Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

ABBARIAO v BELTRAN 468 SCRA 421 PANGANIBAN; August 31, 2005
NATURE Administrative matter in the Supreme Court FACTS - This stemmed from an administrative case filed by Abbariao against Judge Beltran. Beltran was charged with gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering unjust judgment. - Abarriao was the former branch manager of Country Banker’s Assurance Corporation. In October 1992, Joseph Abraham procured 2 insurance policies from him and issued a post-dated check to serve as pasyment. But the cheque was subsequently dishonored. - Informations were filed before before Judge Beltran for estafa and violation of BP 22. Petitioners’ Claim - Petitioner claims that Beltran’s ruling that there was no valid insurance contract with Abraham was erroneous and that he had no jurisdiction over the case in the first place. Respondents’ Comments - Beltran claims that there was no valid insurance contract between Abbariao and Abraham because the insurance policy form of Abraham was disapproved. - He also claims he has jurisdiction over the case because the accused was arraigned in his court and the prosecutor failed to withdraw the case. ISSUE 1. WON the judge is guilty of rendering unjust judgment 2. WON Beltran’s ruling showed gross ignorance of the law in terms of assuming jurisdiction over the case HELD 1. NO, the judge must be absolved from this charge. Ratio The acts of judges pertaining to their judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary power, unless such acts are commited with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. In the absence of proof to the contrary, an erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith. 2. YES. Beltran had no authority to rule over the case.

a2010

page 1

Prof.
warrant of arrest. The spouses then filed a motion to quash and sought the nullification of “subsequent orders”. They alleged that the MTCC had no jurisdiction and authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of a complaint filed by an offended party directly with the court. The authority to conduct a preliminary investigation was vested solely on the Office of the City Prosecutor. - While waiting for the resolution of their motion to quash, the spouses did not post bail. On April 10, 2002 Corazon Ribaya was apprehended by arresting officers in the public market by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge. - The complainant filed this administrative case against Judge Parcia. The motions basically questioned respondent’s authority to conduct a preliminary investigation. - In her answer, respondent judge claimed that complainant was not a party in Criminal Case No. 8617. Respondent explained that she conducted the preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint against the spouses because the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Office of the City Prosecutor was too busy to do so. - To support her claim, respondent attached the affidavit of OIC City Prosecutor Vasquez of the then newly-created Ligao City. Vasquez stated that the City Prosecutor’s Office was still undergoing reorganization when the subject criminal complaint was filed. It had neither enough manpower nor office space in the Hall of Justice. Positions had not yet been filled. His workload as Asst Provincial Prosecutor and OIC City Prosecutor was so heavy that time constraints did not permit him to conduct preliminary investigations. Thus, it was the respondent judge who conducted the preliminary investigation. - the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that respondent erred when she conducted the preliminary investigation of the subject criminal complaint even after the Municipality of Ligao, Albay had been converted into a city. The OCA recommended that: (1) the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and (2) the respondent be reprimanded, directed to concentrate her time and effort on performing her judicial tasks and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely. - A motion for reconsideration was filed by respondent on October 1, 2003. This time, respondent claimed that what she conducted

Ratio A court can only take cognizance of a case that falls within its jurisdiction. Reasoning - April 15, 1994 is the date of effectivity of RA 7691. RA 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the first-level courts by providing that first-level courts shall have jurisdiction over criminal cases in which the offense is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, regardless of the amount of the fine. - January 30, 1995 was the date the information was filed. The case had to do with the violation of BP 22 which is penalized by an imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than one year. Thus when the information was filed, RA 7691 was already in effect. - During the tenure of the former presiding judge, the issue of jurisdiction over the case was already pending resolution. He also displayed indecisiveness by relying on the public prosecutor’s assurance that his court had acquired jurisdiction. - Aside from this instance, there were two other occasions when Beltran was charged and found guilty of gross ignorance of the law (in De Austria v. Beltran and Andres v. Beltran). DISPOSITION Judge Beltran was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law for which he is fined P20,000 as recommended by the OCA and is warned that a repetition of the same act would merit a graver penalty.

RIBAYA v JUDGE BINAMIRA-PARCIA AM No. MTJ-04-1547 CORNEJO; April 15, 2005
NATURE Administrative case against Judge Aurora BinamiraParcia of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Ligao City, Albay relative to Criminal Case No. 8617 (People v. Sps. Ribaya) FACTS - Asst Provincial Prosecutor Pedro Vega, in his personal capacity, filed before the MTCC, Ligao City a criminal complaint for estafa against the Spes Ribaya on November 29, 2001. The spouses, after receiving P12,000 from Vega, allegedly misappropriated the amount to the latter’s prejudice. The preliminary investigation was then conducted by respondent judge. - Complainant, the daughter of the accused spouses, observed several irregularities in the conduct of the preliminary investigation and the issuance of the

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
on November 29, 2001 was a preliminary examination to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the spouses. Respondent also claimed that the criminal complaint was governed by Sec. 9, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the rule governing cases that did not require preliminary investigation. Since the amount involved in the estafa case was P12,000, no preliminary investigation was required. ISSUES 1. WON respondent judge had the authority to conduct preliminary investigation 2. WON respondent judge is guilty of misconduct in office 3. WON preliminary investigation was not required for the estafa case 4. WON warrant of arrest was valid HELD 1. NO - Although judges of inferior courts are authorized to conduct preliminary investigation of all crimes within their jurisdiction, the task is essentially an executive function. As far back as Collector of Customs v. Villaluz, we already held that: [w]hile we sustain the power of the x x x courts to conduct preliminary examination, pursuant to Our Constitutional power of administrative supervision over all courts, as a matter of policy, we enjoin x x x judge[s] x x x to concentrate on hearing and deciding before their courts. x x x [Judges] should not encumber themselves with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints, which they should refer to the municipal judge or provincial or city fiscal, who in turn can utilize the assistance of the state prosecutor to conduct such preliminary examination and investigation. - City judges then were clearly authorized to conduct preliminary investigation and examination. But even then, we also held that the provisions of Rule 112 granting city judges the authority to conduct preliminary investigation did not apply to judges of cities the charters of which authorized the city fiscal only to conduct preliminary investigation of criminal complaints. - This ruling was, in fact, integrated into the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under Sec. 1, Rule 110, criminal actions in chartered cities are

a2010

page 2

Prof.
judge rendering it must at all times maintain the appearance of fairness and impartiality. - Considering all this, respondent judge committed simple misconduct in office. Misconduct in office has a well-defined meaning. It refers to misconduct that affects the judge’s performance of her duties and not just her character as a private individual. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. 3. YES - Respondent correctly observed that it was not needed in the estafa case. The maximum penalty for the crime allegedly committed there (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) did not meet the minimum penalty (at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day) required to make a preliminary investigation part of the spouses’ right to due process. 4. YES - As long as the constitutional mandate was complied with, that is, the warrant of arrest was issued upon a finding of probable cause personally by the judge after an examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, the warrant of arrest was valid. - Respondent judge examined the complainant Pedro Vega on the day the complaint was filed and she was satisfied that probable cause existed. The warrant of arrest she issued against the spouses Ribaya was, therefore, justified and no violation of their constitutional rights occurred. DISPOSITION Respondent Judge Aurora Binamira-Parcia is hereby found guilty of simple misconduct and a fine of P11,000 is imposed on her. She is hereby directed to devote her time and effort exclusively to discharging her judicial functions. She is furthermore warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will merit a more severe penalty.

