This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
October 11, 1995
FACTS: In the evening of August 7, 1992, the Spouses Dumancas, under the direction and cooperation of P/Col. Nicolas Torres who took advantage of his position as station commander of the PNP, with Police Inspector Abeto’s cooperation, induced other police officers, namely: Canuday, Pahayupan, Lamis, civilian agents: Fernandez, Divinagracia, Delgado and Gargallano, to abduct kidnap and detain, Rufino Gargar and Danilo Lumangyao, with the use of a motor vehicle and then shot and killed the victims with evident premeditation, treachery and nocturnity. The other accused secretly buried the victims in a makeshift shallow grave to conceal the crime of murder for a fee of P500.00 each. The cases were consolidated and the accused pleaded not guilty and filed motions for bail. The prosecution presented Moises Grandeza, the alleged lone eyewitness and co-conspirator in the offense. After the prosecution rested its case, the trial court received evidence for the accused, but the reception of evidence was suspended because of the motions for inhibition of judge Garvilles filed by several accused. Garvilles voluntarily inhibited himself and the case was re-raffled. However, the prosecution moved for the transmittal of the recors to the Sandiganbayan because the offenses charged were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers. The trial court ruled that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction because the informations do not state that the offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers and denied the Motion for the Transfer of Records to Sandiganbayan. The prosecution moved to reconsider but the same was denied. The reception of evidence was resumed but the judge later inhibited himself. The cases were then re-raffled to Branch 49 of tne Regional Trial Court of Bacolod. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, challenging the refusal of the judge to transfer the cases to
the Sandiganbayan. The private respondents were required to comment on the petition and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondent judge to desist from proceeding with the trial of the case. ISSUE: Whether the offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers HELD: The jurisdiction of a court may be determined by the law in force at the time of the commencement of the action. When the informations in the cases were filed, the law governing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was P.D. 1861 , which provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving: 1) violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; 2) offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office, where the penalty prescribed is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment of six (6) years, or a fine of P 6,000.00. If the penalty for the offense charged does not exceed imprisonment of six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00, it shall be tried by the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court or the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Jurisdiction is also determined by the allegations in the complaint or information and not by the result of the evidence after the trial. In the present case, the Sandiganbayan has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the cases. The allegations in the complaint or information of “taking advantage of his position” is not sufficient to bring the offenses within the definition of “offenses committed in relation to public office.” It is considered merely as an aggravating circumstance. Moreover, the Sandiganbayan has partly lost its jurisdiction over cases involving violations of R.A. 3019, as amended in R.A. 1379 because it only retains jurisdiction on cases enumerated in subsection (a) when the public officers rank is classified as Grade “27” or higher. In the case at bar, none of the PNP officers involved occupy a position classified as Grade “27” or higher. Accused Torres, who is
highest in rank among the accused, only has a rank classified as Grade “18”. Lastly, the courts cannot be divested of jurisdiction which was already acquired before the subsequent enactment of R.A. 7975 which limited the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to officers whose rank is Grade “27” or higher, be4cause the courts retain its jurisdiction until the end of litigation. Hence, cases already under the jurisdiction of the courts at the time of the enactment of R.A. 7975 are only referred to the proper courts if trial has not yet begun at that time. Petition is DENIED and the challenged orders are AFFIRMED. Cuyos vs. Garcia G.R. No. L-46934
San Fernando, Pampanga has jurisdiction to try the case against Cuyos HELD: The Court agrees with the position of the Solicitor General that the Municipal Court has no jurisdiction to try the present case. The case at bar involves a complex crime of homicide, multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence. Art. 365, par.2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty imposable upon petitioner, if found guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence, would be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. At the time the complaint was filed, the Municipal Court had jurisdiction to impose a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine not exceeding P6,000.00 or both. Thus, because the penalty for damage to property through imprudence or negligence as provided in Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code is, “a fine ranging from the amount equal to the value of damages to three times such value, the case must be forwarded to the Court of First Instance. Art. 365 simply means that if there is only damage to property, the amount fixed shall be imposed, but if there is also physical injuries, there should be an additional penalty for the latter. The applicable rule on allocation of jurisdiction on cases involving cases of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or physical injuries is summarized by justice Barrera. Barrera stated that in such cases, Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable, but there may be cases when the imposable penalty is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court, while the fine is under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Since the information cannot be split into two, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the fine imposable for the damage to property resulting from the reckless imprudence. The maximum fine imposable for the crime in this case is P54,000.00 and the maximum imprisonment for homicide is six (6) years. Therefore, the criminal charge falls outside the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court and within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. The order of the Municipal Court is SET ASIDE as null
April 15, 1988
FACTS: Petitioner Alfredo Cuyos was charged with homicide with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to proeperty through reckless imprudence before the Municipal Court of San Fernando, Pampanga. Cuyos entered a plea of not guilty at the arraignment and the judge set the case for trial, but before it could commence, petitioner filed a Motion to Remand the Case to the Court of First Instance. Cuyos claimed that there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Municipal Court and contended that the damages suffered by the Volkswagen he hit amounted to P18,000.00. He argued that under Art. 365, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime would carry a fine in an amount ranging from the amount of the damage to three times the value of the damage alleged (i.e. 3 x P18,000.00=P54,000.00). Under §87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, the Municipal Court of Pampanga only has jurisdiction over offenses punishable by a fine not exceeding P6,000.00. Cuyos filed an Urgent Motion to Postpone the Trial. The municipal judge denied the motion to transfer and set the case for trial. Cuyos’ verbal motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition for certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Municipal Court of
and void and the Temporary Restraining Order is made PERMANENT.
Buaya’s failure to remit the premiums caused damage and prejudice to respondent in manila. Besides, estafa is a continuing offense which may be prosecuted at any place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place. Petition is DISMISSED. Zaldivia V. Reyes, Jr. GR No. 102342/ July 3, 1992 Facts: Petitioner was charged before the Municipal Trial Court on October 2, 1990 for violation of a Municipal Ordinance, allegedly committed on May 11, 1990. Petitioner moved to quash the said charge on the ground that it had already prescribed, but the Municipal Trial Court denied the motion forcing the petitioner to raise it to the Regional Trial Court wherein the respondent sustained the decision invoking Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly emphasizing the last paragraph of the said rule, stating that it applies in all cases. Petitioner however contends the decision and files a petition for review of certiorari before the high court invoking Sections 1 and 2 of the Rule on Summary Procedure and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Act No. 3326 as the provisions that governs the charge against her being a violation of a municipal ordinance. Issue: Whether or not the said offense is covered by the Rules on Criminal Procedure or covered by the Rule of Summary Procedure. Ruling: The court ruled that the rule emphasized by the respondent judge only governs cases that fall under the Rules of
Buaya vs. Polo G.R. No. 75079
January 26, 1989
FACTS: Petitioner Solemnidad Buaya was an insurance agent of Country Bankers Insurance Corporation (CBIC) and was authorized to collect premiums for and in behalf of CBIC then make a report and accounting of the transactions and remit the same to the principal office of CBIC in Manila. However, an audit of Buaya’s account showed that there was a shortage in the amount of P358,850.7. As a result, she was charged with estafa before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Buaya filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that the Regional Trial Court of Manila has no jurisdiction because she is based in Cebu City, but the same was denied by respondent judge Polo. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, the present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Manila has jurisdiction to try the criminal case against petitioner Buaya HELD: The allegations in the complaint or information determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases. §14(a) of Rule 110 provides that the action in all criminal prosecutions shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province where the offense was committed or where any of its essential elements took place. The subject information charges Buaya with estafa committed during the period of 1980 to June 15, 1982 inclusive in the City of Manila, Philippines. The claim of Buaya that RTC Manila has no jurisdiction because she is based in Cebu City is without merit. Clearly, RTC Manila has jurisdiction since the respondent’s principal place of business is in Manila and
The lone eye witness. January 18. Luchavez revealed that the plan to kill Pedro Arang was proposed by Faustino Uganap at a coffee shop. Samuel Arang. the lower court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was sentenced with the highest capital punishment. being brother of the latter’s wife. Guillen No. Issue: Whether or not the court erred in finding Guillen guilty of the said crime. No. Thus. Accused Tirso Arang is the half-brother of the victim. Luchavez was unable to go with the group because he had a fever. Guillen is not guilty of the crime of multiple frustrated murder but of the crime of multiple attempted murder. Hence. Samuel stated that he saw Felix immediately shoot Pedro when the latter opened the door. 1950 Facts Guillen was charged with the crime of murder of Simeon Varela (Barrela) and to multiple frustrated murder of President Roxas. Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang who were the injured parties. The accused went to the house of Pedro Arang.R. Accused Faustino Uganap is the brother-inlaw of the victim. Uganap G. preventing him from fulfilling his act of assassinating the President. as the information filed against him provided. CASE: People vs. but was later found after duly admitting his intention to kill the President. Luchavez left the group. but aborted because Pedro left the town to visit his wife. while Nonoy Panday had a pistolized carbine.000. 130605 June 19. Jose Fabio. Samuel Arang moved away from the house and hid behind a coconut tree. Guillen pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against him.38 revolver. he was walking home when he stopped near the house of Salvador Uganap.that at around 8:30 in the evening. Felix Uganap was the group’s designated commander as “Commander Matador”.00 for the purpose. which was 30 meters away from where the witness was. Therefore.Criminal Procedure and is not applicable to all cases as the said section had begun with for all cases no subject to the rule on summary procedure in special cases.2001 FACTS: The victim and some of the accused were close relatives. cousin of the victim. The group intended to effect the killing on December 24. He peeped through a hole in the wall of the house and saw the (5) five accused. That he was also recruited when he was 14 years old. Nolly Luchavez also testified that all of the accused was a member of vigilante religious group called Ituman. ISSUES: . People vs. Ruling: The court ruled that the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of multiple frustrated murderer because the act of Guillen was not fully realized when the bomb was kicked out of the stage. Samuel fled because they were afraid. The room was illuminated by a lamp. L-1477. rule 110 of the rules of criminal procedure. the respondent judges’ erred in denying the said motion on the ground that the offense is governed by section 1. while accused-appellant Felix Uganap is also the victim’s cousin. Felix Uganap had a . Faustino paid Felix P 3. for the murder of Simeon Varela (Barrela) and to the multiple frustrated murder of President Roxas and company. Leilani Asang. the plan was set to January 6. Alfredo Eva.
the Court will allow for this amendment to retroact for the benefit of accused appellant. the aggravating circumstance of price or reward shall not be appreciated. nothing less than direct proof of a previous agreement to kill the victim. The accused appellant was convicted while the other accused were acquitted. She was left at home with her 10 month old daughter and her 9 years old niece. No. 2000. was submitted into evidence but disregarded by the trial court. but the evident premeditation is present. Gemma Atis who was present. He denied raping Roberta. his father. Luchavez’s testimony that the taking of Pedro Arang’s life carried the price of P3. he invited Anselmo Jr. She struggled to extricate herself but to no avail. However. she identified him through his voice. Evidence fall short of treachery. HELD: In People vs. Court also observes that another aggravating circumstance was proven by evidence. 132169 October 26. Appellant threatened her and her niece. once a person gained familiarity with another. Hence. that only old lacerations were present. by RTC. Trial court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt with aggravating circumstances. His husband corroborated part of his wife’s story. Nuevo passed in their house and invited her husband for the drinking spree at Anselmo Sr. He saw Sanico left his father’s place at around 11:00 pm and returned only at around 1:00 pm.. witnessed what was being done to her. Esmeralda Nadela testified that there is no fresh injury found on the victim. it is ruled that the sound of the voice of a person is an acceptable means of identification where the witness and . Appellant lay on top of her and proceeded forcibly to have sexual intercourse with her. HELD: Salvador Uganap died before he could be arrested. when its existence is manifest from the evidence at hand. credible and unrebutted. Reclusion Perpetua is applicable and award of damages are the same. In the instant case. 2001 FACTS: Roberta Cido recalled that about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of December 4. declared that he knew Roberta since they were schoolmates in grade school and she was a former neighbor. Sanico Nuevo. At around 11:00 pm. Dr. He denied. appellant returned and entered their room. 1994.1. CASE: People vs. however. because under the Rules of Criminal Procedure as revised on Dec. She was awakened when appellant held her neck.00 was categorical. The Court is likewise not prohibited from instituting a finding of conspiracy. The information alleges that the crime was attended treachery and evident premeditation. pinned down her arms and took off her clothing.R. generic aggravating circumstances must be specifically named in the information.Whether or not there is conspiracy and. Reyes. In a number of cases. plus an eyewitness account of how the conspirators effected their plan. The accused was sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of death. Nuevo G. identification becomes quite an easy talk even from a considerable distance. Whether or not the prosecution’s evidence suffices for the conviction of rape and the imposition of the death penalty on him. in reversal of the findings of the lower court. ISSUES: Whether or not appellant was sufficiently identified by the offended party based only on her recognition of the sound of his voice. The review of criminal cases necessitates a reexamination of the entire evidence on record. Roberta testified that she did not see him because it was very dark that night. 000. Whether or not the price or reward as an aggravating circumstance will be appreciated.
