 1822 and 1822-A were promulgated by the President of the
located at sitio Saguing. Issue: Whether or not the civil courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the criminal case at bar. L-19568. in the City of Manila. Chupeco G. the information was filed on August 2. Dinalupihan. military tribunals created under General Order No. vesting in courts-martial jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of the Armed Forces or of the Philippine Constabulary in performance of their duties. even as no certificate issued by the Secretary of National Defense was presented in court.. No. Held: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action In the instant case. the defense counsel and the fiscal entered into an agreement to have the information amended to the effect that the charge be only for removal of properties mortgaged. Provided. 8 exercised exclusive jurisdiction over "(a)ll offenses committed by military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines while in the performance of their official duty or which arose out of any act or omission done in the performance of their official duty. J. however. People of the Philippines v. assets. 1979. whose capital. pledged and incumbered. unlawfully and feloniously. and ordered that the case be tried on the charge "of having pledged property which had been previously pledged or mortgaged". with intent to defraud the said corporation. . signed by a certain Lieutenant Huerta The evidence of the prosecution presented in court likewise shows that Cabilto was shot while petitioner was executing the mission order.R. The Court denied the motion. Issue: Whether or not the Courts of Manila may exercise jurisdiction over the case. . thereafter) knowingly transferred and removed the said properties to the municipality of Subic. These undisputed facts compel this Court to declare that respondent court was without jurisdiction to try the case against petitioner Dela Cruz. 1947.000.Dela Cruz filed with the Court of First Instance of Davao a motion to transfer the case to the military authorities. 1964 Reyes. .B. the accused executed a Chattel mortgage on some of his properties. the court found the accused guilty of the said offense. cause to be pledged and incumbered the same personal properties to one Mateo B. contracts and choses in action were subsequently transferred to the herein complainant Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. The information. accounts.L. After trial. a certificate issued by the Secretary of National Defense to that effect shall be conclusive unless modified or revoked by the President.The motion was denied. 7. Bataan in favor of the Agricultural and Industrial Bank. After the case was partly tried.00. Facts: On or about Novemeber 28. " In the instant case. Zambales. Jose L. remained un-amended. and.Philippines on January 16. but the court denied it. 1981. March 31.The accused moved to quash the foregoing information on the ground that more than one offense is charged and that the court had no jurisdiction. eliminating the portion referring to pledging already pledged property. the record contains a copy of Mission Order No. to secure a loan of P20. The mortgagee avered that the accused willfully. J. Pinile without having fully satisfied the mortgage. On such date. that for the purpose of determining whether an offense was committed while in the performance of official duty or whether it arose out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty. The accused then filed a motion to dismiss involving the agreement.
. Held: Yes. Hon. at about 6:10 P. . the jurisdiction is not tolled by subsequent amendment or stipulation. 1988 Feliciano Facts: On or about the 9th day of June 1977. L-46934.M. 1989 Paras." Clearly then. The subject information charges petitioner with estafa committed "during the period 1980 to June 15. and one of the essential ingredients of the offense having been alleged. No. the court of first instance of that city acquired jurisdiction over the offense under the Rules of Court. an audit was conducted on petitioner's account which showed a shortage in the amount of P358. barrio San Isidro. the court actually rejected the defense motion to dismiss. Pampanga. The private respondent has its principal place of business and office at Manila. the said accused bumped and hit a Volkswagen car. It is well-established that once vested. Furthermore. April 15. which motion was denied by respondent Judge. Alfredo Cuyos v. the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place.Held: Yes. to have taken place in Manila. . and directed that the cue be tried on the original charge of repledging property already encumbered. The accused obeyed that directive. at the MacArthur Highway. Issue: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Manila has jurisdiction over the case at bar. 1982 inclusive in the City of Manila. Philippines. The failure of the petitioner to remit the insurance premiums she collected allegedly caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in Manila. No.850.The subsequent motion for reconsideration of this order of denial was also denied. Hon.R. who was authorized to transact and underwrite insurance business and collect the corresponding premiums for and in behalf of the respondent corporation.Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss. Wenceslao Polo G. and by so doing it renounced the claim that the information had been so amended as to discard that particular averment. Besides.The original terms of the charge averred the crime of repledging already encumbered property without the creditor's consent. Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any of the essential elements thereof took place. Petitioner is required to make a periodic report and accounting of her transactions and remit premium collections to the principal office of private respondent located in the City of Manila. One of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party. Nicolas Garcia G. . January 26.72. San Fernando. L-750079. Section 14(a). then driven . J. Allegedly. Facts: Petitioner was an insurance agent of the Counrty Banker s Insurance Corporation. which in this case amounted to no more than an avowal by the prosecution that it could not establish the other elements of the offense. Philippines . from the very allegation of the information the Regional Trial Court of Manila has jurisdiction. Solemnidad Buaya v.R. As a result she was charged with estafa.