instituted by filing the complaint only with the City Prosecutor. The rule implies that the task of conducting preliminary investigation in these cities is now lodged with the Office of the City Prosecutor. Consequently, inferior court judges of cities whose charters authorize only the fiscal to conduct preliminary investigation are no longer allowed to perform this function. - The Municipality of Ligao was converted into a city by RA 9008 which took effect on Feb 21, 2001. This law, also known as the charter of the City of Ligao, provides in Sec. 50 that: (a) There shall be established in the city a prosecution service to be headed by a city prosecutor and such number of assistant prosecutors as may be necessary, who shall be organizationally part of the DOJ… (b) The City Prosecutor shall handle the criminal prosecution in the MTC in the city as well as in the RTC for criminal cases originating in the territory of the city, and shall render to or for the city such services as are required by law, ordinance or regulation of the DOJ… - Clearly, respondent judge had no more authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of the subject criminal complaint. The officer authorized to conduct preliminary investigations in the then newly-created City of Ligao was its City Prosecutor. At that time, the duty devolved upon OIC City Prosecutor Vasquez, despite the administrative difficulties he was encountering. 2. YES - We noticed the contradiction between her answer and her motion for reconsideration as to what she actually conducted on November 29, 2001. In her answer, she justified her authority to conduct a preliminary investigation. In her motion for reconsideration of the OCA’s resolution, however, she declared that she conducted a preliminary examination to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest -There appear just too many intriguing uncertainties surrounding the filing of the estafa case. We therefore direct our attention to respondent judge’s failure to erase our doubts over how she administers justice in her jurisdiction. - Respondent judge must be reminded that she should do honor to her position not only by rendering just, correct and impartial decisions but doing so in a manner free from any suspicion as to their fairness and impartiality, and as to her integrity. A spotless dispensation of justice requires not only that the decision rendered be intrinsically fair but that the

TUMANG v BAUTISTA 136 SCRA 682 ABAD-SANTOS; May 31 1985
NATURE Petition to review and annul orders of RTC Laguna FACTS - Emilio Javier filed a sakdal against Enrique Tumang and his daughter Georgia Tumang. - The sakdal was written in Tagalog and was unaccompanied by an English translation.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
- The Tumangs prayed that Javier be ordered to file a copy of the complaint as translated in English, and a copy of the criminal complaint and Decision of acquittal in the unjust vexation case mentioned in Javier’s complaint. - TC ruled on Oct. 21 1982 that the complaint written in Pilipino, which is an official language, is proper and is admitted. TC also ruled that it is not absolutely necessary that copies of the complaint and criminal case be attached as annexes. Javier should have, however, at least stated the docket number as well as name of the court and branch number. - The Tumangs failed to answer the sakdal and were declared in default. They sought to reconsider, not only the order of default but also the order admitting the complaint in Pilipino. - TC set aside its order of default that refused to reconsider its order of October 21, 1982. - The Tumangs filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the complaint did not state a cause of action and that the venue was improperly laid. TC denied the motion on both grounds. ISSUE WON the sakdal should have been in English and not Tagalog HELD YES - In the ponente’s lecture, “Writing Decisions”, he said in part: “What language should the judge use? The constitution says that until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages! (Art. XV, Sec. 3, Par 3.) If we are to be guided by this provision then either English of Pilipino can be used. But in fact English is almost exclusively used and with good reason. For Pilipino is still a gestating language. The constitution says so. It directs that “the Batasang Pambansa shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Pilipino.” - However, petitioner cannot now raise this question before the Supreme Court, As they have tacitly submitted to the TC’s ruling that the sakdal did not have to be translated in English; they analyzed the sakdal in arguing that it stated no cause of action. Such analysis demonstrated that they understood its contents. DISPOSITION Denied for lack of merit.

a2010

page 3

Prof.
orders should be set aside and that the Feb. 1 Decision should be reinstated. ISSUES 1. WON the trial court, upon motion by a private complainant, can set aside a previous judgment of conviction and remand the records of a case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for re-evaluation of the evidence and the filing of the corresponding charge 2. WON the manifestation by the accused that he is not appealing from the trial court’s Decision render the judgment final 3. WON the trial court err in granting private complainant’s motion for reconsideration/retrial 4. WON the assailed orders violate petitioner’s constitutional right against double jeopardy HELD 1. NO Ratio Only the accused may ask for a modification or setting aside of a judgment of conviction which he must do before the said judgment becomes final or before he perfects his appeal. Reasoning - Sec. 7 Rule 120 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides: Sec. 7. Modification of judgment - A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation. - It is thus clear that only the accused may ask for a modification or setting aside of a judgment of conviction. And this he must do before the said judgment becomes final or before he perfects his appeal. Such judgment becomes final in any of the following ways: (a) when no appeal is seasonably filed by the accused, except in case of automatic review of the decision imposing the capital penalty; (b) when he has partially or totally served his sentence; (c) when he expressly waives his right to appeal the judgment, except when the death penalty is imposed; or (d) when he applies for probation. When a judgment becomes final, the trial court which rendered the judgment of conviction loses jurisdiction to alter, modify, or revoke it. 2. YES

383 SCRA 449 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; June 26, 2002
NATURE Review on certiorari on a decision of RTC of Catarman, Northern Samar FACTS - Dec.12,1999: Potot was charged with homicide before the RTC for assaulting and stabbing a certain Rodolfo Dapulag with a knife, thereby causing his death. - Feb.1, 2000: Upon arraignment, Potot pleaded guilty and invoked the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender. He was later convicted of homicide w/ the above stated mitigating circumstances. - Feb.3, 2000: Potot filed a manifestation with motion informing the TC that he is not appealing from the Decision and praying that a commitment order be issued so he could immediately serve his sentence. - Feb.11, 2000: Private complainant Rosalie Dapulag (wife of the victim), with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed a motion for reconsideration/retrial praying that the decision be set aside and that the case be heard again because of certain irregularities committed before and during the trial. She alleged that there were 2 other men involved in the commission of the crime and that the eyewitness deliberately withheld the information upon solicitation by a certain Mayor Dapulag and upon the eyewitnesses’ own belief that such inclusion would complicate the case and make it more difficult. - Petitioner opposed this motion, asserting that the decision can no longer be modified or set aside because it became final when he formally waived his right to appeal. - May 3, 2000: The trial court granted Rosalie Dapulag’s motion, set aside its previous Decision as well as ordered that the records of the case be remanded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for re-evaluation of the evidence and filing of the corresponding charge. - Petitioner filed a MFR, contending that the trial court has no jurisdiction to issue the Feb.1 order as the Decision had become final, and that the said order would place him in double jeopardy. - May 26, 2000: The trial court denied the MFR for the reason that the State is not bound by the error or negligence of its prosecuting officers, hence, jeopardy does not attach. - Petitioner now assails the May 3rd and May 26 orders with the Sol.Gen. agreeing that the challenged