it is held that the attendance of any of the circumstances under the provisions of Section 11 of R.A. either simultaneously or successively. ground of forum-shopping considering the pendency of the criminal case. The essence of forumshopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action. While the decision of the trial court held that dwelling and the use of a deadly weapon aggravated the crime committed. No. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. simultaneously and independently. is punished only with Reclusion Perpetua.7659. filed a motion to dismiss the case on the . Tarlac. on the ground that the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal. which under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code amended by R. There is no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law and the rules expressly allow the filing of separate civil action which can proceed independently. No. with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Capas . 7659. Laroya. It is present when in the two or more cases pending. The MCTC granted the motion and dismiss the civil case.R. is a dismissal without prejudice. CASE: Casupanan vs. figured in an accident. a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case. They f iled a Motion for Reconsideration but RTC denied the same. rights of action and relief sought. being silent on the matter. effective December 1. They insisted that the civil case is a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal case. This requirement has retroactive effect. HELD: The MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasi-delict on the ground of forum-shopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. there is identity of parties. Section 1 of Rule 41 provides that an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable. Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. The result is that the crime committed by appellant is only simple rape. Clearly. court find that these were not averted in the information. Casupanan and Capitulo. 145391 August 26. one driven by respondent Mario Laroya and the other owned by petitioner Roberto Capitulo and driven by petitioner Avelino Casupanan.the accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years. the criminal case was then at its preliminary investigation stage. 2002 FACTS: Two vehicles. Whether or not there is forum-shopping. Laroya G. Casupanan and Capitulo. In People vs. filed a motion for reconsideration. mandating the death penalty are in the nature of qualifying circumstances and the absence of proper averment thereof in the complaint will bar the imposition of that extreme penalty. provides that every complaint or information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances with specifity. filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC and still it was denied for lack of merit. is erroneous. the law prevailing at the time of commission thereof. Amadore. When civil case was filed. On the other hand. Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict. Thus. defendant in the civil case. ISSUES: Whether or not an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file. The MCTC denied the motion for reconsideration. 2000. 04-94.A. the Capas RTC’s order dismissing the petition for certiorari. Two cases were filed. the MCTC’s dismissal. MCTC did not state in its order of dismissal that the dismissal was with prejudice.
RATIO: The general rule is that when the affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge. RATIO: Section 101 of General Orders number 58 authorizs a search made at night when it is positively asserted that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched. (2) Yes. particularity description rule in issuing warrant. contracts. memorandums. the applicant's knowledge of facts is based on a mere hearsay. it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exists probable cause. 33. and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer deemed instituted and may be filed separately and independently even without reservation. what is “deemed instituted” with the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delito. that it was made at night and for non compliance in the . lists chits. the description is as follows: "That there are being kept is said premises books documents. several agents of the Anti-Usury Board enterd the store and residence of Narciso Alvarez seized some articles such as internal revenue license. However. In no case. Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the offended party in the criminal action. On September 10." At 7 pm on June 4. Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas issued a search warrant on the basis of affidavit of Agent Mariano Almeda in whose oath he declared that he had no personal knowledge but through information from a reliable source. Clearly. But when the applicant's knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay.Under Section 1 of the Rule 111. receipt books. promissory notes and checks. All other civil actions under Articles 32. and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as money lender. In other words. the search can be made at night. the affidavit of one or more witnesses having personal knowledge of facts is necessary. such search could not be legally made at night. (3) W/N the search warrant satisfies the particularity of description as required by the law. journals. the Court of First Instance ruled against the Alvarez and upheld the validity of the search warrant. On July 8. (3) Yes. (2) W/N a search warrant can be made at night. inventories. it satisfied the requirement of particularity of description. however. The Court held that the warrant is illegal because it is based on the affidavit of an agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts. Alvarez filed a petition alleging that the search was illegal based on the lack of personal knowledge. receipts. by virtue of the warrant. blackboards. credit receipts. since the search warrant is declared illegal (RULING 1). cash bonds. charging a usurious rate of interests. correspondence. 34. bill of lading. not the accused. RATIO: Article III of the Constitution and section 97 of Alvarez vs. may the “offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. ISSUES: (1) W/N the search warrant is legal when the affidavit is based on hearsay. The true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused. ledger. Court of First Instance of Tayabas FACTS: On June 3 1936. check stubs. The search warrant is ILLEGAL because the affidavit is based on mere hearsay. In the affidavit presented to the judge. in violation of the law. RULING: (1) No.
19. it is not required that technical description be given. No. stated only is the claim that certain objects were being used as instruments and means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under P. D. Based on the description of the affidavit. Road 3. Commissioners were appointed to appraise the value of the lands so taken. distribution of the said newspapers. by the nature of the goods to be seized. December 1. as this would mean that no warrant could issue. CHIEF OF STAFF. which he did. a railroad company. to convict anybody” of violating the decree without reference to any determinate provision thereof. Executive Judge of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal. After the filling of the complaint. VS.: Facts: Assailed in this petition for certiorari. Attorney. and taking into consideration the nature of the articles as described it is clear that no other more adequate and detailed description could have been given. L-64261 December 26. equipment. In the case at bar. of the highest order. building its line. Quezon City. where. 885. RMS Building. as amended. 6287. But. “It would be legal heresy. respectively. books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos. their description must be rather general. under which the premises known as No. The description so made substantially complies with the legal provisions because the officer of the law who executed the warrant was thereby placed in a position enabiling him to identify the articles in question. 1911 20 Phil 523 Facts: The plaintiff. AFP No. the plaintiff took possession of the lands described therein. 1984 Escolin. motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing. Quezon Avenue. Jr. were seized. J. publication and Manila Railroad Co. stations and terminals and put the same in operation. Quezon City. paraphernalia. business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers. began an action in the Court of First Instance of the province of Tarlac for the condemnation of certain real estate in said complaint to be located in the Province of Tarlac. In the words of Chief Justice Concepcion. abstract averments will not suffice. There is no mention of any specific provision of the decree. BURGOS. To satisfy the requirement of probable cause a specific offense must be alleged in the application. prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the validity of 2 search warrants issued on December 7. Publisher-editor of the “We Forum” newspaper. SR. Project 6. and office and printing machines.General Orders Number 58 requires that the affidavit must contain a particular description of the placed to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. were searched. particularly because it is difficult to give a particular description of the contents thereof. No. vs. as well as numerous papers. nothing specifically subversive has been alleged. They . Issue: Whether there was a valid search warrant? Ruling: The two search warrants were issued wihout probable cause.General GR. documents. 1982 by respondent Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano. and 784 Units C & D.
the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Tarlac with discretion to proceed with the action according to law. PD. Rodolfo Dela Cruz.R. took a considerable amount of evidence. having been recently ascertained by the plaintiff that the lands sought to be condemned were situated in the Province of Nueva Ecija instead of the Province of Tarlac as alleged in the complaint. April 27. Dela Cruz was charged of homicide in the Court of First Instance of Davao. and the provisions of Section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure which have to do with the venue of an action in condemnation proceedings generally are not applicable to the proceedings by a railroad company to condemn lands. Dela Cruz shot Cabilto. After the said report had been made and fled with the court. if one. . including the deceased Eusebio Cabilto followed the soldier on their way to the Headquarters. It was not intended to meet a situation presented by an action to condemn lands extending contiguously form one end of the country to the other. require the venue as to their. No. In compliance with the said mission. with the consent of defendants. Maco Sto. Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of one province has the power and authority to take cognizance of an action by a railroad company for the condemnation of real estate located in another province. and finally made their report. Dela Cruz vs. L. Nos. 1998 160SCRA 838 Facts: On February 23. they caught in flagrante the operators of said illegal cockfighting but they resisted the arrest. while the case is pending trial. may by timely application to the court. Fighting ensued and in the scuffle. Davao for the purpose of verifying and apprehending person who are allegedly engaged in the illegal cockfighting. while. the action as to all of the defendants not objecting would continue in the province where originally begun. express or implied. on August 2. 1979. Moya G. In such case.65192. However. Tomas. a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines was assigned to the Intelligence and Operations Section and together with other PC men they received an order mission to proceed to Barangay Pangi. his lands to be changed to the province where their lands lie. Wherefore. Section 377 was intended to cover simply actions relating to the condemnation of real estate where the land involved is. the plaintiff gave notice to the defendants that on a certain date it would make a motion to the court to dismiss action. 1981.held several sessions. In an action taken by a railroad company to condemn lands. the venue may be laid and the action tried in any province selected by the plaintiff. the defendants who have lands lying in another province. Issue: Whether or not civil courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Held: The condemnation of a real estate by a railroad corporation is governed by the special acts relating thereto. vesting in court – martial jurisdiction over crimes committed by the members of the Armed Forces or of the Philippine Constabulary in the performance of their duty. but would be severed as to the objecting defendants and ordered continued before the court of the appropriate province or provinces. nevertheless. 1822 and 1822-A were promulgated by the President on January 16. it being one in which the lands sought to be condemned is located. The operators of the illegal cockfighting. or any one of such defendants. upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter. They left the place but brought with them pieces of evidence such as gaffs and fighting cocks. 1979. As a result.
pledge and encumber the said property to one Mateo Pinile. In the instant case. stations and terminals . Clearly PD. began an action in the Court of First Instance of the province of Tarlac for the condemnation of certain real estate in said complaint to be located in the Province of Tarlac. 59 shall apply.charged and that the court had no jurisdiction Held: In the instant case. March 31. People vs. The court held that jurisdiction of court once vested is not lost by subsequent amendment or stipulation.General GR. 1822 and PD. General Order No. L. assets. herein complainant with principal office in Manila. accounts. there is no showing that properties listed in the information as exhibit D (properties mortgaged to the bank) are the same properties listed in exhibit E (properties pledge to Mateo Pinile). vs. evidence fails to show that the properties mortgaged to the bank are the same ones encumbered afterwards to Mateo Pinile. Accused moved to quash the information on the ground that more than one offense is Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the case Held: An essential element common to the two acts punishable by Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code is that the property removed or repledged should be the same or identical property that was mortgaged or pledged before such removal of repledging. 1951 Jose Chupeco was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila for executing a Chattel Mortgage of the SAWMILL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT in favor of Agricultural and Industrial Bank located in Bataan whose capital. contracts and chooses in action were subsequently transferred to Rehabilitation Finance Corp. No. the plaintiff took possession of the lands described therein. After the filling of the complaint. building its line. 59. With these findings Jose Chupeco was acquitted. 1977 published in the Official Gazette. 1964 10 SCRA 640 Facts: On February 2. 1822-A were promulgated after the filling of the complaint however. On such date. General Order 59 was enacted before the commission of the crime. Thereafter. No. Court of First Instance of Manila still has jurisdiction over the case. Attorney.19568. a railroad company. 6287. dated June 24. 8 can exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed by military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines while in the performance of their duties. On the evidence presented. the petition was GRANTED. December 1. 1911 20 Phil 523 Facts: The plaintiff. Wherefore. 1979. Manila Railroad Co. 1822 and PD 1822-A are inapplicable to the case however.R. General Order No. states that military tribunals created under General Order No. However. without having fully satisfied the mortgage and during the term without the consent of the mortgagee bank and with intent to defraud Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. the information was filed on August 2. Chupeco G. The court held that PD.