it provides that the criminal case against petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Since the maximum fine imposable in the present case is P54. and the said car suffered damages in the amount of P18. Issue: Whether or not the plea of self-defense should be admitted. Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment. but claims sentenced under the provisions of article 404 of the Penal Code to fourteen years.00.000. Under B. The defendant admits the killing. Although the defendant was justified in defending himself. The defendant is accused of having in the municipality of Guagua. Rhinna Lin Capili. and one day reclusion temporal with the accesories of article 59. as a result of which one of the occupants of the said car. and the maximum imprisonment imposable (for the homicide through reckless imprudence) is six (6) years. Blg. Victoriana Miranda Concepcion died in the said accident. Valentin Mercado G. growing out of a dispute over some land and the alleged burning of some palay by the defendant.000 and to pay costs. belonging to Antonio Concepcion. and that bad feeling exited between them. the defendant ought not to be . Pampanga has jurisdiction to try the criminal case against petitioner. petitioner filed a "Motion to Remand the Case to the Court of First Instance for Trial" . But it later developed that he had already inflicted the fatal wounds. and to sum of P1. October 19. No.000. The defendant was armed with a bolo and the deceased with nothing but a "balila". from which he appeals. Concepcion. however. claiming that his pleas of selfdefense should have been sustained and that he should have been acquitted. The respondent Municipal judge issued an order denying the Motion to transfer the Case to the Court of First Instance and set the trial of the case. the law presently in effect. For this reason. A verbal Motion for Reconsideration by petitioner was denied.P. People v. the criminal charge involved falls outside the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court and consequently within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando. 1922 Johns. Held: No. he had no legal right to use any more force or to inflict any more injuries than were necessary for his self-defense. With such weapons and on account of the superior strength of the defendant that when the contest in which the deceased soon fell as a victim. to the damage and prejudice of the offended parties. Pampanga. 18794. Held: No.R. Each party is equally to blame for the fight. and the other occupants namely: Antonio Concepcion. clearly. Province of Pampanga assaulted Pascasio Mercado with a bolo and inflicting upon him serious wounds from which he died on the night of the same day. Facts: The defendant and the deceased were personal enemies. 129. alleging lack of jurisdiction. Renee Ann Capili and Lourdes Concepcion sustained serious physical injuries. It must be said to the credit of the defendant that when the deceased begged him not to kill him that he quit fighting and went away. Issue: Whether or not the respondent Municipal Court of San Fernando. J. Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Postpone the trial of the case relying on the same grounds set out in his Motion to Transfer the Case to the Court of First Instance. eight months. Before trial could commence.00.by Antonio M.
but. Leodegario Mogul G. Trial of the case was set on 11 and 12 March 1974. unusual that the complainant-offended party. Held: Yes. 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso K.R. June 20. 8 months. Delfin Sunga G. almost ten (10) years had elapsed from the date of filing of the information. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. postponed in view of the absence of one of the accused. the Court has taken note that before the case was set for trial. in his affidavit of desistance manifested that his material witnesses could no longer be contacted. de Gala with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Mario Fl." In the case at bar.acquitted. an information for Attempted Homicide was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur against accused-private respondents Rafael Anadilla. sentencing him to 2 years. the court a quo issued an order for the arrest of said accused. and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Pascasio Manalo in the sum of P500. Facts: On April 18. and at the same time set the trial of the case for 29 and 30 July 1974. J. It was not. 1987 Gancayco. This was denied by the court a quo. L-53373. 1988 Padilla. Once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. J. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. 4 months. The judgment of the lower court. L-38634. When the case was set for arraigment the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the Office of the . Hon. without their testimony. with the costs de officio on this appeal. the court a quo assailed an order dismissing the case. June 30. No. but without a motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal. however. and 1 day of prision correctional. the guilt of the accused could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hon. therefore. No. and 1 day of reclusion temporal is reduced. Facts: On 10 August 1964. On March 20. On the same date. which sentences the defendant to 14 years. but as we analyze the evidence.r. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla. Mario Crespo v. The Provincial Fiscal moved to reconsider the order of dismissal. Republic v. Issue: Whether the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party. The hearing set on 11 March 1974 was. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. he is entitled to the provisions of article 86 of the Penal Code. Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. respondent Rafael Anadilla who had not yet been arrested by the police authorities. 1974. The dismissal was based upon an affidavit executed by the offended party.