POTOT v PEOPLE

the following requisites must be present: (1) a valid complaint or information. Reasoning . institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. . Reasoning . petitioner was convicted and meted the corresponding penalty. ISSUE WON a private prosecutor can be allowed to intervene and participate in the proceedings of the above-entitled estafa cases for the purpose of prosecuting the attached civil liability arising from the issuance of the checks involved which is also subject mater of the pending B. (2) reserves the right to institute it separately.3. Its decision dated Feb.Since the MFR of the judgment of conviction was not initiated by the accused or at the instance of the trial court with his consent. .Honorable Assistant City Prosecutor Rossana S. from the nature of the offense. while two crimes arise from a single set of facts.P. While the law allows two simultaneous civil remedies for the offended party. it is respectfully recommended that the attached Information be approved and filed in Court. At any rate. Solomon as [p]rivate [p]rosecutor as well as the Opposition filed thereto by herein [p]etitioner.“The [p]ublic [r]espondent court during the said hearing noted the Formal Entry of Appearance of Atty. the private complainant’s interest in the case disappears and criminal prosecution becomes the sole function of the public prosecutor. the RTC held that the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted. None of these exceptions apply to the instant case. the court may. 22 . for Estafa and [v]iolation of Batas Pambansa Blg.Petitioner theorizes that the civil action necessarily arising from the criminal case pending before the MTC for violation of BP 22 precludes the institution of the corresponding civil action in the criminal case for estafa now pending before the RTC. 4. YES Ratio The right against double jeopardy prohibits any subsequent prosecution of any person for a crime of which he has previously been acquitted or convicted. His intention not to appeal is further indicated by his prayer in the same manifestation for the immediate issuance of a commitment order so he could serve his sentence. July 29. it authorizes recovery in only one. Reasoning . or any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first offense charged. an offended party may intervene in the prosecution of a crime. Settled is the rule that the single act of issuing a bouncing check may give rise to two distinct criminal offenses: estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22). . it was beyond the authority of the trial court to issue the order of May 3. pleaded guilty to the charge. the recovery of the single civil liability arising from the single act of issuing a bouncing check in either criminal case bars the recovery of the same civil liability in the other criminal action. DISPOSITION The petition is granted. 2000 is reinstated. The Rules of Court allow the offended party to intervene via a private prosecutor in each of these two penal proceedings. 2000 setting aside its Feb.Ruling of the Trial Court Noting petitioner’s opposition to the private prosecutor’s entry of appearance. As petitioner has been placed in jeopardy for the crime of homicide. However.As a consequence thereof. 2000 and May 26. (b) expressly reserve the right to do so or (c) the suit has already been instituted.” FACTS . Hence. he cannot be prosecuted anew for the same offense.Sec. from the nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it. Thus. The assailed orders dated May 3. Such waiver has the effect of causing the judgment to become final and unalterable.’ . Records show that petitioner was charged with homicide under a valid information before the trial court which has jurisdiction over it. . In short. (2) the court has jurisdiction to try the case.It is an undisputed fact that after the promulgation of the judgment of conviction.1. RODRIGUEZ v PONFERRADA 465 SCRA 338 PANGANIBAN. the offended parties are entitled to civil indemnity. and (4) he has been convicted or acquitted. 2000 Decision which had attained finality. 22 cases HELD YES. but (a) they waive the right to institute a civil action. (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge.To invoke the defense of double jeopardy. Considering that the offended party had paid the corresponding filing fee for the estafa cases prior to the filing of the BP 22 cases with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Reasoning . 2005 NATURE Petition for Certiorari seeking to reverse the July 27. the same should be denied outright. grant a new trial or reconsideration. no civil liability arises in favor of a private offended party. 22. 2002 Order of the RTC of Quezon City: “WHEREFORE. 1 Rule 121 of the same Rules provides: Sec. On the basis of his plea. 3. on motion of the accused or at its own instance but with the consent of the accused. New trial or reconsideration – At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final. except in the following instances: (1) when. unless the offended party (1) waives the civil action. the records do not show any irregularity in the preliminary investigation of the case before the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. separate informations were separately filed against herein [p]etitioner before proper [c]ourts.These requisites have been established. the same should have been denied outright as being violative of the above provision.petitioner through counsel filed in open court before the [p]ublic [r]espondent an ‘Opposition to the Formal Entry of Appearance of the Private Prosecutor’ . only one civil liability attaches to it. YES Ratio When the MFR of the judgment of conviction is not initiated by the accused or at the instance of the trial court with the consent of the accused. He was arraigned and a2010 page 4 Prof. 2000 issued by the trial court are set aside. petitioner filed a manifestation expressly waiving his right to appeal therefrom. 1.Based on the foregoing rules. She hinges her theory on the following provisions of Rules 110 and 111 of Rules of Court. Felix R. the appearance of a private prosecutor shall be allowed upon payment of the legal fees for these estafa cases pending before this Court.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Ratio The waiver by the accused of his right to appeal from a judgment of conviction has the effect of causing the judgment to become final and unalterable. the RTC allowed the private prosecutor to appear and intervene in the proceedings. and (2) when. Morales-Montojo of Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office issued her Resolution: “there being PROBABLE CAUSE to charge respondent for ESTAFA under Article 315 paragraph 2(d) as amended by PD 818 and for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. In any of these instances. or (3) .

1978. this Court did not intend to leave the offended parties without any remedy to protect their interests in estafa cases.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the private prosecutor cannot be barred from intervening in the estafa suit. Its power to promulgate the Rules of Court is limited in the sense that rules “shall not diminish. 1987 NATURE Mandamus to compel respondent Fiscal to prosecute Criminal Case No. ROSA MINING v ZABALA 153 SCRA 367 BIDIN. increase or modify substantive rights. DISPOSITION Petition dismissed DISPOSITION Petition is DISMISSED and the assailed order AFFIRMED CRESPO v MOGUL 151 SCRA 462 GANCAYCO.Thus.On May 15 1978. resolving the petition for review. August 31.criminal liability will give rise to civil liability only if the same felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof. June 30. FACTS . 1974.On March 21. In an order (Aug 17 1977). True. 1979. then headed by Provincial Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre. and mandamus with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or temporary restraining order in the CA. in a decision of October 25 1979. .On March 22.) FACTS . 821 of the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte until the same is terminated. and declaring the obligation of petitioner as purely civil. 1987 NATURE Petition to review the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City (petitioner prays that respondent judge be perpetually enjoined from enforcing his threat to proceed with the arraignment and trail of petitioner.no binding election occurs before a decision on the merits is had or a detriment to the other party supervenes . petitioner filed a complaint for attempted theft of materials (scrap iron) forming part of the installations on its mining property at Jose Panganiban. the court’s prior permission must be secured if fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. where several such rights arise out of the same facts. who has sustained only a single injury. however nearly they may be connected in point of fact . The Provincial Fiscal filed a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence on April 10. The crimes of estafa and violation of BP 22 are different and distinct from each other. each of the overt acts in these instances may give rise to two criminal liabilities -. should the latter also be filed. election of remedies refers to the choice by a party to an action of one of two or more coexisting remedial rights. 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. a restraining order was issued by the CA against the threatened act of arraignment of the accused. the election of remedies is the adoption of one of two or more coexisting ones.In promulgating the Rules.one for estafa and another for violation of BP 22. the other. once the case had already been brought to Court. with the effect of precluding a resort to the others. The presiding judge (leodegario Mogul) denied the motion through his order. On November 24 1978. issued a resolution dated August 26. ISSUE WON 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. but the term has been generally limited to a choice by a party between inconsistent remedial rights. When the case was set for arraignment. The motion for reconsideration of the accused was denied in a resolution. Damage or injury to another is evidently the foundation of the civil action.it was not the intent of the special rule to preclude the prosecution of the civil action that corresponds to the estafa case. . However. The offenses charged in the informations are perfectly distinct from each other in point of law. after conducting said investigation. Panotes for preliminary investigation who. . the assertion of one being necessarily repugnant to.The accused filed a petition for certiorari. may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits HELD YES Ratio Once an information is filed in court.” In its more restricted and technical sense. the possible single civil liability arising from the act issuing a bouncing check can be the subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the estafa case and the BP 22 violation prosecution. . On January 23 STA.“In its broad sense. . ordering respondent Judge to dismiss the said case.” Private complainant’s intervention in the prosecution of estafa is justified not only for the prosecution of her interests. a2010 page 5 Prof. or a repudiation of. the CA restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the arraignment of the accused until further orders from the Court .Assistant Fiscal Proceso de Gala filed an information for estafa against Mario Crespo in Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. There is no identity of offenses involved. While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court or not. whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court. the CA dismissed the petition and lifted the restraining order of Jan 23. a decision was made by the CA granting the writ and perpetually restraining the judge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of the accused in the case until the Dept of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for review. for which legal jeopardy in one case may be invoked in the other. but also for the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice as mandated by the Constitution. . 1978.The case was assigned to third Assistant Fiscal Esteban P. Camarines Norte against private respondents Romeo Garrido and Gil Alapan with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Norte. prohibition. The Judge denied the motion and set the arraignment . 1974 recommending that an information for Attempted Theft be filed . 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. But every such act of issuing a bouncing check involves only one civil liability for the offended party. On Election of Remedies .1979. The Undersecretary of Justice Hon Catalino Macaraig Jr.The accused filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction.