R. They held several sessions. 1981. Dela Cruz vs.and put the same in operation. while. 1979. a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines was assigned to the Intelligence and Operations Section and together with other PC men they received an order mission to proceed to Barangay Pangi. They left the place but brought with them pieces of evidence such as gaffs and fighting cocks. took a considerable amount of evidence.65192. the defendants who have lands lying in another province. on August 2. 1998 160SCRA 838 Facts: On February 23. but would be severed as to the objecting defendants and ordered continued before the court of the appropriate province or provinces. require the venue as to their. Issue: Whether or not civil courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter. the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Tarlac with discretion to proceed with the action according to law. The operators of the illegal cockfighting. the plaintiff gave notice to the defendants that on a certain date it would make a motion to the court to dismiss action. . April 27. while the case is pending trial. L. and finally made their report. Maco Sto. including the deceased Eusebio Cabilto followed the soldier on their way to the Headquarters. 1822 and 1822-A were promulgated by the President on January 16. However. In such case. and the provisions of Section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure which have to do with the venue of an action in condemnation proceedings generally are not applicable to the proceedings by a railroad company to condemn lands. Commissioners were appointed to appraise the value of the lands so taken. Section 377 was intended to cover simply actions relating to the condemnation of real estate where the land involved is. 1979. Dela Cruz shot Cabilto. Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of one province has the power and authority to take cognizance of an action by a railroad company for the condemnation of real estate located in another province. PD. Fighting ensued and in the scuffle. Wherefore. if one. Held: The condemnation of a real estate by a railroad corporation is governed by the special acts relating thereto. Davao for the purpose of verifying and apprehending person who are allegedly engaged in the illegal cockfighting. After the said report had been made and fled with the court. No. his lands to be changed to the province where their lands lie. the action as to all of the defendants not objecting would continue in the province where originally begun. In an action taken by a railroad company to condemn lands. the venue may be laid and the action tried in any province selected by the plaintiff. vesting in court – martial jurisdiction over crimes committed by the members of the Armed Forces or of the Philippine Constabulary in the performance of their duty. it being one in which the lands sought to be condemned is located. Moya G. or any one of such defendants. Nos. As a result. Rodolfo Dela Cruz. express or implied. nevertheless. may by timely application to the court. It was not intended to meet a situation presented by an action to condemn lands extending contiguously form one end of the country to the other. having been recently ascertained by the plaintiff that the lands sought to be condemned were situated in the Province of Nueva Ecija instead of the Province of Tarlac as alleged in the complaint. with the consent of defendants. Tomas. they caught in flagrante the operators of said illegal cockfighting but they resisted the arrest. upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter. Dela Cruz was charged of homicide in the Court of First Instance of Davao. In compliance with the said mission.
contracts and chooses in action were subsequently transferred to Rehabilitation Finance Corp. People vs.R. private respondent through counsel demanded in writing that the petitioner vacate the leased premises. However. March 31. General Order No. With these findings Jose Chupeco was acquitted. 25. herein complainant with principal office in Manila. General Order 59 was enacted before the commission of the crime. Wherefore. against the petitioner citing as ground therefor the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 1822-A were promulgated after the filling of the complaint however. which it leased to petitioner Rita Caleon for a monthly rental of P180. Court of First Instance of Manila still has jurisdiction over the case. The court held that jurisdiction of court once vested is not lost by subsequent amendment or stipulation. CALEON V AGUS DEVELOPMENT CORP.00. Section 5. the petitioner sub-leased two of the four doors of the apartment to Rolando Guevarra and Felicisima Estrada for a monthly rental of P350. 1822 and PD 1822-A are inapplicable to the case however. states that military tribunals created under General Order No. 1977 published in the Official Gazette. 1979. Accused moved to quash the information on the ground that more than one offense is charged and that the court had no jurisdiction Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the case Held: An essential element common to the two acts punishable by Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code is that the property removed or repledged should be the same or identical property that was mortgaged or pledged before such removal of repledging. pledge and encumber the said property to one Mateo Pinile. The court held that PD. dated June 24. L19568. the information was filed on August 2. Agus filed a complaint for ejectment MTC of Manila. the petition was GRANTED. without having fully satisfied the mortgage and during the term without the consent of the mortgagee bank and with intent to defraud Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. 1951 Jose Chupeco was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila for executing a Chattel Mortgage of the SAWMILL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT in favor of Agricultural and Industrial Bank located in Bataan whose capital. Chupeco G. 59. 1822 and PD. FACTS: Agus Development Corporation is the owner of a parcel of land denominated at Lealtad. Petitioner constructed on the lot leased a 4-door apartment building. Manila. Clearly PD. 59 shall apply. 8 can exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed by military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines while in the performance of their duties. No. On such date. which is the unauthorized sub-leasing of part of the leased premises to . 1964 10 SCRA 640 Facts: On February 2. evidence fails to show that the properties mortgaged to the bank are the same ones encumbered afterwards to Mateo Pinile. Sampaloc. In the instant case. On the evidence presented.00 each. Upon learning of the sub-lease.Held: In the instant case. General Order No. accounts. there is no showing that properties listed in the information as exhibit D (properties mortgaged to the bank) are the same properties listed in exhibit E (properties pledge to Mateo Pinile). assets. Thereafter. Without the consent of the private respondent.
raided the video outlets and seized the items described therein. The NBI agents who acted as witnesses did not have personal knowledge of the subject matter of their testimony which was the alleged commission of the offense by the private respondents. 49 (otherwise known as the Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property). On September 4. Witnesses in the hearing for an application for search warrants must have personal knowledge of the subject matter of their testimony as to the alleged commission of the offense. the lower court did not give much credence to his testimony in view of the fact that the master tapes of the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown to the court during the application. Hence this petition. Petitioner argued that Batas Pambansa Blg. this Court does not decide questions of a constitutional nature unless that question is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case. the lower court issued the desired search warrants. Therefore. the NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and subsequently filed three (3) applications for search warrants. In fact. In any event. Specifically. safety. the Petition is Denied for lack of merit. 25 cannot be applied in this case because there is a perfected contract of lease without any express prohibition on subleasing which had been in effect between petitioner and private respondent long before the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. CA FACTS: In a letter-complaint dated August 26. 25. one who attacks a statute. However. General warrants are . the application of said law to the case at bar is unconstitutional as an impairment of the obligation of contracts. Acting on the letter-complaint. Also. 25). 1985. An inventory of the items seized was made and left with the private respondents. Only the petitioner's counsel who was also a witness during the application for the issuance of the search warrants stated that he had personal knowledge that the confiscated tapes owned by the private respondents were pirated tapes taken from master tapes belonging to the petitioner. petitioner 20th Century Fox Film Corporation through counsel sought the National Bureau of Investigation's (NBI) assistance in the conduct of searches and seizures in connection with the latter's anti-film piracy campaign. the lettercomplaint alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films in videotape form which constitute a flagrant violation of Presidential Decree No. It is well settled that all presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality. morals and general welfare WHEREFORE.third persons without securing the consent of the lessor within the required sixty (60)-day period from the promulgation of the new law (B. RULING: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.P. ISSUE: Whether or not the Petitioner’s contention is correct? RULING: The Supreme Court Ruled that the petitioners contention is untenable. The lower court later on lifted the 3 search warrants and ordered the NBI to return the properties that were seized. 20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION vs. 1985. The NBI accompanied by the petitioner's agents. the sear warrant must contain a specific description of the articles to be seized. alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt. ISSUE: Whether or not the judge properly lifted the search warrants he issued earlier upon the application of the National Bureau of Investigation on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. it is now beyond question that the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by and subject to the exercise of police power of the state in the interest of public health.
suffered genital and extragenital injuries. Ordinarily. Armie Umil certified that Angeline Yaoto.e. Upon arraignment. The Court ruled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor. 1994 at around 7:00 in the morning Sr. Issue WON the testimony of witnesses in the lower court be admitted by the SC? Ruling Yes. The suspect in the name of Castanito Gano a. People vs.k. He also assailed Angeline’s testimony that he had bolo and an ice pick with which he threatened her considering that the prosecution failed to produce said items in evidence. The accused was merely confessing to the crime of homicide but NOT to robbery with homicide. i. the Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of the witness considering that it is in a better position to observe her candor and behavior on the witness stand. Issue WON the voluntary confession being conditional could be mitigating? Ruling NO. It was found that Angeline was not only sexually abused but was also physically assaulted. Accused Yaoto assails the credibility of Angeline and denied having raped her twice. if the voluntary confession is conditional or qualified. At the crime scene Garcia saw the body of Pociano Salen and was thereafter informed the identity of the suspect. In her medico-genital examination. People vs. conduct and attitude especially under cross-examination. the accused with the assistance of his counsel entered a plea of not guilty. Allan Gano or Jerry Perez or several other known aliases was arrested and detained in Butuan City after having tried to escape from the authorities. a considerably graver offence. Inspector Ernesto Garcia received a report of a massacre at a residence in San Mateo Rizal.a. it is not mitigating. Facts Accused-appellant Eduardo Yaoto was charged with two (2) counts of rape and pleaded “not guilty” to both counts. 17 years old. Bernabe Facts . Gano Facts On December 31. The Court ruled that if the voluntary confession is conditional or qualified. Dr. Hence. For voluntary confession to be appreciated as an extenuating circumstance. the accused Castanito Gano made a qualified admission by admitting the killing of the three (3) victims but denying the charge of robbery. Considering that what is charged is a complex crime with a single penalty. the same must not only be made unconditionally but the accused must admit to the offense charged. On their way back to Manila Garcia disclosed that the accused confessed to him his responsibility for the triple killing and robbery. it is NOT mitigating. Yaoto People vs.constitutionally objectionable. robbery with homicide and not to either robbery or homicide only.