in spite of his opinion to the contrary. Issue: Whether the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits. 1977 to afford time for petitioner to elevate the matter to the appellate court. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. Jr. The then Undersecretary of Justice. On May 15. private respondent through counsel demanded in writing that the petitioner vacate the leased premises . the petitioner sub-leased two of the four doors of the apartment. 1978 the Judge denied the motion and set the arraignment.R. 1978 a decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the writ and perpetually restraining the judge. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. Upon learning of the sublease. A motion for reconsideration of the order was but the arraignment was deferred to August 18. 1992 Bidin.Catalino Macaraig. April 7. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Sampaloc.00. The role of the fiscal or prosecutor is to see that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person accused before the Courts. Mogul. Rita Caleon v. it is the duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted. Without the consent of the private respondent. The presiding judge. 77365. J. Hon. denied the motion. A motion to dismiss was filed by the Provincial Fiscal with the trial court. Agus Development Corporation G. Leodegario L. No. A petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the accused in the Court of Appeals. which it leased to petitioner Rita Caleon for a monthly rental of P180. A restraining order was issued by the Court of Appeals which was later reversed by the appellate court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. Petitioner constructed on the lot leased a 4-door apartment building. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation. Manila.Provincial Fiscal for the filing of the information. On November 24. reversed the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the information filed against the accused. Held: Yes. Hon.. Facts: Private respondent Agus Development Corporation is the owner of a parcel of land situated at Lealtad. prohibition and mandamus with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or temporary restraining order in the Court of Appeals. The accused then filed a petition for certiorari. Thus. The appellate court restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the arraignment of the accused until further orders of the Court.
She also invoked Act No. and to pay private respondent the amount of the attorney's fees. affirmed in toto the decision. with the written consent of the owner/lessor: Provided that in the case of subleases or assignments executed prior to the approval of this Act. you file it in the fiscal s office. But in .The decision of the Regional Trial Court was appealed to the Court of Appeals for review. Held: No. 5 Grounds for judicial ejectment.For failure of petitioner to comply with the demand. the filing of the case in the prosecutor s office is sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescriptive period except when the case is covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure. Concluding that the case should have been dismissed since the case against her was being filed in court way beyond the 2 month statutory period. She contends that criminal cases like violations of municipal or city ordinances does not require preliminary investigation and shall be filed directly to the court and not in the Prosecutor s office. The prosecution contends that when the case was filed on the Prosecutor s office it suspends the prescriptive period. Jr.(from scribd to) Facts: Petitioner Zaldivia is charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor's permit in the municipality of Rodriguez. Samilo Barlongay. 25. The respondent Court of Appeals rendered its decision in favor of private respondent. Province of Rizal. as would constitute a ground for ejectmentunder Batas Pambansa BLg. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court. the running of the prescriptive period is interrupted. 3226 An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run . private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. to remove all improvements she introduced. the presiding judge of the RTC. among which is the subleasing of residential units without the written consent of the owner/lessor. If it is any crime. She appealed to the RTC and denial was sustained by the respondent judge. Issue: Whether or not the lease of an apartment includes a sublease of the lot on which it is constructed. Zaldivia v. She moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed but it was denied.Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Blg. Andres B. Ejectment shall be allowed on the following grounds: a) Subleasing or assignment of lease of residential units in whole or in part. Luz M. Reyes. The court a quo rendered its decision ordering petitioner and all persons claiming possession under her to vacate the premises. Issue: Whether or not the prescription of period ceased to run when the case was filed on the prosecutor s office? Ruling: As a general rule. the Hon. Hon. 25 enumerates the grounds for judicial ejectment. the sublessor/assignor shall have sixty days from the effectivity of this Act within which to obtain the written approval of the owner/lessor or terminate the sublease or assignment. Petitioner filed for a petition for review on certiorari arguing that the case filed against her is govern by the provisions on the Rules of Summary Procedure. to wit: Se.