1974. ISSUE WON the fiscal can be compelled to prosecute the case after his motion to dismiss has been denied HELD YES . the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer" (Suarez vs. Comments on the Rules of Court. 1975.S. 821 until the same is terminated. Rule 110. without the consent of the court. 1976. respondent Fiscal filed a Second Motion to Dismiss the case."In the trial of criminal cases. . respondent fiscal manifested that he would not prosecute the case and a2010 page 6 Prof. Trial of the case was reset to April 23. 70 SCRA 361). 1976. Fiscal Ilustre was appointed a judge in the Court of First Instance of Albay and respondent Fiscal Zabala became officer-in-charge of the Provincial Fiscal's Office of Camarines Norte.. Gallegos. Pineda. 444. He cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The fiscal should not shirk from his responsibility much less leave the prosecution of the case at the hands of a private prosecutor.The mere fact that the Secretary of Justice had.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales against private respondents on a finding of prima facie case which resolution was approved by Provincial Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre. the motion filed for said purpose was likewise denied. Barredo.On October 29. to dismiss or nolle prosequi criminal actions actually instituted and pending further proceedings. it is the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the government since an offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State. charging private respondents with the crime of Attempted Theft. 4. 442. At least what he can do is to continue appearing for the prosecution and then turn over the presentation of evidence to another fiscal or a private prosecutor subject to his direction and control (U. that an information for Attempted Theft had already been filed against private respondents for which reason the request for review has become a moot question as the Provincial Fiscal has lost jurisdiction to dismiss the charge for attempted theft. 2000 NATURE: Review on Certiorari . and whose interest. directed the prosecuting fiscal to move for the dismissal of the case and the motion to dismiss filed pursuant to said directive is denied by the trial court. Gonzales vs. when denied. he may not be compelled to do so (People vs. the Secretary of Justice. among other things." (Moran. This second motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court in an order dated April 23. 821 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte" There is no question that the institution of a criminal action is addressed to the sound discretion of the investigating fiscal. in criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case.Accordingly. when the complaint or information has already been filed in Court. It is the court where the case is filed and not the fiscal that has full control of it.On April 19. . 1975. 69 Phil. The power to dismiss criminal actions is vested solely in the court" (U. 556). 1980 Ed. in the exercise of his discretion. 1974. the Secretary of Justice should.S. is no justification for the refusal of the fiscal to prosecute the case. Fiscal Ilustre filed with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte an Information dated October 17. he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law. 846) and when he decides not to file the information.Thereafter." DISPOSITION petition is hereby Granted Public respondent or any other person who may be assigned or appointed to act in his place or stead. disauthorized any private prosecutor to appear therein. . 1974 and October 14. refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal. Vol. petitioner prays for the issuance of the writ of mandamus "commanding respondent fiscal or any other person who may be assigned or appointed to act in his place or stead to prosecute Criminal Case No. 37 Phil.In a letter dated October 22. this petition for mandamus. He may or he may not file the information according to whether the evidence is in his opinion sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. . as far as practicable. "fiscals are not clothed with power. As such. refuse to prosecute the same. 10).This court is of the view that the writ prayed for should issue. compelling as its obligation to govern at all. . p.On March 6. therefore. (Gonzales vs. At all times.A motion to dismiss dated September 16. Notwithstanding his personal convictions or opinions. U. 1974. . 20 SCRA 748). is hereby ordered to continue prosecuting Criminal Case No. 1976. the private respondents requested the Secretary of Justice for a review of the Resolutions of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal dated August 26. after the case had already been filed in court. . However. 32 Phil. 450. The matter should be left entirely for the determination of the Court. supra). IV. . vs. the Chief State Prosecutor ordered the Provincial Fiscal to elevate entire records PFO Case 577 against Garrido et al. Beriales.In order therefore 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. Whereupon. . Despabiladeras. if the fiscal is not at all convinced that a prima facie case exists. after reviewing the records of the case. He is obliged by law to proceed and prosecute the criminal action. 1974. . Where there is no other prosecutor available. 63 Phil. 32 Phil. the criminal action shall be prosecuted under his direction and control (Sec. vs. This is so because "the prosecuting officer is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy but of a sovereignty where obligation to govern impartially is as PEREZ v HAGONOY 327 SCRA 588 DE LEON. Court of First Instance. 1975 was then filed by the Provincial Fiscal but the court denied the motion on the ground that there was a prima facie evidence against private respondents and set the case for trial on February 25. March 9. reversed the findings of prima facie case of the Provincial Fiscal and directed said prosecuting officer to immediately move for the dismissal of the criminal case. . 1976. 1974 alleging. Platon. 1987 docketed as Criminal Case No. 289). Rules of Court). 1974. he simply cannot move for the dismissal of the case and. he should proceed to discharge his duty and present the evidence to the best of his ability and let the court decide the merits of the case on the basis of the evidence adduced by both parties. Hence. Otherwise. the fiscal must proceed with his duty of presenting evidence to the court to enable the court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to the culpability of the accused. . Private respondents sought reconsideration of the resolution but the same was denied by Fiscal Ilustre in a resolution dated October 14. . Court of First Instance. 1976. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the directive of the Secretary of Justice but the latter denied the same in a letter dated June 11.S. but that justice shall be done.On November 6.The letter-request for review was opposed by petitioner in a letter to the Secretary of Justice dated November 23.In this action. the entire proceedings will be null and void (People vs. after reviewing the records. 821. vs.Private respondents sought reconsideration of the court's ruling but in an Order dated February 13.