Gr no. the territory where the offense was committed. for only trial courts are in so unique a position as to be able to observe that elusive and insurmountable evidence of the witness’ deportment on the witness stand while testifying. Allegedly.” In this case. Art. He testified that Maria Esnelia charged him with rape because he resented her boyfriend who for sometime slept in their house. The court must have jurisdiction before the subject matter. A petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed with the CA. The offended party did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action. Hence. the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter as the law has conferred on the court the power to hear and decide cases involving estafa though falsification of public document. Decision: Case Remanded. The court also has acquire jurisdiction over the accused because whe voluntarily submitted to the court’s authority. respondents Facts: The City Prosecutor of Manila charged Cruz with the crime of estafa though falsification of public documents before the RTC of Manila. Accused also claimed that his two sisters assisted his daughter in filing the rape case against him because of a land dispute between them..” Art. petitioner. The Court of Appeals. On the civil aspect. Cruz filed by registered mail a motion for reconsideration. the court ordered the return of the parcel of land to the surviving heirs. 2002 Lutgarda Cruz. Issue WON the testimony of witnesses in the lower court be admitted by the SC? Ruling Yes. Upon arraignment the accused pleaded “not guilty”. Hence. a 17 year old minor. Cruz executed an Affidavit of Self-adjucation of a parcel of land when she knew that there were other surviving heirs.On or about October 29. and over the person of the accused. This was also dismissed by the appellate court. He also depicted his daughter as a rebel and neglected her studies. his daughter. Though Cruz was acquitted. 1998 in Pasay City Virgilio Bernabe by means of force and intimidation employed upon Maria Esnelia Bernabe. . would ordinarily defer to the assessment and evaluation given by the trial court. There are 3 important requisites which must be present before the court can acquire criminal jurisdiction. This was denied by the trial court. this petition for review on certiorari. involving a property in Bulacan. During trial accused denied having raped his own daughter. The Court ruled that when it comes to the issue of credibility the Supreme Court as any other appellate court. et. it was tried together with the criminal case. In this case. 104 of the same Code provides that “civil liability xxx includes restitution. Issues: Whether the CA erred in finding that the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction to render judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case. unlawfully have carnal knowledge with said victim against her will and consent. the civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action since the offended party did not reserve the civil acton. 123340August 29. vs. 100 of the RPC provides that “every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. al. The RTC acquitted Cruz. The court also had jurisdiction over the offense charged since the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
this petition for certiorari/prohibition and mandamus. she conducted a reinvestigation and resolved that the Yabuts and Danny were in conspiracy. The petitioners filed a Motion to inhibit Judge Roura for hastily setting the date for arraignment pending the appeal in the DOJ and for prejudging the matter. The petitioners then filed a Urgent Motion to set aside arraignment. Secretary Guingona of the DOJ resolved the appeal in favor of the petitioners. and Naguit. The Yabuts entered a plea of not guilty. Judge Villon ordered for the resetting of the arraignment. Mandap. Private Prosecutor Amado Valdez then filed a Motion to issue hold departure order and Urgent Motion to defer proceedings. The Petitioners filed with the RTC a Manifestation submitting documentary evidence to support their contention that the offense committed was murder. Though it was not clear whether Pampanga Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Sylvia Alfonso-Flores acted motu proprio. Before the information for homicide was filed. Public Prosecutor Datu filed a Manifestation and Comment with the trial court and opposed the inhibition of Roura. petitioners vs. Facts: SP03 Virgilio Dimatulac was shot dead at his residence in Pampanga. Judge David then issued a resolution finding reasonable ground that the crime of murder has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. 1998 Peter Paul Dimatulac and Veronica Dimatulac. Issues: Whether the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion in reinvestigating the case without having the respondents within the custody of the law and for filing the information pending the appeal of the resolution with the DOJ. Hence.this did not dissolve the civil aspect of the case. respondents. the Petitioner appealed the resolution of Alfonso-Flores to the Secretary of Justice. Villon acted with grave abuse of discretion . 127107 October 12. He also ruled that treachery was present. A complaint for murder was filed in the MTC and after preliminary investigation. He also stated that he will no longer allow the private prosecutor to participate. He also set the arraignment of the accused. They also filed a Petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals. Sensinando Villon. Judge Villon denied the Motion to set aside arraignment. Magat. GR no. al. Whether Hon. The Secretary of Justice then set aside his order and the appeal was held not and academic due to the previous arraignment of the accused for homicide. Judge Designate David issued warrants of arrest against the accused.. along with the other accused. Magat. and committed homicide. Mandap. The Yabuts opposed the Manifestation because they have already been arraigned and they would be put under double jeopardy. or upon motion of the private respondents. et. Judge Roura voluntarily inhibited himself and was replaced by Judge Villon. However. Only David. An information for homicide was also filed before the Regional Trial Court. Provincial Proseutor Maranag ordered for the release of David. The motion for reconsideration was also denied. and Yambao were arrested and it was only Yambao who submitted his counteraffidavit. Hon. Judge Roura deferred the resolution of the first Motion and denied the second. Judge Raura approved the cash bonds of the Yabuts and recalled the warrants of arrest against them.
maintaining that the civil action could not proceed independently of the criminal case because no reservation of the right to bring it separately had been made in the criminal case. 104392 February 20. Issue: The question is whether despite the absence of such reservation. and ALFREDO BOADO.in proceeding with the arraignment and for denying the Motions to set aside the arraignment. 2180. 2176. she should have sustained the recommendation since all the accused. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Alfonso-Reyes was guilty of having acted with grave abuse of discretion for conducting a reinvestigation despite the fact that the Yabuts were still at large. Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in reconsidering his order. from Baguio City Loakan. in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the criminal case. Regional Trial Court. No. except Yambao. 1996 RUBEN MANIAGO. private respondent may nonetheless bring an action for damages against petitioner under Art. respondents. in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge.R. Baguio City. Decision: Petition is GRANTED. 2177 of the Civil Code: . citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. 4. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition which it held allowed a civil action for damages to be filed independently of the criminal action even though no reservation to file the same has been made. J.roper to its plant site one of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado. As a result of the accident. RUBEN C. he should have perused the documents submitted. The DOJ was also in grave abuse of its discretion for setting aside its order.: Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments. a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed against petitioner's driver. the action could proceed independently of the criminal action. Branch IV. a civil case for damages was filed by private respondent Boado against petitioner himself. G. THE COURT OF APPEALS (First Division) HON. The complaint was assigned to Branch IV of the same court. The state has been deprived of due process. A month later. AYSON. Hence. But the trial court denied petitioner's motion on the ground that pursuant to the Civil Code. Herminio Andaya. (Phils. the dismissal of the case is null and void and double jeopardy cannot be invoked by the accused. the resolution should be based on the review of the record and evidence transmitted. Judge Roura acted with grave abuse of discretion for deferring the resolution to the motion for a hold departure order. the Motion should have been granted since they could have easily fled. There is nothing in the law which prohibits the filing of an appeal once an information is filed. In doing so. Though he is not bound to the resolution of the DOJ. It is impossible for Alfonso-Reyes to not have known the appeal filed with the DOJ. The filing of an appeal is provided in Sec. MENDOZA. Baguio City.). Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him. with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. vs. 5. it has relinquished its power of control and supervision of the Public Prosecutor. Hence. Rule 112 states that the prosecutor is not bound by the findings of the judge who conducted the investigation. Though Sec. failed to file their counter-affidavits. Petitioner took the matter on certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals. petitioner. Inc. Since the accused were out on bail.
and MARVIN HILL. was not reversed? Held: The issue presents no more problem than the need for a reiteration and further clarification of the dual character. Issues: 1. when criminally prosecuted. Indeed the question on whether the criminal action and the action for recovery of the civil liability must be tried in a single proceeding has always been regarded a matter of procedure and. named Agapito Elcano. defendant. defendantsappellees. his employer would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. bus driver. the said accused was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal. 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. WHEREFORE. of which. otherwise they will be deemed to have been instituted with the criminal case." It appears that for the killing of the son. the criminal action was filed against the employee. criminal and civil. the defendant Marvin Hill. the decision appealed from is REVERSED and the complaint against petitioner is DISMISSED. No. The rule requiring reservation in the end serves to implement the prohibition against double recovery for the same act or omission. on account of the death of their son. minor. because of "lack of intent to kill. since the rule making power has been conferred by the Constitution on this Court. G. married at the time of the occurrence. After due trial. L-24803 May 26. In the present case. in their capacity as Ascendants of Agapito Elcano. 5102 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for which. REGINALD HILL. vs. the injured party must choose which of the available causes of action for damages he will bring. a minor. after such a . In such a case his cause of action against the employer will be limited to the recovery of the latter's subsidiary liability under Art. §1. J. a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery of civil liability. If he fails to reserve the filing of a separate civil action he will be deemed to have elected to recover damages from the bus driver on the basis of the crime. SO ORDERED. deceased. Marvin Hill. Had the driver been convicted and found insolvent. the complaint of plaintiffs for recovery of damages from defendant Reginald Hill. 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action." And so. when appellants filed their complaint against appellees Reginald and his father.R. coupled with mistake. the appellees filed the motion to dismiss. for the killing by Reginald of the son of the plaintiffs. as father and Natural Guardian of said minor. Atty. of fault or negligence as a source of obligation. Agapito. he was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal because of "lack of intent to kill. otherwise it should be dismissed. Is the present civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case wherein the action for civil liability. of plaintiffs-appellants. Garcia. 103 of the Revised Penal Code. coupled with mistake. BARREDO.Held: The right to bring an action for damages under the Civil Code must be reserved as required by Rule III.: Facts: Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City dismissing. upon motion to dismiss of defendants. 1977 PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO. it is in the keeping of this Court. and his father.appellee Reginald Hill was prosecuted criminally in Criminal Case No. plaintiffs-appellants. As held in Barredo v.
the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. arising from the same facts. Hence. petitioner sought the dismissal of the civil case on the grounds that there is a pending criminal case in RTC Branch 37. for deposit with the teller of petitioner.46. HON. whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not estinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. in reiteration of Garcia. (e) of Section 3. an information for estafa against Carmen Mandawe for alleged failure to account to respondent Eriberta Villegas the amount of P608. VELEZ. respondents. thereby recalling the dismissal of the case. hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him. Facts: On February 18. petitioner. vs. ALEJANDRO M. respondent Eriberta Villegas filed with the Regional Trial Court. this Court specifically applied article 1902 of the Civil Code. but for damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'.532. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. as Presiding Judge of the RTC. INC. It is most significant that in the case just cited. 20. Rule 111. therefore. acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence. provided that the offended party is not allowed. "every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. In time. 1994. Held: as a general rule. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. Briefly stated.R. Br. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order and the trial court granted respondent's. nevertheless this Court awarded damages in an independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code. G. But said article forestalls a double recovery. the trial court issued an order dismissing the Civil Case. In other words. No. The Issues whether the civil case could proceed independently of the criminal case for estafa without having reserved the filing of the civil action. that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. It results. Respondent Villegas entrusted this amount to Carmen Mandawe. if he is actually charged also criminally. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act. and that the complaint failed to contain a certification against forum shopping. Consequently. (DMPIECCI). refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action.conviction. not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence. 2001 DMPI EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE. 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. 129282 November 29. Misamis Oriental. whether on reasonable doubt or not. We here hold. the prosecuting attorney filed with the Regional Trial Court. he could have been sued for this civil liability arising from his crime. It is thus that although he could have been criminally prosecuted for reckless or simple negligence and not only punished but also made civilly liable because of his criminal negligence. Misamis Oriental. and ERIBERTA VILLEGAS. this petition. that the acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasidelict. an employee of petitioner DMPI-ECCI." This is the law governing the recovery of civil liability arising from the commission of an offense.. . to recover damages on both scores. Misamis Oriental. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.
arrest a person when an offense has in fact just been committed. A security guard of a nearby restaurant saw the incident and took down the plate number of Go’s car. Because of this. and the arresting person has personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. this petition for review on certiorari. or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. The following day. Go refused to execute such waiver. Hence. Hence. Hence. Go was informed of his right to demand preliminary investigation provided he waives the Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. prohibition. only the civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action. ISSUE 1: Where or not Go was validly arrested without a warrant. 33. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. CA FEBRUARY 11. Go posted cash bond and was released after approval of the same by the court. at the time of his arrest. and indemnification of consequential damages. J. the police officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that Go was he gunman. CA issued its decision dismissing the petition of Go on the grounds that Go was validly arrested without a warrant and Go already waived his right to preliminary investigation. A complaint for frustrated homicide was filed by the police to the Provincial prosecutor. and mandamus before the SC. 1992 FELICIANO. Police investigators were able to get Go’s picture through the credit card that Go used when he dined in restaurant near the crime scene the witness positively identified Go as the gunman. In addition.Civil liability includes restitution. Several days thereafter. In the case at bar." WHEREFORE. Rolito Go’s car and Maguan nearly bumped into each other in an intersection. "The reservation and waiver referred to refers only to the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged. Arraignment took place as scheduled and Go refused to enter his plea. The prosecutor filed for leave of court to conduct preliminary investigation and to prayed for the suspension of court proceedings pending the preliminary investigation. FACTS: Maguan was driving the opposite direction of a oneway street in San Juan. The police detained Go. The same was granted and arraignment of Go was suspended. GO VS. the plate number of the . Go was arrested 6 days after the incident. HELD: NO. Go went to the police station where the witness identified him as the suspect. Finally. 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. It would have been different if Go committed a continuing crime. that a peace officer or private person may without warrant. which was remanded to CA. reserves his right to institute it separately. a plea of not guilty was entered for him. 33. This does not include recovery of civil liability under Articles 32. among others. Go filed a petition for certiorari. Maguan died. the court recalled its approval and cancelled the bail of Go. reparation for damage caused. The police arrested Go by relying on the statement of the witness. Meanwhile. Hence. Then. Hence. Go shot Maguan and left the scene. The offended party may prove the civil liability of an accused arising from the commission of the offense in the criminal case since the civil action is either deemed instituted with the criminal action or is separately instituted. Hence. Metro Manila. prosecutor filed am information of murder without conducting preliminary investigation. the Court DENIES the petition. the crime has not just “been committed”. a manhunt was launched. There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the independent civil actions under Articles 32. Section 5. Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides.