No. Jose Fabio. Penalty for Complex Crimes. People v. When he reached Plaza de Miranda. Manila attended by a big crowd. grenade and without losing his presence of mind. The police operatives interrogated Garcia and Robles. of which Simeon Varela was the victim. who was on the platform. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed. saw the smoking. and Julio Guillen was. along the stairway. The case before us is clearly governed by the first clause of article 48 because by a single act. After he had pondered for some time over the ways and means of assassinating President Roxas. . When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. If it is covered by the Summary Rules. and. that a throwing highly explosive hand grenade at President Roxas. he became disappointed in President Roxas. Julio Guillen G. the same to be applied in its maximum period. the opportunity presented itself on the night of March 10. Held: Yes. the period continues. It was found that the fragments of the grenade had seriously injured Simeon Varela (or Barrela ) who died on the following day as the result of mortal wounds caused by the fragments. within two hours after the occurrence. According to Guillen. 1947. although not affirmed with any particular political group.the case at bar having only a penalty of arresto menor it therefore falls under the provisions of the Rules on Summary Procedure. although at the same time he tried to justify his action in throwing the bomb at President Roxas. or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Guillen was arrested by members of the Police Department about two hours after the occurrence. hissing. It must be the filing of the case in court which will interrupt the period from running. Confusion ensued. Guillen was carrying two hand grenades concealed in a paper bag which also contained peanuts. shouted to the crowd that everybody should lie down. It is the above-quoted article and not paragraph 1 of article 49 that is applicable. During the investigation conducted by the police he readily admitted his responsibility. and (2) multiple attempted murder. 48. January 18. the accused committed two grave felonies. and the crowd dispersed in a panic. and towards an open space where the general thought the grenade was likely to do the least harm. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in applying sub-section 1 of article 49 of the Revised Penal Code in determining the penalty to be imposed upon the accused. covering the President with his body.R. has voted for the defeated candidate in the presidential elections held in 1946. Alfredo Eva. of which President Roxas. General Castañeda. 1950 Facts: Julio Guillen y Corpus. The grenade fell to the ground and exploded in the middle of a group of persons who were standing close to the platform. He buried one of the hand grenades in a plant pot located close to the platform. kicked it away from the platform. namely: (1) murder. Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang were the injured parties. when at a popular meeting held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda. L-1477. Quiapo. Art.
in reversal of the findings of the lower court. Samuel Arang.People v. because conspiracy may be equably inferred from the acts of the accused disclosing their joint purpose and design. Uganap G. They are all members of the Bagobo Tribe. Facts: Roberta Cido recalled that at about 9:00 o clock in the evening of December 4. he peeped through a hole in the wall of the house and saw the five accused gathered together .. At around 11:00 P. She . Samuel Arang fled to his house where he told his father of what he saw. Sanico Nuevo G. . Conspiracy is revealed by the acts before.. Sr. Immediately. The conspiracy theory of the prosecution fell through with the lower court. Pedro opened the door. 1990. Samuel Arang stated that he saw Salvador Uganap kick the door of Pedro Arang s house. June 19. 1994. Pedro shouted for help. carrying with him a kerosene lamp. The same court found Felix Uganap guilty beyong reasonable doubt. there was no showing that he participated in the killing as based on the account of Samuel Arang he. Facts: The victims and some of hte accused were close relatives. No. will not be disturbed on appeal where the same is consistent with the evidence presented. and concurrence of sentiments. As they were afraid. Issue: Whether or not the trial court may still hold defendant guilty without finding a conspiracy. plus an eyewitness account of how the conspirators effected their plan. nothing less than direct proof of a previous agreement to kill the victim. Upon seeing the shooting. was submitted into evidence but disregarded by the trial court. to a drinking spree at the house of Anselmo. Held: Yes. her father-in-law. Jr.. Although the absence of conspiracy. testified that at around 8:30 in the evening of January 6. the Court is likewise not prohibited from instituting a finding of conspiracy.The Regional Trial Court acquitted accused Faustino Uganap. J. merely stood around while Felix Uganap assaulted Pedro Arang. the Court has held that direct proof is not essential. concerted action. No. however. when its existence is manifest from the evidence at hand. who identified all the accused as members of a religious vigilante group called Ituman. 132169.The trial court also took into consideration the testimony of Nolly Luchavez. although Nolly Luchavez testified that Faustino Uganap proposed the killing. calling on his "Tio Pelagio" (the eyewitness s father). In innumerable cases. The accused left Salvador Uganap s house and went to the Pedro Arang s house. they did not attempt to rescue the victim but waited until the next morning to attend to the body. were positively identified by witnesses Samuel Arang and Ernito Libano on the night of the incident. as with any other finding of fact. Sanico Nuevo passed by their house and invited her husband Anselmo Cido. seconds later. appellant surreptitiously returned and entered their room. 2001 Quisumbing. October 26. during and after the commission of the crime which indicate joint purpose. as well as Nonoy Panday and Tirso Arang.Upon seeing that they were armed.M.R. Samuel Arang moved away from the house and hid behind a coconut tree. Moreover. Nonoy Panday and Tirso Arang. 2001 Gonzaga-Reyes. herein accused-appellant and the deceased Salvador Uganap. People v. Felix Uganap shot him. J. It held that only two of the five accused. The lone eyewitness. She was left at home with her 10-month-old daughter and her nineyear-old niece.R. 130605. In the instant case. which found the evidence to be less than convincing.