Pursuant to the said resolution. Reasoning . on April 27. In fact. however. WON Judge Masadao. Alberto Fabian. Drilon.Romeo Buban is accused of raping his then 12 year old daughter 5 times. as private complainant. conducted an audit of the financial affairs of the Hagonoy Money Shop and found anomalies in more or less twenty-eight (28) savings accounts consisting of withdrawals which were recorded in the subsidiary ledgers of the money shop but not in the passbooks which were in the possession of the depositors. the Laya. . Cristina Medina and Susan Jordan. was denied with finality by the latter. the complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. issued a resolution finding prima facie evidence that the petitioner and her coemployees had committed the crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. Cashier and Teller. Bulacan. . the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales FACTS . a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal. Manabat. then Secretary of Justice. an independent management.Perez filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice praying for the dismissal of the charges against her. In so doing. Malolos. Salgado and Company. In effect. which motion. on separate occasions. as private complainant.Private respondent Hagonoy Rural Bank. committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the prosecutor's motion to dismiss the criminal case against petitioner without an independent assessment of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence against the latter 2. therefore. The charges of rape committed on other occasions were not supported with the required . 2007 NATURE Petition for review decision of CA FACTS . the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved.This prompted the private respondent to file an affidavit-complaint for estafa against the aforementioned employees of the money shop and two outsiders. It follows. YES Ratio While it is only the Solicitor General that may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Jesus Y. Judge Masadao acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the prosecutor's motion to dismiss the criminal charges against the petitioner on the basis solely of the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Court of Appeals. Private respondent assailed the dismissal of the case against the petitioner in a motion for reconsideration filed in the RTC which motion was denied by the RTC after finding that the private respondent..The prosecutor granted private respondent's motion for reconsideration. Mogul." . in failing to make an independent finding of the merits of the case and merely anchoring the dismissal on the revised position of the prosecution. the Complaint mentioned only the 5th incident. our ruling in the case of Dee v. then with more reason does it have legal personality to move for a reconsideration of the order of the trial court dismissing the criminal charges against the petitioner. YES. In such case. and Cristina Medina and Milagros Martin as Solicitors/Field Managers. 2. dismissed.Although the girl’s sworn statement mentioned five occasions of rape. 1994. Bulacan. 696. or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. it was the prosecution. Alberto S. WON the private respondent. the prosecutor filed a motion in the RTC praying for the dismissal of the case against herein petitioner and the admission of an amended information excluding petitioner as one of the accused which motion was granted by the RTC. January 24. on the ground of insufficient evidence. fake deposits were recorded in the money shop's subsidiary ledgers whenever the remaining balance in a particular savings account went below the amount of legitimate withdrawals made by a depositor.As aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General. . had no legal personality to question the dismissal of the criminal charges against the petitioner. The charges against Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas were.we held that: "In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1. and recommending the filing of the corresponding information against them with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos. Court of Appeals allowing the private offended party to file a special civil action for certiorari to assail the order of the trial judge granting the motion to dismiss upon the directive of the Secretary of Justice is apropos. to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors. The audit also revealed that to cover-up the anomalous withdrawals. retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law. Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas. Reasoning . Milagros Martin. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds. The private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the Secretary of Justice. Acting Provincial Prosecutor. as a general rule. series of 1994 ordering the prosecutor to cause the dismissal of the information against herein petitioner a2010 page 7 Prof. consultancy and accounting firm. through the Department of Justice which decided what to do and not the court which was reduced to a mere rubber stamp in violation of the ruling in Crespo v. issued Resolution No. that if the private respondent in this case may file a special civil action for certiorari. ISSUES 1. the private offended party PEOPLE v BUBAN GR No. 1992 up to December 5.On September 23. presiding judge of RTC Branch 9. 166895 VELASCO. The action may be prosecuted in (the) name of the said complainant. in a criminal case has the legal personality to question the dismissal by the trial judge of the criminal charges against herein petitioner upon the motion filed by the prosecutor HELD 1.In the case of Dela Rosa v.Furthermore. private respondent moved for a reconsideration of the portion of the same resolution dismissing the complaint against Susan Jordan. however. 1993. JR. The medical examination of the girl reveals that she was indeed raped. the trial judge relinquished the discretion he was duty bound to exercise. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds.8 Hence. On the other hand. .For the period starting August 3. Inc. . 1994. Manarang (hereinafter "prosecutor"). an information for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents was filed against herein petitioner. Fabian as Bookkeeper. owns the Hagonoy Money Shop which employed petitioner Cristina O. Perez as Officer-In-Charge. Franklin M.

private prosecutors now contend that they are entitled to appear before this Court. The prosecution did not question anymore the dismissal of the other 4 counts. so the court did not discuss it further. > Suarez v Platon: the prosecuting officer "'is the representative not of. but the body of the decision implies the dismissal of the other 4 charges.petitioners seek the annulment of respondent Judge's Orders in the Criminal Case People of the Philippines v Jorge Tan. 1976 . they interpose no objection to the remand of the aforementioned criminal cases "for the rendition of a new decision by another trial judge. DISPOSITION judgment affirmed with modification. ISSUES 1. but that justice shall he done. hence. to the accused. JR v GALLARDO 73 SCRA 308 ANTONIO. do not impair her credibility." To collaborate means to cooperate with and to assist the Solicitor General. abolishing the death penalty) and higher damages. that the innocent may not suffer and the guilty not escape unpunished. Sentence changed to reclusion perpatua (pursuant to RA 9346. . Mendoza. 1976.It is for the purpose of realizing the aforementioned objectives that the prosecution of offenses is placed NATURE Original action for certiorari and prohibition FACTS . thus: "to collaborate with the Solicitor General in the preparation of the Answer and pleadings that may be required by this Court. despite the inclusion of the other 4 in the sworn statement of the girl. It was never intended that the private prosecutors could adopt a stand independent of or in contravention of the position taken by the Solicitor General. but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all. submitted his Comment to the petition. The dispositive portion of the RTC’s decision was not specific as to which charge it found the accused guilty. an ordinary party to a controversy. CA affirmed. Osmundo Tolentino. it is but natural that the representatives of the State should direct and control the prosecution. they serve as proof that the witness is not coached or rehearsed. Mariano Bartido and Librado Sode for frustrated murder and Double Murder of the son and uncle of Mayor Inigo Larazzabal. the petitioners moved to strike out the "Motion to Admit Attacked Comment" and the "Comment" of the private prosecutor on the ground that the latter has "absolutely no standing in the instant proceedings before this Honorable Court and. where the complaint mentions only one instance of rape HELD 1. .Jan 14. Reasoning . He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed. to take part in the proceedings. and to adapt a position in contravention to that of the Solicitor General. he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law. The other 4 counts of rape were dismissed because the complaint did not specify the same." . 1975. on behalf of the People of the Philippines. They are "persuaded that there are bases for stating that the rendition of respondent Judge's decision and his resolution on the motion for new trial were not free from suspicion of bias and prejudice… therefore. Assistant Solicitor General Alicia Simpio-Diy and Solicitor Eduardo L. without any personality to have any paper of his entertained by this Tribunal” . October 5. and to the state. Antonio: Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness referring to minor details. Fernandez and Dakila F. Cesar Tan. and whose interest. while he may strike hard blows. WON private prosecutors have the right to intervene independently of the Solicitor General and to adopt a stand inconsistent with that of the latter TAN. Kilayko for respondents. The other 4 charges were dismissed for lack of legal basis to convict.Feb 12. ISSUES 1. . he should do so. thus it can be deduced that the conviction pertains to the 5th incident only. Reasoning . . Teofanis Bondoc. WON the accused may be convicted for the other counts of rape. Castro & Associate as private prosecutors. WON CA erred in finding the accused guilty despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence 2. NO Ratio there is no error in the appreciation of evidence by the court." > People v Esquivel: that there is an absolute necessity for prosecuting attorneys to lay "before the court the pertinent facts at their disposal with methodical and meticulous attention.the argument of the accused that the testimony of the girl is not reliable for inconsistencies is untenable.Jan 30. a2010 page 8 Prof. therefore. in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case. Obvious to all. 1976 . 2.Participation of the private prosecution in the instant case was delimited by this Court in its Resolution of October 1. this is the prosecution's prime duty to the court.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales complaints in accordance with Section 5. clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in their evidence. WON respondent Judge should be disqualified from further proceeding with the criminal cases HELD 1. Jr. 2.Solicitor General Estilito P.SolGen. the complaint should contain all instances of the crime charged. People v.private prosecutors submitted their Comment in justification of the challenged Orders of the respondent Judge and objected to the remand of this case. NO Ratio Private prosecutors cannot intervene independently of and take a position inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General.Since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State. civil indemnity. But. Estanisloo A. to the end that the court's mind may not be tortured by doubts. 1976 . he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. As such. If at all. Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. and only mentioned the last instance of rape. and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime. . exemplary damages) but only with regard the 5th incident only.Judge Pedro Gallardo made the two life sentences to death penalty allegedly after meeting with Mayor Larazzabal and receipt of other paraphernalia such as whisky and wine according to the court stenographer.RTC found the accused guilty (sentence: death penalty plus moral damages. As can be gleamed from the case. . the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer." .