In this case. the search warrant does not even begin to fulfill the constitutional requirements of such. Since the warrants are null and void. the premises searched located in Talisay Cebu are well within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent court. J. (b) Yes. In the instant case. Petitioners moved to quash the warrant alleging. 189 of RPC had been rendered moot and academic. There being no crime to speak of. the trial should be suspended and preliminary investigation should be conducted. The power to issue search warrants in violations of IPR has not been exclusively vested in the courts enumerated in SC Administrative Order. among others. to search the premises of petitioner located in Talisay Cebu. Go was entitled to a preliminary investigation. punishable by Art 189 of the RPC. the acts complained of does not fall under any of the provisions of the IPR Code. and (b) the crime they are accused of does not exist. said right is invoked before entering a plea. The issue referred to in Art. Further. The fact that he posted bail did not amount to waiver of said right as he asked for it when he filed for the approval of the cash bond. Seized in the premises were the said pieces of furniture. all the seized properties must be returned to petitioners. HELD: NO. that (a) respondent court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. La Chemise Lacoste S. To deprive an accused of this right is to deny due process. Facts: . and is therefore defective on its face. Nos. Fernandez GR.A. and to seize the wrought iropn furniture found therein which had allegedly been the object of unfair competition involving design patents. vs. Participation of Go during the trial did not amount to waiver also as he was merely forced to do so to avail his other rights. The court granted his prayer for preliminary investigation before the approval of the bond. 1984 Ponente: Gutierrez. Go even filed before the CA for such relief. FACTS: Acting on a complaint lodged by private respondent Eric Ng Mendoza. TAYPIN 331 SCRA 697 Bellosillo. Hence. Jr. The Court has consistently ruled that that a search warrant is merely a process issued by the court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction and not a criminal action which it may entertain in pursuant to its original jurisdiction. The denial of the motion prompted petitioners to come to this court. president and general manager of Mendco Dev’t Corp. ISSUE: W/N the petitioners’ contention is of merit HELD: (a) No. It is a substantive right. KENNETH ROY SAVAGE/ K ANGELIN EXPORT TRADING VS. Generally. The authority to issue search warrants is inherent in all courts and may be effected outside their territorial jurisdiction. Said article has already been repealed by the Intellectual Property Right Code. While the right to preliminary investigation is statutory and not constitutional. it is a component of due process of criminal justice.car that was taken down by the witness did not point to Go’s car but to his wife. But since the trial had already commenced. failure to invoke the same amounts to waiver. L-63796-97 May 21. Go insisted that a preliminary investigation be conducted upon the filing of the information before the court. SC AO 113-95 merely specified which courts could ‘try and decide’ cases involving violations of IPR. ISSUE 2: Whether or not Go waived his right to preliminary investigation.. as the petitioner manufactured wrought iron furniture similar to that patented by the Mendco without securing any license or patent for the same. the NBI filed an application for search warrant with the RTC of Cebu City.
organized and existing under the laws of France and not doing business in the Philippines. In 1982. Sy Juco. Ruling: Determination of probable cause mandatory for the issuance of a valid search warrant. the search warrants were recalled and set aside and the NBI agents or officers in custody of the seized items were ordered to return the same to Hemandas The Supreme Court granted the petition in GR 6379797. convinced that there was no probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrants. SR2225 (SR stands for Supplemental Register) for the trademark “CHEMISE LACOSTE & CROCODILE DEVICE” by the Philippine Patent Office for use on T-shirts. Sec. On 21 March 1983. and made permanent the Temporary Restraining Order dated 29 April 1983. National Capital Judicial Region) two applications for the issuance of search warrants which would authorize the search of the premises used and occupied by the Lacoste Sports Center and Games and Garments both owned and operated by Hemandas. The court issued Search Warrant 83-128 and 83-129 for violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. Art IV. Hemandas & Co. a duly licensed domestic firm applied for and was issued Reg. on the other hand. 64 . Probable cause defined As a mandatory requirement for the issuance of a valid search warrant.. denied due course to the petition in GR 65659 for lack of merit. Probable cause has traditionally meant such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuance thereof (People v. and thus lifting and setting aside the Temporary Restraining Order dated 5 December 1983. Thereafter. Hemandas & Co.La Chemise Lacoste SA is a foreign corporation.” “CHEMISE LACOSTE. the Constitution requires in no uncertain terms the determination of probable cause by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce (Constitution.” “CROCODILE DEVICE” and a composite mark consisting of the word “LACOSTE” and a representation of a crocodile/alligator. La Chemise Lacoste filed its opposition. The Patent Office eventually issued an order dated 3 March 1977 allowing the application and holding the registrant to be presumed the owner of the mark until after the registration is declared cancelled. La Chemise Lacoste SA filed with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) a letter-complaint alleging therein the acts of unfair competition being committed by Hemandas and requesting their assistance in his apprehension and prosecution. Branch XLIX. any criminal or civil action on the same subject matter and between the same parties would be premature. sportswear and other garment products of the company. The State Prosecutor likewise filed his opposition. La Chemise Lacoste SA filed a Petition for the Cancellation of Reg. The NBI conducted an investigation and subsequently filed with the trial court (RTC Manila. The NBI agents executed the two search warrants and as a result of the search found and seized various goods and articles described in the warrants. it applied for the registration of the same trademark under the Principal Register. however. title. It is undeniable from the records that it is the actual owner of the trademarks “LACOSTE. La Chemise Lacoste SA filed its application for registration of the trademark “Crocodile Device” (Application Serial 43242) and “Lacoste” (Application Serial 43241). On 21 November 1980. The court was. used on clothing’s and other goods specifically sporting apparels sold in many parts of the world and which have been marketed in the Philippines since 1964. 3). The Court. and interest in the trademark “CHEMISE LACOSTE & DEVICE”. assigned to Gobindram Hemandas all rights. The former was approved for publication while the latter was opposed by Games and Garments in Inter Partes Case 1658. Two years later. reversing and setting the order dated 22 April 1983 of the RTC. SR-2225 docketed as Inter Partes Case 1689. in its order dated 22 March 1983. Thus. In 1975. Hemandas filed a motion to quash the search warrants alleging that the trademark used by him was different from La Chemise Lacoste’s trademark and that pending the resolution of IPC 1658 before the Patent Office.
Great reliance has to be accorded by the judge to the testimonies under oath of the complainant and the witnesses. signs of being high on drugs. 20 SCRA 507). No. 667). its defense had been waived by petitioner since it was not raised in the lower court. Manalili vs. which turned out to be a wallet. The items were alleged to be fake and quite obviously would be needed as evidence in the criminal prosecution. 113447 FACTS: The Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police was conducting surveillance in front of the Kalookan City Cemetary due to reports of drug addicts frequenting the area. Correction of errors must be based on sound and valid grounds Herein. 1997 G. However. He was charged with Illegal Possession of Marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Although the lower court should be given the opportunity to correct its errors. There is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of the existence of probable cause since the existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination (Luna v. violating a given provision of our criminal laws. (20 SCRA 383) that probable cause “presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. petitioner asserts that the evidence seized was inadmissible against him. or committed specific omissions. No general formula or fixed rule The concept of probable cause was amplified and modified by our ruling in Stonehill v. Action on these applications must be expedited for time is of the essence. They stopped Manalili and asked for the contents of his hands. police officers found what later on turned out to be crushed marijuana. Court of Appeals October 9. ISSUES: 1) Was the search of Manalili and seizure of marijuana valid? 2) May petitioner raise this defense for the first time on . but regardless of its validity. Determination of probable cause. if there be any.” The question of whether or not probable cause exists is one which must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations (Central Bank v. Inside the wallet.R. Morfe. the court executed a complete turnabout and declared that there was no probable cause to justify its earlier issuance of the warrants. They observed Alain Manalili in the area. Plaza. but the rectification must be based on sound and valid grounds. But after hearing the motion to quash and the oppositions thereto. In addition. the findings of the judge should not disregard the facts before him nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason. Herein. Diokno. 26 SCRA 310). it was fully convinced that there existed probable cause. It is neither a trial nor a part of the trial..Phil. Application for a search warrant is heard ex parte An application for a search warrant is heard ex parte. Manalili claimed the charges were “trumped up” and that the police officers had blackmailed him. more so it is plain that our country’s ability to abide by international commitments is at stake. as fruits of an illegal seizure. the court complied with the constitutional and statutory requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant when at that point in time. On the other hand. the allegation of Hemandas that the applicant withheld information from the court was clearly no basis to order the return of the seized items. The allegation that vital facts were deliberately suppressed or concealed by La Chemise Lacoste should have been assessed more carefully because the object of the quashal was the return of items already seized and easily examined by the court. with reddish eyes and walking in a swaying manner. the Solicitor General counters that the search and seizure was valid.
the stop-and frisk. such search and seizure is unconstitutional. Of course. Such issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal. in addition to any affidavits presented to him. interrogate him and pat him for weapons. 3) seizure in plain view. “it is with the court”. so that he had to inquire from the City Fiscal its whereabouts and to which inquiry respondent Judge replied. and attach them to the record. a search warrant was issued by the respondent Judge against him for violation under PD 810.appeal? RULING: The General Rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a judicial warrant. 2) search of a moving vehicle. petitioner. Manalili had effectively waived the defense of an invalid search since this issue was not raised during the trial. as amended by PD 1306. Edilyn Arida. This led petitioner to file a motion to quash and annul the search warrant and for the return of the articles seized. However. Issue: W/N the search warrant issued by respondent Judge were valid. Orquinaza vs. The court added another exception. Mata vs. of . The motion was denied by respondent Judge stating that the court has made a thorough investigation and examination under oath of private respondents and that the fact that documents relating to search warrant were not attached immediately to the record of the criminal case is of no moment. otherwise. which is the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street. alleging that he offered. considering that the rule does not specify when these documents are to be attached to the records. Judge Bayona et. Julio Espinili. there are exceptions to the rule: 1) search incidental to a lawful arrest. 2003. Al. In addition. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. Ruling: The search warrant is tainted with illegality for being violative of the Constitution and the Rules of Court. People Facts: On Feb 5. Therefore. among others. However. together with her witness. Section 4 of Rule 126 provides that the judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant or witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing. Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. the stop-and-frisk must be grounded on probable cause that the accused has committed an offense. 1985 Ponente: De Castro Facts: An information was filed against Soriano Mata. the search warrant is tainted with illegality by failure of the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record. citing and invoking. Thereafter. This is for the safety of police officers and the general public. GR No. executed a sworn statement regarding the allege act of Orquinaza. As such. took and arranged bets on Jai Alai game by selling illegal tickets known as ‘Masiao tickets’ without any authority from the Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the government authorities concerned. the court ruled that the search and seizure was valid and admissible as evidence. 4) customs search and 5) waiver by the accused. the general manager of the said factory. Petitioner claims that during the hearing of the case. L-50720 March 26. an employee of Calamba Model Makers factory. he discovered that nowhere from the records of the said case could be found the search warrant and other pertinent papers connected to the issuance of the same. illegality of search warrant does not call for return of things seized which are prohibited.