at the same time pinning her down with a bolo. identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. Laroya. appellant s face was very near the victim such that the victim could not have misidentified him. Facts: Two vehicles. The MCTC granted the motion. witnessed what was being done to her. In a number of cases. defendant in the civil case. As this was happening her niece Gemma. one driven by respondent Mario Llavore Laroya and the other owned by petitioner Roberto Capitulo and driven by petitioner Avelino Casupanan.. we ruled that the sound of the voice of a person is an acceptable means of identification where it is established that the witness and the accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years. Issue: Whether or not an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file. He thereafter left the house. Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Cido. The MCTC denied the motion for reconsideration . even only by voice recognition. J. appellant laid on top of her and proceeded to forcibly have sexual intercourse with her. Appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. the trial court correctly concluded that Roberta had sufficiently identified appellant as the person who raped her. 145391. in the light of the testimony by the victim and her witnesses as well as of those for the defense. filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the ground of forum-shopping. she also heard the appellant when he invited her husband earlier that evening.R. simultaneously and independently. On the other hand. Avelino Casupanan v.was awakened when appellant held her neck. Casupanan and Capitulo filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the Capas RTC denied the same. Held: Yes. Mario Laroya G. the criminal case was then at its preliminary investigation stage. 2002 Carpio. August 26. In addition. Considering the circumstances in this case. she identified him through his voice. While she was lying on her back. that she did not see him because it was very dark that night. Although Roberta testified on cross-examination. pinned down her arms and took off her clothing. Appellant did not deny that he and Roberta had known each other since childhood and that appellant and Roberta s husband were "barkada. by means of force. Not only have they been neighbors since childhood. violence and intimidation. Issue: Whether or not the appellant was sufficiently identified by hte offended party based only on her regnition of hte sound of his voice. No. . figured in an accident.. Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. Tarlac."It is not impossible then that complainant could immediately recognize appellant through his voice alone. The Capas RTC rendered judgment dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case. against her will and without her consent. When the civil case was filed. who was present. She was certain it was he because she was very familiar with appellant s voice. Two cases were filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Capas.Once a person has gained familiarity with another. and when he warned her and her niece not to tell anyone what happened.
Facts: On February 18. In time. The trial court issued an order dismissing the civil case filed against Villegas.532. If the accused does not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict.Held: Yes. First. "The reservation and waiver referred to refers only to the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged. the rule has been changed. DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative v. 2001 Pardo. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. November 29. Issue: Whether or not the civil case could proceed independently of the criminal case for estafa without having reserved the filing of the civil action. an information for estafa against Carmen Mandawe for alleged failure to account to respondent Eriberta Villegas the amount of P608. Held: Yes. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission.46. an offense causes two (2) classes of injuries. Subsequently. The offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. The first is the social injury produced by the criminal act which is sought to be repaired thru the imposition of the corresponding penalty. Misamis Oriental. J. the accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal case. However. No. Misamis Oriental. Similarly. an employee of petitioner DMPI-ECCI. This does not include recovery of civil liability under Articles 32. The accused is therefore forced to litigate separately his counterclaim against the offended party. and the other a civil case for quasi-delict . 1994." This is only fair for two reasons. with respect to civil actions for recovery of civil liability under Articles 32." . On January 21. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission which may be prosecuted separately even without a reservation. respondent Eriberta Villegas filed with the Regional Trial Court. 33. Respondent Villegas entrusted this amount to Carmen Mandawe. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6. 33. Hon. the prescriptive period may set in since the period continues to run until the civil action for quasi-delict is filed.R. 33. Branch 20. petitioner sought the dismissal of the civil case. The trial court issued an order granting respondent's motion for reconsideration. Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused "may be litigated in a separate civil action. 1997. There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the independent civil actions under Articles 32. the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is accused of in the criminal case. Alejandro Velez G. and the second is the personal injury caused to the victim of the crime which injury is sought to be compensated through indemnity which is civil in nature.without violating the rule on non-forum shopping. a complaint against Carmen Mandawe and petitioner DMPI-ECCI for a sum of money and damages with preliminary attachment arising out of the same transaction. as a general rule. the prosecuting attorney filed with the Regional Trial Court. 129282. The first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted. respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. for deposit with the teller of petitioner.