It should be further noted that the law at the time the crimes were committed treated rape as a private crime covered by Article 344 of the RPC. shall discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer. No. and said court grants the petition. "Defining the Powers and Functions of the Office of the Solicitor General". Function and Organization. the offended party may not intervene in the prosecution of the offense. and as his right to intervene therein is subject to the promotor fiscal's right of control. that since the Solicitor General alone is authorized to represent the State or the People of the Philippines the interest of the private prosecutors is subordinate to that of the State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General. . affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require. subject to the provisions of section 4 of the same Rule that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the Fiscal.the position occupied by the offended party is subordinate to that of the promotor fiscal because. prior to the rendering of judgment. investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. Under this statute. in any event. filed an affidavit of desistance stating among others that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case and that she had already forgiven her father. 1998. It shall have the following specific powers and functions: (a) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. on July 3. the continuation of the offended party's intervention depends upon the continuation of the proceeding. . abduction. . 478. the crime of rape was classified as a crime against person. represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court. "an offended party may intervene in the proceedings." > Herrero v Diaz: "intervention of the offended party or his attorney is authorized by section 15 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. control. in his opinion. if the promotor fiscal desists from pressing the charge or asks the competent Court of First Instance in which the case is pending for the dismissal thereof. nor in any case. it cannot be stated that an order of dismissal decreed upon petition of the promoter fiscal himself deprives the offended party of his right to appeal from an order overrruling a complaint or information. specially in case of offenses which can not be prosecuted except at the instance of the offended party The only exception to this is when the offended party waives his right to civil action or expressly reserves his right to institute it after the termination of the case. in his opinion. for that would be tantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the criminal proceedings. or where the law defining and punishing the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity. his intervention must always be subject to the direction and control of the prosecuting official. This civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action. offenses of seduction. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. Irene.Ernesto dela Cuesta was charged on May 16. which took effect on October 22. provides: SECTION 1. contrary to the provisions of law and the settled rules on the matter. (1) The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines. the intervention of the person injured by the commission of the offense ceases by virtue of the principle that the accessory follows the principal. (k) Act and represent the Republic and/or the people before any court. whether an offended party intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action. therefore. and responsibility of the prosecuting officer. the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons. No. the victim. Consequently. Consequently. or acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents. or guardian. sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. the Court of Appeals.Role of the private prosecutors is to represent the offended party with respect to the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. rape.The victim testified in open court about the incidents of rape. 58. tribunal.Solicitor General represents the People of the Philippines or the State in criminal proceedings pending either in the Court of Appeals or in this Court. To permit a person injured by the commission of an offense to appeal from an order dismissing a criminal case issued by a Court of First Instance upon petition of the promoter fiscal. . and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is the party. being at liberty to commence it or not or to refrain from prosecuting it or not. .The SC noted that the rape incidents in this case occurred prior to the effectivity of RA 8353. unless the offended party either expressly waives the civil action or reserves to institute it separately. as the offended party is not entitled to represent the People of the Philippine a2010 page 9 Prof." . It is already moot because the judge is no longer in the judicial service DISPOSITION SC grants the petition and hereby remands the case to the trial court in order that another Judge may hear anew petitioners' motion for new trial and to resolve the issue accordingly on the basis of the evidence Islands in the prosecution of a public offense. . grandparents. seven times over a period of eight years beginning 1989 when the victim was seven years old. and as it is discretionary with him to institute and prosecute a criminal proceeding. and to control the proceeding. October 9. . Thus. PEOPLE v DELA CERNA 390 SCRA 538 CORONA . 1997. However. depending upon whether or not there is. 2002 NATURE Automatic review of decision of Cebu City RTC FACTS . It is evident. as the promotor fiscal alone is authorized to represent the public prosecution. in which case he lost his right to intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to have lost his interest in its prosecution. except when the case is pending in the Court of First Instance. proceeding.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales under the direction. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997. and as such.from the nature of the offense. its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation. in the prosecution of offenders. * * * The office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government. or to control the proceeding once it is commenced. would be tantamount to giving said offended party of the direction and control of a criminal proceeding in violation of the provisions of the above-cited section 107 of General Orders.The trial court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to the supreme penalty of death. 58. which right belongs exclusively to the promotor fiscal by virtue of the provisions of section 44 of General Orders. As provided for in the said article. or the People of the Philippine Islands. 2. action or proceeding which. 1997 with raping his minor daughter. body or commission in any matter. personally or by attorney.