L-47448 May 17. Instead. No. motu proprio. Ocaya. Hon. The case was referred as a case of sexual harassment. Oaya acted with grave abuse of discretion for dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Orquinaza filed an omnibus motion praying that the warrant be recalled. Emeterio Ocaya. the arraignment be invalidated and the case be dismissed. Issue: Should the case be dismissed on the ground of lack of preliminary investigation? Held: Based on the affidavits submitted by the parties. The lack of preliminary investigation would still not be a ground to quash the information against the accused much less does it affect the court’s jurisdiction. the assistant city prosecutor concluded that the more proper charge should be acts of lasciviousness. Ocaya charging Esterlina Marapao. as well as ruling against the deformity on the basis of the medical certificate. The remedy of the accused is to call the attention of the court to the lack of preliminary investigation and demand as a matter of right that one be conducted. Letitia Marapao. the respondent judge held that the respondents should be charged of either slight or less serious physical injuries only. The conduct of another preliminary investigation for the offense of acts of lasciviousness would be futile because the complainant would be presenting the same evidence which have already been studied by the prosecutor. the respondent judge evaluated the case without hearing the parties nor the witnesses. A warrant of arrest was issued against Orquinaza..kissing her and touching her breasts while she was taking a nap. Records show that neither the arraignment nor the trial was made on merit and no warrats of arrest were issued. The Provincial Fiscal then filed the petition at bar for the nullification of Hon. He also claims that he was deprived of his right to due process since the information for acts of lasciviousness was void as the preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor was for sexual harassment and not for acts of lasciviousness. Issue: Whether Hon. even if the affidavits show that Lolita Ares. nor having received their evidence. The fiscal’s motion for reconsideration was denied by Hon. The motion was denied. The orders of the respondent judge was held NULL & The jurisdiction of the court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the information or criminal . Accordingly. the victim. al. respondents Facts: The Office of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information in the court of Hon. and Diosdado Marapao of the crime of serious physical injuries. Ocaya’s orders. He filed a petition for certiorari. He again filed for a motion for reconsideration which was again denied. the information be quashed. petitioner vs. Hon. Orquinaza filed a petition to dismiss the complaint arguing that it does not contain allegation to constitute the crime of sexual harassment. 1978 The People of the Philippines. The assistant city prosecutor filed with the MTC an information charging the petitioner with acts of lasciviousness. This is so. et. ordered the dismissal of the case since the crime or slight or less physical injuries is not within the jurisdiction of the court. deforming it. Decision: VOID. Ocaya. was incapacitated for more than 30 days and a scar was left on her face.
duly notified. People vs Agbulos Facts: Angelita Bangit filed a complaint against Joselito Agbulos. On August 16. judgement will issue against the full amount of the bond. The bonding company was given 30 days to produce the person of the accused and show the cause why judgement should not be rendered against them. section 8 of the 1985 rules on criminal procedure provide that the court may. Moreover. This rule would work for the fugitive’s advantage. accused was found guilty of forcible abduction with rape. the defense rested its case. and his failure to appear unjustified. three times in December 1982. while the fourth was at about 10 pm on Feb 17. People vs Baao Facts: Rowena Frederico is a thirteen year old school drop out. Defense counsel just manifested that they were adopting the testimony of prosecution witness Ernesto Tamayo. the subsequent happening of events. and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial. thereafter. the fourth done in the backyard while the fifth was done in the living room. the accused forfeits his right to appeal. it was perfectly valid in accordance with the constitution. She said that the first three rapes were done at 8am on dates of December she could not recall. Rule 124. 1985 and still the accused failed to appear. upon motion of the appellee. charging him with Forcible abduction with rape. The bonding company fails to surrender the accused and the court issued an order stating that upon motion of fiscal. will not divest the court of jurisdiction already attached. Pursuant to the order of the court on the judgement on the bond. a warrant of arrest was issued against Agbulos. thus the hearing was reset on November 5. accused was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence. and twice in February 1983. the prosecution rested its case. The old case of people vs Avanceña required the presence of the accused at certain stages of the trial. By the same rule. She claimed that all rapes were done through force and threat of death and that the first rape caused laceration of her hymen and there was full penetration and pain in all . Agbulos was arraigned on January 23. once jurisdiction has attached to the person and subject-matter. counsel for accused appealed. nor the trial judge’s personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits without hearing the parties and their witnesses. judgement was rendered against the bonding company. She claims she was raped five times by accused appellant Baao.1984. On April 25. thus. Issue: Was the trial in absentia valid? Whether or not the accused may appeal? Held: Yes. but was later on recalled because it was issued to the wrong bonding company.complaint. Agbulos failed to appear before the court. 1984. 1981 where he pleaded guilty. Therefore. On July 11 1985. or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. This only results in the discontinuance of the trial as long as the defendant would not reappear or remain at large. Rowena decided to tell her mother about the offenses. finishing only grade 1 and of limited native intelligence. 1984. and the fifth at noon of Feb 23. The prisoner cannot simply escape and thwart the continuance of prosecution and conviction against him provided that he has been arraigned. On March 4 1983. and on June 15 1985. This rule is now modified by the bill of rights which allows trial in absentia. though it may have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. On the said date. done in the bathroom of accused-appellant’s house in Dasmariñas Cavite. dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement. On August 13. sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and indemnification.. the appeal is dismissed. Trial was further reset to January 30.
third and fifth rapes. the 11 bricks of marijuana were destroyed. his suspicion peeked because he saw at the open flap the same wrappings as the 1 brick he got from Florencio at that time. also testified that after she came to know of the rapes. she couldn’t have made up such a story on her own. His daughter testified and said the same thing. Doria Facts: Florencio Doria @ “Jun” was a seller of illegal drugs. considering the demeanour of the victim. Issue: W/N Florencio is guilty of the sale/possession of illegal drugs W/N Violeta is guilty of the sale/possession of illegal drugs . The case went to the SC for automatic review. People vs. They were able to arrest Florencio inflagrante delicto in selling the marijuana to them. His contentions were rejected. He also claims that at the times stated by Rowena on which dates she was supposedly raped. he was with his daughter at her house near Manila International Airport in Baclaran. the accusedappellant’s wife approached her and offered her 2000 Php so she would withraw the charges. the rest should also be rejected. PO3 Manlangit open the box and found 10 bricks of the same marijuana. Reyes findings. Rowena underwent intercourse for not more than five times. The RTC ruled in favour of the police and imposed upon Florencio and Violeta the penalty of Death. and that the findings were compatible with the testimony of the victim. Maximo Reyes. left and after sometime returned with the 1 brick marijuana at hand. to do some carpentry work. Alibi is an inherently weak defense. the victim’s mother. According to Dr. medico-legal officer of the NBI. falsus in omnibus. The choice really is whether it should be total acquittal or total conviction for all five charges of rape. accused should also be held liable for all five rapes and be convicted.” when there they saw the person whose name was Violeta Gadao carrying water to her house. Also. This leads the defense to invoke falsus in uno. PO3 Manlangit together with the informant posed as a buyer of marijuana. On the contention that all charges should be rejected since three were rejected. He claims that he was just being set up because he once caught the girl sealing soft drinks from his sari sari store and had scolded her. when asked where the marked bills where Florencio replied that it was at the place of “Neneth. The victim was subjected to physical examinations under Dr. Issue: Whether or not this was merely a tale concocted by Rowena. it could also conversely be argued that since truth was found on the first and fourth rapes. He also argued that the complaint was filed to extort money from him. claiming that since the three charges were rejected.000 which was later reduced to 8000. PO3 Manlangit was able to give the marked bills worth P1600 to Florencio. The Trial Judge rejected the charges on the second.instances. an amount of 15. Upon a tip of an informant. Lucia Federico.” The group went to the house of the so called “Neneth. Held: Accused-Appellant was held guilty of the crime charged. Whether or not the two charges of rape should also be rejected since the other three were rejected by the court. Simultaneously PO1 Badua was able to get the marked bills out of Violeta and arrested her. PO1 Badua tagged along as support in the whole operation. they questioned her where the marked bills were. His alibi of being in Baclaran on December is not enough to relieve him of the charges because he couldn’t show that he did not have any opportunity to go back to Dasmarinas during that month. The Accused-appellant relied mainly on denial and alibi. At this time also a box with a flap open was seen by the PO3 Manlangit.
000 While Violeta was acquitted PEOPLE VS. A. not being authorized by law. That marijuana can’t be readily identified with just the flap open and the plastic pack sticking out. is actually committing. The law authorizes entrapment. When an offense has in fact just been committed. The marked bills found in her person also didn’t prove her participation in the sale of drugs by Florencio The 5 instances where a search and seizure without a warrant is valid when: Search incident to a lawful arrest Search of moving motor vehicle Search in violation of customs laws Seizure of evidence in plain view When the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizure Option b. Dasmarinas. Florencio was convicted with Reclusion Perpetua and a fine of P500. The law authorizes the mix of both subjective and objective test in determining if there is entrapment in a case. the search and seizure can’t be the first exception to a valid warrantless search and seizure. did then and there wilfully. The search and seizure can’t also be considered in plainview. Article 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. background and life of the accused in determining if the crime is indeed committed out of his volition and without inducement. at Brgy. xxx the above-named accused. MONTILLA G. Sec 5 Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on criminal procedure enumerate the valid Arrests without a warrant: When. that is the police conducts an operation against the accused without inducing him to commit the said crime. because PO3 Manlangit himself admitted that the items in the box could have been other items. 7659 in an information which alleges: “That on or about 20th day of June 1994. 1998 Regalado. R. R. in his prescence. 6425.: Facts: Ruben Montilla. transport . Salitran. As to (a) it was not in hot pursuit.Held: Florencio is guilty. No. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. c. as amended by R. Entrapment there is no inducement and the accused did the crime out of his volition. and the law authorizes such arrest without a warrant in such cases. Instigation the crime was committed with inducement by the police and the accused did the crime not of his volition. No. 30. if it has no inducement in the whole of its process. and When the prisoner to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place he is serving final judgement or temporarily confined while his case is pending. J. No. unlawfully and feloniously. and e can be immediately disposed of as a reason. or is attempting to commit the offense. he was caught inflagrante delicto. alias “Joy” was charged for violating Section 4. Violeta can’t be guilty of selling illegal drugs because the drugs were illegally seized from her house. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. and as to (b) there’s no probable cause. Since the arrest of Violeta was without a warrant and doesn’t fall among the exceptions provided in Sec 5 Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on criminal procedure. The objective test looks into the conduct of the police in trying to plan and execute the entrapment against the accused. administer. The subjective test looks on the daily practice. Cavite. No. the person to be arrested has committed. A. 123872 Jan.