No. In that case. it was held to be also a proper subject of a civil action under article 1902 of the Civil Code. -Barredo v Garcia (dual character civil and criminal of fault or negligence as a source of obligation): "The above case is pertinent because it shows that the same act may come under both the Penal Code and the Civil Code. one of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado. Issue: WON the civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case wherein the action for civil liability was not reversed.R. a civil case for damages was filed by private respondent Boado against petitioner himself. Here is therefore a clear instance of the same act of negligence being a proper subject matter either of a criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely separate and independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1402 of the Civil Code.Pedro Elcano v. he could have been sued for this civil liability arising from his crime. As a result of the accident. A month after the criminal action was instituted. and was acquitted for lack of intent to kill. a minor yet married at the time of occurrence. Inc. hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him. the action of the agent was unjustified and fraudulent and therefore could have been the subject of a criminal action. The acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict. with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. It is also to be noted that it was the employer and not the employee who was being sued.). But the trial court denied petitioner's motion. Pedro Elcano filed a complaint for recovery of damages from Reginald and his father Atty Marvin." "It will be noticed that the defendant in the above case could have been prosecuted in a criminal case because his negligence causing the death of the child was punishable by the Penal Code. May 26. but the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition. even with regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case aria for which. J. NO. Ruben Maniago v. On January 7. (Phils. 1996 Mendoza. CFI dismissed it. And yet. Reginald Hill G. 104392. was criminally prosecuted for the killing of Agapito Elcano (son of Pedro). coupled with mistake. February 20. Held: No. after un a conviction. a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed on against petitioner's driver. L-24803. 1990. Court of Appeals G.R. the separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized. Thus. in this jurisdiction. Petitioner took the matter on certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals. J. 1977 Barredo. Facts: Reginald Hill. Facts: Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments. Herminio Andaya. Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him. .
accusedappellant's relationship with Angeline was not. then tied her hands to the sofa with a piece of rope. J. Angeline's resistance proved futile as accused-appellant easily overpowered her. The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. 136317-18. People v.While the qualifying circumstance of minority was alleged in the two Informations. 1997. accusedappellant had sexual intercourse with her. otherwise they will be deemed to have been instituted with the criminal case. The trial court rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyong reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. Angeline was sleeping in the sala when accused-appellant lay down beside her. In other words the right of the injured party to sue separately for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes (ex delicto) or from quasi delict under Art. 2001 Ynares-Santiago. At 10:00 in the morning of June 7. To begin with. removed her shorts. Facts: At 3:00 in the afternoon of June 2. Just like the first time. 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action. provides that the right to bring it must be reserved. Eduardo Yaoto G. were the only persons left in the house of Angelina's grandmother. private respondent may nonetheless bring an action for damages against petitioner. blouse and bra. seventeen-year old Angeline Yaoto and her father.He was sentenced the penalty of death. causing the police authorities to apprehend accused-appellant. Accused-appellant suddenly hit Angeline with a belt. 1997. while reiterating that a civil action under these provisions of the Civil Code may be brought separately from the criminal action. he mauled her but this time. Angeline seized the opportunity to escape. Such civil actions are not limited to those which arise "from the offense charged. herein accused-appellant Eduardo Yaoto. touched her thighs and whispered his intention to have sexual intercourse with her again.R. Novmeber 22." as originally provided in Rule III before the amendment of the Rules of Court in 1988. paragraph 1 of Rule III quite clearly requires that a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery of civil liability. She proceeded to the Valenzuela Police Station. Held: No. he tied her feet when she refused. . The failure to allege in the information the relationship of the victim to the offender concurrently with the minority of the victim bars accused-appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form. The requisite for the complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution. Issue: Whether or not the penalty of death is proper in the case at bar. When Angeline was completely naked. Held: Rule III of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. panties. No. where she narrated her ordeal at the hands of her father.Issue: Whether or not despite the absence of a reservation to bring a separate action. When accused-appellant fell asleep after the intercourse.