. Trial court convicted BIENVENIDO of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No.The affidavit did not in fact contain any retraction on the claim of rape. has the right to initiate the prosecution for the above offenses. in any case. shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her .The complaint in the instant case has complied with the requirement under the Revised Penal Code and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. or guardian as extinguishing the crime. As signed by JONALYN. or guardian. but acquitted him in Criminal Case No. It cited its previous rulings to this effect. rape or acts of lasciviousness. Noticing that JONALYN had difficulty in expressing herself. in any case. JONALYN took the witness stand. abduction. unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. WON Jonalyn was competent to testify 3. Hence the guilty verdict was proper considering that the testimony of the victim was considered by the trial court as credible and believable. WON leading questions should have been allowed to be asked to Jonalyn HELD 1. . or guardian. which vest upon JONALYN. grandparents. BIENVENIDO entered a plea of not guilty. abduction. then 20 years of age who was found to have the mentality of an 8-year-old girl. The assistance of JONALYN’s aunt. the offender claimed that he should no have been found guilty considering that the affidavit of desistance created a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.The trial court denied the Demurrer to Evidence and set the dates for the presentation of the evidence for the defense. She stated that BIENVENIDO placed himself on top of her and inserted his private part into her womanhood. as the case may be. PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 384 SCRA 375 DAVIDE. Her complaint can be rightfully considered filed by a minor. JONALYN. nor. . ISSUE WON the trial court erred in convicting the defendant HELD NO . and disgraceful acts occurring in the family. the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf. 2002 FACTS .Trial court allowed the prosecution to put on the witness stand a Medical Officer of the National Center for Mental Health. grandparents. . After the case has been filed the control of the prosecution is removed from the offended party’s hand and any change of heart by the victim will not affect the state’s right to vindicate the atrocities committed against itself. . the prosecutor could be permitted to ask leading questions. YES . 2. July 11. The law deems it the wiser policy to let the aggrieved woman and her family decide whether to expose to public view or to heated controversies in court the vices. However. . WON the complaint for rape filed was valid 2. 1275-M-96. if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons.A. or guardian. if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons. ISSUES 1. WON Jonalyn was credible as a witness 4.The Court also ruled that the death penalty is not applicable in this case as the prosecution was not able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the alleged minority of the victim. . even if she were a minor. her parents. the right to institute the criminal action. It claimed that JONALYN’s testimony. who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial. It admitted that it could have moved to quash the information but it did not because the complaint on which the information was based was on its face valid. grandparents or guardian may file the same. grandparents. it having been signed by JONALYN as the offended party. Trial court allowed the prosecutor to conduct direct examination on JONALYN so that if in its perception she would appear to be suffering from mental deficiency. . parents.The pertinent laws existing at the time the crimes were committed were Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code (prior to its amendment by R. the undeniable truth is that JONALYN had no capacity to sign the same considering her mental deficiency or abnormality.When JONALYN was presented as its first witness. Thus. was a superfluity. the prosecution sought to obtain from the trial court an order for the conduct of a psychiatric examination to determine her mental and psychological capability to testify in court. 1274-M-96 for insufficiency of evidence. She declared in open court that BIENVENIDO raped her twice. she had the mental age of an 8½-yearold child under the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. No. as the offended party. the trial court decided to suspend the proceedings to give the prosecution sufficient time to confer with her. YES . a2010 page 10 Prof. grandparents. In case the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she could file the complaint and has no known parents. two informations were filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor before the RTC of Malolos charging Bienvenido Dela Cruz with rape. could likewise file the complaint independently of her relatives. independently of her parents.Even using the old statute which considered rape as a private crime and the forgiveness of the victim or the parents. Dr.Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure states: The offenses of seduction.In his appeal. grandparents or guardian. The offended party. Tuazon testified that she found that JONALYN was suffering from a moderate level of mental retardation and that although chronologically the latter was already 20 years of age. 8353 which took effect on 22 October 1997) and Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure.The trial court issued an order allowing leading questions to be propounded to JONALYN.A complaint of the offended party or her relatives is required in crimes against chastity out of consideration for the offended woman and her family. the complaint started the prosecutory proceeding. . which was granted. JONALYN’s signature alone suffices to validate the complaint. There was as such no reasonable doubt to speak of. rape or acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents. . as the case may be. Where the offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint.If a minor under the Rules of Court can file a complaint for rape independently of her parents.The determination of the competence of witnesses to testify rests primarily with the trial judge who sees them in the witness stand and observes their behavior or their possession or lack of intelligence. considering her mental state. nor.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . .The defense filed a demurrer to evidence.Upon a complaint signed by JONALYN with the assistance of her aunt Carmelita Borja.The offenses of seduction. or even of her mother. the Supreme court held that the pardon or forgiveness must be prior to the institution of the criminal action. was coached and rehearsed. The defense also insisted on assailing the competency of JONALYN as a witness. . fault.

. Tuazon that JONALYN had the understanding of an 8year-old child. . 3. Moments later. place.The leading questions were neither conclusions of facts merely put into the mouth of JONALYN nor prepared statements which she merely confirmed as true. shortly after the filing of the information. if one should be had. Considering her feeble mind.000 and moral damages in the amount of P50. names (plaintiff and defendant). YES. But unlike accused-appellants who were immediately arrested after the commission of the crime. Calpito got stabbed and fell to the ground. . he found out that he only received P35 for his P100. 2005 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the decision dismissing appeal and resolution denying motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals FACTS PEOPLE v QUITLONG 292 SCRA 360 VITUG . court proceedings. to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause. The City Prosecutor filed a motion to admit an amended information on the basis of affidavits. included Jesus Mendoza among the named accused. in bad physical condition.. The finding of the trial court. The trial court acted favorably on the motion. Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent. 2. mandates that no person shall be held answerable for a criminal offense without due process of law and that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall first be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. in particular.S. the crime was qualified The crime committed was qualified by abuse of superiority. Plain and simple her testimony may have been. When Calpito counted his change.Calpito was a student from Baguio city. and third. submitted a motion for reinvestigation alleging that “it was a certain Jesus Mendoza who stabbed the victim. Cruikshank. she could not have fabricated or concocted her charge against BIENVENIDO. .object of informing an accused in writing of the charges against him: First. confused and agitated. Section 14. unembellished. the trial court. a2010 NATURE Appeal from the decision of the RTC page 11 Prof. as it is. rendered its now assailed decision. At their arraignment. Confronted by Calpito and Gosil. DISPOSITION RTC decision finding accusedappellant BIENVENIDO DELA CRUZ guilty of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED. The right to be informed of any such indictment is likewise explicit in procedural rules. 4. .The foregoing narrative has established not only JONALYN’s competency but also her credibility. (United States vs. inexperienced. of the 1987 Constitution. Tuazon. with details. June 28. enough proof was adduced. terrified. Jesus Mendoza remained at large.Complainant has made herself clear about the sexual molestation she suffered in the hands of the accused. feeble-minded. not conclusions of law. Jr. Also.The prosecution has proved JONALYN’s competency by the testimony of Dr. In short. One time. In order that this requirement may be satisfied. superiority in strength. it is in its simplicity that its credence is enhanced. While superiority in number would not per se mean . aged and infirm. to inform the court of the facts alleged. YES . Soriano saw eight men rushing towards Gosil and Calpito. 2. does not obviate the fact of her competency. as supported by the testimony of Dr. the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged DISPOSITION appellant Ronnie Quitlong is found guilty of the crime of murder for the killing of Jonathan Calpito.Article III. 92 U. deaf and dumb. .The RTC found Ronnie Quitlong. NO. lacking in comprehension of questions asked. The information.On 21 April 1995. timid or embarrassed while on the stand. 1998 HELD 1. or unaccustomed to.. however. . and circumstances. ignorant of. Accused-appellants. to show that the attackers had cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage of their superiority in strength certainly out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. July 10. yet. Appellants Salvador Quitlong and Emilio Senoto. uneducated. no improper motive was shown by the defense as to why JONALYN would file a case or falsely testify against BIENVENIDO. ISSUES 1. with the modification that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim JONALYN YUMANG civil indemnity in the reduced amount of P50.000. as amended. WON the RTC abused its discretion and/or acted in excess of or without jurisdiction in finding that there was conspiracy between and among the accused-appellants WON the RTC gravely abused its discretion and/or acted in excess of or without jurisdiction in finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crime of Murder instead of Homicide ROCO v CONTRERAS 461 SCRA 505 GARCIA. Quitlong is guilty of murder while the other 2 are only accomplices.It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading questions in conducting the examination of a witness who is immature. following his evaluation of the respective submissions of the prosecution and the defense. these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time. YES . facts must be stated. FACTS . are found guilty as accomplices in the commission of the crime. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense. The 3 men kept arguing. the fishball vendor would not admit that he had shortchanged Calpito. Its only effect was to consider her testimony from the point of view of an 8-year-old minor. including their rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence. the detained accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales as well as their understanding of the obligation of an oath. 542). so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction. Salvador Quitlong and Emilio Senoto guilty of murder for the killing of Jonathan Calpito. and second. or unable to speak or understand the English or imperfectly familiar therewith. he wanted some fishballs so he and Gosil bought some fishballs worth P15.