After arraignment. respondent judge issued an order dismissing the 1st criminal case on the ground of ex post facto law and also dismissed the two remaining criminal cases on the ground of violation of private respondent’s right against double jeopardy. Prosecution filed for a motion for reconsideration but was denied. then he is not only prejudging the case but also takes the side of the accused. 1989 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS . RTC granted the consolidation and the 3 infornations were re-raffled and reassigned to Branch 52-Manila presided public respondent Judge Nitafan. Nitafan Facts: On January 9. 1992. Pursuant to the Rules.and deliver 28 kilos of dried marijuana leaves which are considered prohibited drugs. Issue: Whether a judge can motu proprio inititate a motion to quash an information? Held: In the case at bench. 960.On 31 October 1987. The right to file a motion to quash belongs only to the accused. 265 were filed against private respondent Imelda R. Without any motion from the accused. the sole exception is lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged which goes into the competence of the court to hear and pass judgement on the cause. People vs. still the search on his belongings and the consequent confiscation of the illegal drugs as a result thereof was justified as a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Section 5 (a) Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Marcos pleaded not guilty. Private respondent pleaded to the charges without filing any motion to quash and as such she has deemed to have waived and abandon her right to avail any legal ground which she may have properly and timely invoked to challenge the complaint or information. Marcos. P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw. December 14. Judge Nitafan issued an order requiring petitioners to show cause why the cases should not be dismissed on the ground that it violates Marcos’ right against ex post facto law and the two other informations on the ground that private respondent’s right against double jeopardy was violated. On the defense argument that the warrantless search conducted on appellant invalidates the evidence obtained from him. If the judge initiates the motion to quash. Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Western . three criminal informations for violation of Section 4 of Central Bank Circular No. On August 7. Petitioners filed motions for the consolidation of the three informations with the 21 other remaining cases pending before the RTC. 1992. It is clear that the only grounds which the court may consider in resolving a motion to quash an information or complaint are (1) those ground stated in the motion and (2) the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. There is nothing in the rules which authorizes the court or judge to motu proprio initiate a motion to quash if no such motion was filed by the accused. as amended. The Solicitor General alleged in its motion that “the indictable acts under the three informations form part of and is related to the transaction complained”. PRUDENTE V DAYRIT PADILLA. in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. Issue: Whether the warrantless search conducted on appellant invalidates the evidence obtained from him? Ruling: A legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily cloaks the arresting officer with authority to validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons. and (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Prudente's office a bulging brown envelope with 3 live fragmentation hand grenades separately wrapped with old newspapers. presided over by respondent Judge Abelardo Dayrit." In his supporting deposition.Police District (WPD). In other words. Angeles. among others that: That he has been informed and has good and sufficient reasons to believe that Nemesio Prudente who may be found at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP). and that he "has verified the report and found it to be a fact. Angeles declared that. Dimagmaliw alleged. . Florenio C. now Associate Justice of the CA. Hence. .. subscribed and sworn to before respondent Judge. YES Ratio The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay. filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. Edgar Dula Torre. Anonas St. for the reason that it did not particularly describe the place to be searched and that it failed to charge one specific offense. the applicant and his witness had no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances which became the basis for issuing the questioned search warrant. (3) the search warrant was a general warrant. explosives. ISSUES 1. Sta. Dimagmaliw stated that "he has been informed" that Prudente "has in his control and possession" the firearms and explosives described therein. Angeles. WON the Search Warrant is invalid on the ground that it was issued in violation of the rule that a search warrant can be issued only in connection with one specific offense HELD 1. contending that there were several rooms at the ground floor and the second floor of the PUP 3.On 6 Nov 1987. 19 of the Supreme Court in that the complainant failed to allege under oath that the issuance of the search warrant on a Saturday was urgent. Manila. this present recourse. Florenio C. . Angeles. P/Lt. Branch 33. Mesa. WON the Search Warrant is invalid on the ground that it failed to particularly describe the place to be searched. and P/Major Romeo Maganto. [b] What the records show is the deposition of witness. as the only support to Dimagmaliw's application. Precinct 8 Commander. handgrenades and ammuntion which are illegally possessed or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense which the said Nemesio Prudente is keeping and concealing at the premises of the PUP. WON the Search Warrant is invalid as it does not show a probable cause since it was issued on the basis of facts and circumstances which were not within the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witness but based on hearsay evidence 2.). had no personal knowledge of the facts which formed the basis for the issuance of the search warrant.. and (4) the search warrant was issued in violation of Circular No. In support of the application for issuance of search warrant. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms. petitioner Prudente moved to quash the search warrant. executed a "Deposition of Witness"2 dated 31 October 1987. but acquired knowledge thereof only through information from other sources or persons. Respondent Judge issued denied the petitioner's motion and supplemental motion to quash.On 1 Nov 1987. Reasoning [a] In his application for search warrant. (2) the examination of the said witness was not in the form of searching questions and answers. for violation of PD No. and the said deposition is based on hearsay. They found in the drawer of a cabinet inside the wash room of Dr. an application1 for the issuance of a search warrant. they "gathered informations from verified sources" that the holders of the said firearms and explosives are not licensed to possess them. Sampaloc. etc. He claimed that (1) the complainant's lone witness. the search warrant was enforced by some 200 WPD operatives led by P/Col. Lt. as a result of their continuous surveillance for several days. OIC of the Intelligence Section of ISAD. a Sunday and All Saints Day. has in his control or possession firearms.
the application for search warrant and the search warrant itself described the place to be searched as the premises of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. 1866 that was violated is not of such a gravity as to call for its invalidation on this score. at PUP." referred to ammunitions and explosives. [b] The Constitution as well as the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not recognize the issuance of one search warrant for illegal possession of firearms. the checks were dishonoured because the drawer’s account was already closed. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. The usual practice adopted by the courts is to file a single information for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. Disposition Petition is GRANTED. Sta." 2. this was granted. These cases were consolidated. the search warrant was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. On December 27 1999. Neither is the filing of three different informations for each of the above offenses sanctioned by the Rules of Court. etc. Manila. NO Ratio The application for search warrant which was captioned: "For Violation of PD No. Respondent Ramon Samua informed Arturo de Guzman and petitioner but both failed to pay. Reasoning . the failure of the search warrant to mention the particular provision of PD No.).In the case at bar. Reasoning [a] While the said decree punishes several offenses. Nemesio Prudente. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms. and another for illegal possession of explosives. the RTC Dagupan city acquitted Sapiera of all charges of Estafa but did not rule on the civil aspect of the case. more particularly. When they were presented for payment." means that it was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Sapiera vs Court of Appeals Facts: Remedios Nota Sapiera. the allegations contained in the application of Dimagmaliw and the declaration of Angeles in his deposition were insufficient basis for the issuance of a valid search warrant. Hence. purchased from Monrico Mart grocery items. As held in the Alvarez case: "The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses." As explained by respondent Judge. the term "etc. mostly cigarettes and paid for them with checks issued by one Arturo de Guzman. even if there were several rooms at the ground floor and second floor of the PUP. of the existence of probable cause.150 Php as civil indemnity and was sentenced for imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day. with reasonable effort. on several occasions. Dr. On . 87-14 ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. NO Ratio A description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can. the offices of the Department of Military Science and Tactics at the ground floor. Hence. located at Anonas St. Arturo de Guzman was held liable for the 2 BP 22 cases and was ordered to pay Sua 167. etc. The Search Warrant No.Evidently. These checks were signed by Sapiera on the back. The designation of the places to be searched sufficiently complied with the constitutional injunction that a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched. ascertain and identify the place intended.. a sari-sari store owner. Sampaloc. Mesa. one warrant for illegal possession of ammunitions. four charges of Estafa were filed against Sapiera while two counts of BP 22 was filed against Arturo de Guzman. qualified by the phrase "illegal possession of firearms. Respondent filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals praying that the appeal be given due course. Respondent Sua appealed regarding the civil aspect of Sapiera’s case but the courtdenied it saying that the acquittal of petitioner was absolute. In other words. Second Floor and other rooms at the second floor. and the Office of the President. the alleged violation in this case was. 3.
seeking the quashal of the warrants and the return of their seized property. Hence this petition by Sapiera claiming that the CA erred in rendering such decision because she was acquitted and the fact from which the civil liability exists did not exist. Tariff Laws. They filed petitions with the court. the court cannot act on the petition. correspondence. Diokno 1967 FACTS: L-19550 June 19. The CA the issued a resolution noting that the admission of both parties that Sua already collected 125000 for the 2 check paid by De Guzman on the BP 22 cases.000 Php. Sapiera filed a motion for reconsideration. and the like. sec 17 of Negotiable instruments law says that she would be considered an indorser of the bill of exchange and under section 66 thereof would be held liable for breach of warranty and is held liable to pay the holder who may be compelled to pay the instrument. petitioners assert that other items not included in the warrants. (c) where the civil liability is not derived from or based on the criminal act. Petitioners assailed the validity of the warrants as such warrants did not describe with particularity the things to be seized. etc. Issue: Whether or not Sapiera could be held civilly liable when she was acquitted in the criminal charges against her. financial records. may question the validity of the warrants.January 1996. and any defects were cured by consent of the petitioners. 2 of rule 111 of the rules of court provides that extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil. The warrants directed police officers to seize and take possession of various items of personal property such as “books of accounts. and not on the basis of actual probable cause. Civil liability is not extinguished where: (a) the acquittal is not based on reasonable doubt. petitioners have no cause of action since only the corporation. as a separate juridical personality. With regards to the seized items from the offices. On the other hand. were admissible as evidence in court. Respondent judges issued a total of 42 search warrants against the corporate offices and private residences of the accused.” issued on the basis of no specific offense and with no particular definition of the items to be seized. CA rendered a decision ordering Sapiera to pay 335000 php to Sua. ISSUES: 1) Are the 42 search warrants valid? 2) Are the documents and other effects admissible as evidence against respondents? RULING: The seized items were taken from two kinds of locations: the offices of the petitioners and their residences. It appears that the payment should be deducted on her liability as they involved the same two checks which Sapiera was involved in. vouchers. General Warrants are prohibited by the Consititution since there are clearly issued to conduct fishing expeditions. As to the effects seized from the homes of petitioners. The Constitution provides that items to be seized must be “particularly described” and probable . unless this shows that the fact from which the civil liability is based is proven to not have existed because of such acquittal. were also seized. Stonehill vs. regardless of the validity of the warrants. They also claim that such evidence. the CA deducted the liability to 210.” The warrants were based on alleged violations of Central Bank Laws. Since all checks were signed by Sapiera on the back. Held: Yes. public respondents claimed the warrants were valid. (b) Where the court expressly declares that the liability is not criminal but only civil. such as cash. As the petitioners filed the objection in their personal capacities. it is clear that the warrants were “General Warrants. The decision of the case would show that the acquittal was based on failure of the prosecution to present sufficient evidence showing conspiracy between her and De Guzman. In addition. Sec.
in the case of Brocka vs. Hence. they may not be used as evidence against the petitioners. it was found out that Venus was not given the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration of the resolution recommending the filing of information. Meanwhile. Using his personal funds. In the motion for reconsideration. Sandiganbayan then granted him time to file a motion for reconsideration. 3 RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act). the special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case. The lot was used as garage for the municipality’s fire truck free of charge. Hence. Among those enumerated is when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied. It was forwarded to the Deputy Ombudsman of Cebu and was dismissed. Ombudsman Desierto approved the resolution recommending the filing of information against Venus. As such. Upon review. they are to be deemed fruits of a poisonous tree. In not finding facts constituting bad faith. In human relations. Venus went to Manila and asked for the postponement of the bidding but it was denied. the Deputy Ombudsman found no ground to believe that Venus violated RA 3019 but the Ombudsman and the other Deputy Ombudsman disagreed. VENUS VS DESIERTO OCTOBER 21. Venus informed the SB of the denial. The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of said municipality issued a Resolution authorizing Venus to negotiate with the Board of Liquidators in the purchase of a lot in the municipality. 1988. Then. Venus went to Manila and submitted with the Board of Liquidators the resolution and a letter-proposal for the purchase of the lot. He who charges bad faith has the burden of proving the same. Generally. Sec. However. this petition for prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. Venus sought the opinion of the Provincial Auditor as to the requirements of bidding in order that the municipality may validly participate. ISSUE: Whether or not arraignment may be restrained with injunction or writ of prohibition. Said prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of probable cause. criminal prosecutions may no be restrained through injunction or prohibition as the determination of probable cause for the filing of information is within the discretion of ombudsman or prosecutor. In the case at bar. being the highest bidder. This means that the funds will not be available on the day of bidding. Desierto disapproved the recommendation. The proposal was rejected by the board and set bidding on Sept. And that the funds would be pre-audited before its release. Upon his surrender to the Sandiganbayan. Enrile. HELD: YES. SB members Mars Regalado and Harry Abayon filed a complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor charging Venus with violation of paragraph H.cause can only be found “in connection with one specific offense. The Provincial Auditor opined that it would be impossible to participate as it would need a resolution from the SB. 19. The information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. using his own money. it was an error for the ombudsman to . Special Prosecutor Ines found reasonable ground for filing of information against Venus. A motion for reconsideration was filed before the Office of Special Prosecutor. Hence. Sandiganbayan set Venus’ arraignment. DAVIDE FACTS: Eriberto Venus (Venus) was the mayor of New Washington. 1998 J.” Since these items were seized on the basis of an invalid warrant. good faith is always presumed. Aklan. the Supreme Court provided exceptions to the above-mentioned rule. Venus bid and got the property. which would take at least 2 weeks. Nearly four years after the sale. Ombudsman Vasquez disapproved the dismissal and the case was re-raffled to Deputy Ombudsman Tanco who recommended the filing of information against Venus.