barred is any conviction for rape in its qualified form.People v. the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age when it presented only the baptismal certificate of Maria Esnelia and not her birth certificate. 1998. Castanito Gano G. Ponciano Salen. when her father (herein appellant) came home 'bangag' or very drunk. People v.. J.a. where she lodged a complaint for rape against appellant and executed a sworn statement. She resisted by pushing him but to no avail. Appellant succeeded in satisfying his beastly desires on his own daughter just like what happened in the previous years starting 1994. with our young girls now looking. acting. Anicia Salen. she was accompanied by her aunts to the Pasay City police headquarters. as she allegedly was already 17 years old at the time of the assault. appellant removed her panty and inserted his penis into her vagina. 134373. At 2:00 o'clock in the morning of the same day.k.R. Both minority and actual relationship between the parties must be alleged and proved. No. Then. 2001 Melo. Facts: Castanito Gano a. or other convincing evidence in the absence thereof. an allegation of the complainant's age as well as filial relationship with the accused is essential. No. At 4:00 o'clock in the morning. The former was tagged as the culprit in the "massacre" of his family. 2001 Bellosillo. a former employee of Ponciano Salen in the latter s bakery. approached Maria Esnelia and started kissing her nape as well as other parts of her body. Maria Esnelia Bernabe was sleeping with her sister in a room of their house located at No. otherwise.R. In the case at bar. while the Information alleged both the minority of the victim and her relationship with appellant. Allan Perez. J. especially so because she does not appear to be obviously a minor. Pasay City. Facts: On October 29. Virgilio Bernabe G. It is elementary that a baptismal certificate only proves the fact of baptism but not the circumstances of birth. Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of death. Without essential proof on the matter of the date of birth of complainant. that a budding lass is 13 or 18 years of age. policemen came to Maria Esnelia's house and arrested appellant. we cannot rule with certainty whether Maria Esnelia was indeed a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. The trial court found accused guilty and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. around 1:30 o' clock in the morning. February 28. one would be hard put to conclude with any measure of certainty. November 21. and dressing up more maturely. 7659. Held: Yes. Verily. Held: . and their daughter Conchita were brutally murdered. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of death. Appellant entered said room. Before the death penalty can be properly imposed for the crime of rape in accordance with Republic Act No. 1919-D Leveriza St. 141811.
Guided by the consecrated rule that when a penal statute.' much less by the trial judge's personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits attached by the fiscal to the record of the case without hearing the parties and their witnesses nor receiving their evidence at a proper trial. in Don Carlos. Emeterio Ocaya G. 9. Designation of the offense. 1978 Teehankee. People v.No. . Hon. which relapse incapacitated her from performing her customary labor for a period of more than thirty days. after "scanning the records of (the) case".The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in the terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. the Rules now require that the information or complaint allege not only the qualifying but the aggravating circumstances as well. Facts: On or about the 23rd day of July. is favorable to the accused. 8. Sec. 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. May 17. which injury considerably deforms her face. a mother who was then still on the twelfth (12th) day from her child delivery. J. attacked and assaulted one Mrs. Pursuant to the aforequoted amended provisions. Issue: Whether or not respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing teh case for alleged lack of jurisdiction. If there is no designation of the offense. L-47448. the same cannot be properly appreciated. and Diosdado Marapao. 1977. Instead. Secs. LOLITA ARES. The records do not show that arraignment or trial on the merits has been held. the courts shall give it a retroactive application and so we must in this case as the Information does not allege dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. court's jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction which had vested in it under the allegations of the information as filed since "(once) the jurisdiction attaches to the person and subject matter of the litigation. . Held: Yes. and further causing upon said Mrs. It is equally elementary that the mere fact that evidence presented at the trial would indicate that a lesser offense outside the trial. substantive and remedial or procedural. otherwise. Leticia Marapao. Sec. much less that warrants for the arrest of the accused had been issued. Philippines accused Esterlina Marapao. aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense. and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute. It is elemental that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial.R. respondent judge motu proprio ordered the dismissal of the case "as the crime of slight or less physical injury is not within the jurisdiction of the court". No. Bukidnon. wrestling her to the ground and thereafter throwing and hitting her with a fist-size stone at the face. the subsequent happening of . LOLITA ARES to suffer a relapse (nabughat in the local dialect) arising from her weak constitution due to her recent child delivery. The fiscal's motion for reconsideration proved futile with respondent judge. reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. Cause of the accusation.