The resolution issued by the SB was for him to negotiate with the Board of Liquidators for the sale of the lot. there was no prima facie case against Venus. On his way out. logically there could be no evident bad faith. Inc. Venus faithfully performed his duty and this duty ended when he asked for postponement even if it was denied. Hence. since it still involves the same facts. MTC denied the motion to quash. Villaflor filed a petiton for certiorari with the Supreme Court. But the Information was however amended when petitioner’s injuries turned out to be more serious. Vivar filed for a motion for reconsideration which was again denied.pass on the duty of finding bad faith to Sandiganbayan. the Supreme Court ordered Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case. Vivar filed a petition for certiorari in the RTC RTC granted the motion to quash and denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Villaflor. The municipality did not intend to participate in the bidding as shown by the absence of a resolution to that effect and the absence of the funds for the occasion. There was no bad faith in the actuations of Venus. Washington Distillers. Section 3. a preliminary investigation was for slight physical injuries was conducted by the assistant city prosecutor. In finding no bad faith. Villaflor vs. The injuries sustained by Gian turned out to be more serious than they had appeared so an Information for serious physical injuries was filed and the charge for slight physical injuries was withdrawn. Pampanga for alleged violation of RA 623. Nowhere in the rule mention of a lack of preliminary investigation as a ground for a motion to quash. he filed a Motion to Quash the Information for grave threats since it was made in connection with the charge of serious physical injuries should have been absorbed by the latter. he has deemed waived his right. However the change in the information was only a formal amendment and did not violate the right of Vivar against hasty. Gian met Dindo who told that next time. Further. Vivar Facts: An information for slight physical injuries was filed agaist Dindo Vivar for beating Gian Paulo Vivar outside the Fat Tueasday Bar. Issues: Can the court motu proprio order the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of preliminary investigation? Should the failure of the public prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation be considered a ground to quash the informations? Held: The Court ruled that the absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information. malicious and oppressive prosecution. and because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over it. 314. When accused failed to assert any ground for a motion to quash before arraignment. Another Information for grave threats was filed against Vivar. RA 3019 requires that bad faith must be EVIDENT. In the case a bar. otherwise known as An act to regulate the use of . Vivar. instead of filing a counter affidavit. In finding the manifest innocence of Venus. Vs Ca Facts: On the basis of a search warrant issued by the Judge of the RTC of Manila. He was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. I will use my gun on you. 289 pieces of 350cc round white flint bottles were seized by the NBI from the premises of petitioners in San Fernando. Venus did as he was mandated and returned with the denial of their offer. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the grounds on which an accused can move to quash the complaint or information.
Judge Mogul denied the Motion and set Crespo’s arraignment. his recourse to the SC. de Gala . Said Motion was denied by Judge Mogul. the main proceedings by which private respondents have been able to obtain possession of what it claims to be its property.duly stamped or marked bottles. casks. Therefore. Crespo’s Motion For Reconsideration also having been denied. 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. which granted the same. the CA granted Crespo’s Writ of Injucntion and perpetually restrained Judge Mogul from having Crespo arrainged until the Sec. which was granted. HELD: The petition must fail. for all intents and purposes. Held: No. Thereafter. There was neither complaint by which the petitioners could have been informed of the charge against them nor answer by which they could have heard in the defense. Petition dismissed. A motion for reconsideration was issued my private respondents but was denied. Hence. the proceeding for search warrant have become. Crespo V Mogul 151 SCRA 462 (1987) FACTS: An information for Estafa was filed by the Fiscal against Crespo in the Criminal Circuit Court of Lucena. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in court. When the case was set for arraignment. before property claimed by them was taken from them and given to private respondents. so that instead of merely being an ancillary writ issued either as an incident of criminal proceedings. Petitioners filed a motion to quash on the ground that the RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction to issue a warrant to be executed in Pampanga. Crespo vs. What is noticeable about this case is the that possession of the bottles was transferred to private respondents through the expediency of a search warrant. barrels. The Fiscal then filed a Motion attaching the Secretary’s Resolution calling for the dismissal of the case. Mogul FACTS: On April 18. private respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals and CA set aside the decision of RTC ruling that a search warrant may be enforced outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC of Manila Issue: Whether or not the search warrant issued against petitioners is valid. and other similar containers. The search warrant issued against petitioners lost its validity as a result of the failure of the NBI to commence criminal prosecution and the bottles seized from them should be returned to petitioners in the absence of any civil action for their recovery. ISSUE: W/N the trial court may refuse to grant a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Fiscal under orders from the Secretary of Justice and instead insist on arraignment. the ultimate disposition thereof lies solely on its sound discretion. Thereafter. boxes. kegs. as amended by RA 5700. the Secretary of Justice should refrain from entertaining a petition for review when the complaint or information has already been filed in court. of Justice finally made his decision and ordered the Fiscal to move for dismissal of the case. he filed a TRO with the CA. Crespo filed a Motion To Defer Arraingment on the ground that there was a pending Petition for Review with the Department of Justice.
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 Provincial Fiscal for the filing of the information. The least that the fiscal should do is to continue to appear for the prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of the evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his direction and control.. A petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the accused in the Court of Appeals. in spite of his opinion to the contrary. In a decision of October 25.with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Mario Fl. 1977 but the arraignment was deferred to August 18.Catalino Macaraig. 1978 the Judge denied the motion and set the arraigniment. may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits. Leodegario L. On May 15. The accused then filed a petition for certiorari. 1978 then Undersecretary of Justice. A motion for reconsideration of said decision filed by the accused was denied. The fiscal should not shirk from the responsibility of appearing for the People of the Philippines even under such circumstances much less should he abandon the prosecution of the case leaving it to the hands of a private prosecutor for then the entire proceedings will be null and void. His Honor. Jr. On January 23. 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. In an order of August 2. 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. In an order of August 1. A motion for reconsideration of the order was denied in the order of August 5. Hence this petition for review of said decision was filed by accused. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice to whom the case was elevated for review. Hon. 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. 1979 a restraining order was issued by the Court of Appeals against the threatened act of arraignment of the accused until further orders from the Court. 1979 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and lifted the restraining order of January 23. Jr. prohibition and mandamus with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or TRO in the Court of Appeals. On November 24. denied the motion. HELD: The role of the fiscal or prosecutor as We all know is to see that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person accused before the Courts. Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. 1977 to afford nine for petitioner to elevate the matter to the appellate court. 1977 the Court of Appeals restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the arraignment of the accused until further orders of the Court. 1977. 1978 with the trial court. On March 22. A motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence was filed by the Provincial Fiscal dated April 10. 1978 a decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the writ and perpetually restraining the judge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of the accused in the case until the Department of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for review. Thus. the presiding judge. resolving the petition for review 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. In an order of August 17. In a comment that was filed by the Solicitor General he recommended that the petition be given due course. Mogul. 1979. attaching thereto a copy of the letter of Undersecretary Macaraig. The Court is the . 1978 the private prosecutor was given time to file an opposition thereto.
This was denied by the court a quo in an order dated 22 April 1974. that he was no longer interested in the further prosecution of the case and that he has already forgiven the accused for their acts. The affidavit of desistance. the Secretary of Justice should. The Provincial Fiscal moved to reconsider the order of dismissal. which is the authority to hear and determine the case. Hence. the order of arrest issued by the Court against the accused Rafael Anadilla dated March 11. On 20 March 1974. ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party. and at the same time set the trial of the case for 29 and 30 July 1974. the guilt of the accused cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt. as far as practicable. but without a motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal. The matter should be left entirely for the determination of the Court. The hearing set on 11 March 1974 was. It alleged. among others. he requests for the dismissal of the said case. Trial of the case was set on 11 and 12 March 1974. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. 1974. the court a quo issued an order for the arrest of said accused. is hereby ordered lifted. the Provincial Warden is ordered to release said accused from their detention immediately upon receipt of the order. was executed by the offended party on 20 March 1974 and subscribed and sworn to before the branch Clerk of Court. relied upon by the aforequoted order. respondent Rafael Anadilla who had not yet been arrested by the police authorities. when the complaint or information has already been filed in Court. Sunga FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the order of the CFI of CamSur dismissing motu proprio a criminal case as well as of the order of the same court denying the motion for reconsideration of said earlier order. the court a quo issued the now assailed order which dismissed the criminal case and consequently. complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss the case. 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.best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. the motion to dismiss must be addressed to the court which has disretion over the disposition of the case. any move on the part of the complainant or . In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court. While the Crespo doctrine has settled that the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case should be dismissed (after the complaint or information has been filed in court). this petition was filed. however. Republic vs. Fiscal determines direction of prosecution. When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is isued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested. and that in view of those circumstances. 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. that his material witnesses could no longer be contacted and that without their testimonies. On the same date. postponed in view of the absence of one of the accused. The bail bond posted for the provisional liberty of the accused is ordered cancelled. Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla. On 10 August 1964. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. In the case of Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla. refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal. HELD:The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. an information for Attempted Homicide was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur against accused-private respondents Rafael Anadilla. still.
the rule is that one can not be held to answer for any crime committed by him except in the jurisdiction where it was committed. with intent of gain. Hence. this appeal. The informations were filed by the provincial fiscal of Pampanga in the Court of First Instance of said province after receiving the report of the preliminary inquiries made. Nueva Ecija. and within the jurisdiction of this court. owned by Leon Ladores. and consummated at the municipality of Candaba. worth sixty pesos (P60) each and to his damage and prejudice in the total amount of P120 and a male carabao valued at ninety pesos (P90). one of which is the allegation that the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint or information is filed and that said court has authority to try it. The appellee waived his right to a preliminary investigation and asked that the two cases be remanded to the Court of First Instance for trial and final judgment. Philippine Islands. after all. He is. upon complaint. on the ground that. by the justice of the peace court of Candaba. It is only after hearing the prosecuting fiscal's view that the Court should exercise its exclusive authority to continue or dismiss the case. ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI of Pampanga has jurisdiction to try and decide the two cases in question. Francisco Mercado. should first be referred to the prosecuting fiscal for his own view on the matter. The commission of both having been commenced at Gapan. where they were found in his possession. in the municipality of Candaba. . On June 21. it being alleged in the informations by which they were commenced that the accused stole the carabaos described therein in Gapan. for theft of large cattle. Mercado FACTS: This is an appeal by the prosecution form an order of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga whereby said court declared itself without jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decided two criminal cases pending before it. in the Province of Nueva Ecija. did. where they were found in his possession. Pampanga. the accused. voluntarily. as he in fact did afterwards. of the Province of Nueva Ecija. which is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Province of Pampanga. Ladores. Lower court ruled that the cases are not triable in Pampanga. steal. Pampanga. Pampanga. said crimes had taken place and had been committed in the municipality of Gapan. Said rule is based on the legal provision which prescribes the essential requisites of a good complaint or information. against the appellee Francisco Mercado. illegally and criminally.offended party to dismiss the criminal case. HELD: In criminal proceedings. in control of the prosecution of the case and he may have his own reasons why the case should not be dismissed. even if without objection of the accused. Pampanga. although the stolen animals were afterwards brought by the appellee to the municipality of Candaba. 1936. take. where the case originated. maliciously. The petition is hereby DISMISSED. to Candaba. and without the knowledge and consent of the owner. in order to bring them. then and there. and carry away two male carabaos belonging to Pedro A. People vs.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.