January 22. the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense. They frisked "Jun" but did not find the marked bills on him. PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table.R. "Jun" appeared and the CI introduced PO3 Manlangit as interested in buying one (1) kilo of marijuana. The case below should therefore be transferred to another court presided by another judge. i. members of the North Metropolitan District. Standing by the door.events. Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command (Narcom). the search of her person and house. Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule 113. will not operate to oust jurisdiction already attached. Issue: Whether or not the the arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao. Respondent judge's actions and premature and baseless declaration that the victim's declaration as to the period of her incapacity is "self-serving" raise serious doubts as to whether the State and the offended party may expect a fair and impartial hearing and determination of the case from him." In fact. 116 A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause. SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from "Neneth Gaddao" After trial. although they are of such a character as would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. Simultaneous with the box's discovery. "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. The trial court found the existence of an "organized/syndicated crime group" and sentenced both accused-appellants to death. in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers." 115 The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when. Upon inquiry. the Regional Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. is based an actual facts. and the admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained therefrom was valid. Facts: On November 1995. Contrary to the finding of the trial court..e. "Jun" revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named "Neneth. SPO1 Badua asked "Neneth" about the P1. 125299. Held: No. The Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest "Jun" in a buy-bust operation. there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit. received information from two (2) civilian informants (CI) that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. On December 5. The plastic wrapper and its contents appeared similar to the marijuana.600. 1999 Puno. she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her.00. P03 Manlangit handed "Jun" the marked bills worth P1. coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. He saw that one of the box's flaps was open and inside the box was something wrapped in plastic. J. since seemingly with his erroneous pre-conceptions and predilections. Florencio Doria G. "Jun" left and after one hour he took out from his bag an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to Manlangit. No. he has adversely prejudged their case as one merely of slight or less serious physical injuries. The team found the door of "Neneth's" house open and a woman inside. 1995. Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113.600.00 as PO3 Manlangit looked over "Neneth's" house. P03 Manlangit forthwith arrested "Jun" as SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the arrest. . She was not committing any crime. People v.
The appellate court in sustaining the decision of the lower court held that petitioner's warrantless arrest was valid in view of the fact that the offense was committed. However. the warrantless arrest of herein petitioner Rolito Go does not fall within the terms of said rule. This reason of the accused is substantial. . there are instances specifically enumerated under the law when a warrantless arrest may be considered lawful. The Supreme Court however. Hence.R. the same was granted but later on reversed by the lower court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. whether or not petitioner waived his right to preliminary investigation. No. declared that failure to accord the right to preliminary investigation did not impair the validity of the information charging the latter of the crime of murder. which he should not be deprived of. On the other hand. For the above reasons. the allegation of the prosecution that petitioner needs to sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code before a preliminary investigation may be conducted is baseless. neither do they have personal knowledge on the crime to be committed or has been committed not to mention the fact that petitioner was not a prisoner who has escaped from the penal institution. the petition was granted and the ruling of the appellate court was set aside and nullified. February 11. the petitioner was clearly identified and there exists valid information for murder filed against petitioner. RULING: The general rule on arrest provides that the same is legitimate if effected with a valid warrant. whether or not the warrantless arrest of herein petitioner was lawful. petitioner did not waive his right to have a preliminary investigation contrary to the prosecutor's claim. In this connection. he was immediately detained and denied his right of a preliminary investigation unless he executes and sings a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. However. ISSUE/S: The issues assailed in the case at bar are the following: 1. Despite that. petitioner has all the right to ask for a preliminary investigation to determine whether is probable cause that a crime has been committed and that petitioner is probably guilty thereof as well as to prevent him from the hassles. and 2. The right to preliminary investigation is deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a pleas at arraignment. The facts of the case show that petitioner insisted on his right to preliminary investigation before his arraignment and he.Rolito Go v. anxiety and aggravation brought by a criminal proceeding. In view of the above. which is violative of his rights. 101837. Upon omnibus motion for immediate release on recognizance or on bail and proper preliminary investigation on the ground that his warrantless arrest was unlawful and no preliminary investigation was conducted before the information was filed. through his counsel denied answering questions before the court unless they were afforded the proper preliminary investigation. Petitioner voluntarily presented himself together with his two lawyers to the police upon obtaining knowledge of being hunted by the latter. FACTS: An information was filed charging herein petitioner Rolito Go for murder before the Regional Trial Court of Metro Manila. contrary to petitioner's allegation. the petitioner filed this present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. J. 1992 Feliciano. The police were not present at the time of the commission of the offense. Court of Appeals G.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?