the MTCC declared the cases submitted for decision on account of petitioner’s failure to adduce evidence in his behalf. the MTCC. The first. There they met petitioner Benito Astorga. petitioner drew 5 checks payable to Cal’s against his account with PCIB. it denied MFR. MFR was still dismissed. the team found two boats measuring 18 meters in length and 5 meters in breadth being constructed at Barangay Locob-Locob. some wearing fatigues. The team left at 2:00 a. 1995. is used to compel the production of books. RTC denied due course to petition for failure to prove grave abuse of discretion. 1996. . together with two (2) members of Philippine National Police Regional Intelligence Group.. . RTC agreed and vacated the MTCC decision. The DENR team was then brought to petitioner’s house in Daram. where they had dinner and drinks. both of Cal’s Corporation or their duly authorized representatives. Prosecution did not object. is satisfied in this ASTORGA v PEOPLE 437 SCRA 152 YNARES-SANTIAGO.On the basis of the foregoing facts. issued an order granting petitioner’s request and accordingly directed the issuance of the desired subpoenas. petitioner was charged with and convicted of Arbitrary Detention by the Sandiganbayan.Judge Contreras similarly denied the MFR. Before a subpoena duces tecum may issue. . 2004 FACTS . 1996. to appear and testify in court and to bring with them certain documents. arrived at the scene. Sales Ledger for the year 1993. . 1994. Accounts Receivable Ledger for the years 1994.m.Petitioner went to appeal to the RTC contending that he was deprived of due process. while the second. petitioner filed with the MTCC a “Request for Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum”.. the trial court issued an order allowing the prosecution to file its comment or opposition to petitioner’s request for the issuance of subpoenas. Defendant filed MFR – denied with finality Filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File 2nd MFR – granted ISSUES Procedural WON filing of 2nd MFR is proper Substantive . . records and books of accounts for the years 1993-19991. -Cal’s counsel manifested that it was improper for the trial court to have directed the issuance of the requested subpoenas. petitioner had been issued by Cal’s with temporary receipts in the form of yellow pad slips of paper evidencing his payments. 1995. and Income Tax Returns for the years 1993. . Petitioner’s claim The denial of the request for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum is violative of his constitutional rights ISSUE WON the lower courts erred in denying the subpoena requested by Roco HELD Ratio NO.Acting Judge Geomer C.Trial for Roco’s violation of BP 22 commenced. therefore. in the matter of relevancy of those books and documents to the pending criminal cases that petitioner miserably failed to discharge his burden. 1997. or for the taking of his deposition. case. The petition was still dismissed.In a resolution. Petitioner called for reinforcements and. book ledgers and other records were immaterial in resolving the issues posed before the court. Nonetheless. 1996. 1996 and 1997. and (b) the issuance of the subpoenas will only unduly delay the hearing of the criminal cases. Later. were sent to the Island of Daram. Accounts Receivable Journal for the year 1993. It is clear that the production of the books and documents requested by petitioner are not indispensable to prove his defense of payment.Based on the records below and as correctly pointed out by the CA.Domingo Roco. 1994. Reasoning . records and 1 Sales Journal for the year 1993. . Accounts Receivable Ledger for the year 1993 (in its absence. PCIB dishonored the checks for having been drawn from a closed account. Audited Balance Sheet for the years 1993.As payment for his purchase. engaged in buying and selling of dressed chicken. MTCC rendered a judgment of conviction against petitioner.Three (3) private offended parties who are members of the Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the DENR Tacloban City.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . which pad slips had been validated by the corporation itself. After the prosecution rested.m. they did not maintain the requested sales ledger and that other documents could not be produced because of the recent computerization of records was still in the process of completion. .The books and documents that petitioner requested to be subpoenaed are designated and described in his request with definiteness and readily identifiable. Petitioner went to CA via certiorari. 1998 and Income Statements as of February 1999. thru its Judge Edward B. who turned out to be the owner of the boats. Contreras. Cal’s then filed a criminal complaint for violation of BP22 . However. the Mayor of Daram. DISPOSITION the instant petition is DENIED and the challenged decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. . subpoena duces tecum. Western Samar to conduct intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities. Roco filed with the BIR a denunciation letter against Cal’s in that it failed to issue commercial invoices. 1998 and pBalance Sheet as of February 1999. records. books of accounts were already burned. They argued that Deocampo had earlier attested that the documents. Similarly. 1995. They also maintained that the documents requested are immaterial and irrelevant to the crimes for which the petitioner was being prosecuted.A subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or trial of an action or at any investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines. 1994. denied petitioner’s request on the following grounds: (a) the requested documents. 1995. Aug 20. BIR found no prima facie evidence of tax evasion. and (2) such books must be reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified (test of definiteness). The test of definiteness. Audited Income Statement for the years 1993. purchased his supply from private respondent Cal’s Poultry Supply Corporation (Cal’s) . moments later. At around 4:305:00 p.SC affirmed the conconviction of Daram. a boat bearing ten armed men.Before trial could commence. 1998 or 1999). things or documents therein specified. requiring Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap.Pending the remanded cases. A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR team. to which the Roco countered by saying that Judge Delfin’s had become final and hence. . subpoena ad testificandum. immutable. 1997. a2010 page 12 Prof. Delfin. the court must first be satisfied that the following requisites are present: (1) the books. 1997. is used to compel a person to testify. documents or other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the controversy (test of relevancy).

Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules. . where the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak. the City Prosecutor of Makati City was not informed of this development. It however denied petitioner’s motion to have the formal offer of evidence of SRMO expunged from the record. conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance. All of these were never issued by Caltex. PEOPLE v TULIN RICARZE v CA (PEOPLE. Pre-trial ensued and the cases were jointly tried.Petitioner further averred that unless the Informations were amended to change the private complainant to PCIB. 1997. Reasoning .790. 1998.25 payable to Dante R.Petitioner Eduardo G. through SRMO. Consequently. 1998 against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. a2010 page 13 Prof. . the accused must be duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. the private complainant is Caltex and not PCIB. SR. one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt. the Formal Offer of Evidence filed by SRMO should be stricken from the records.The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. . It is better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man. the PCIB is entitled to receive any civil indemnity which the trial court would adjudge against the accused. Montecillio and Ongsiako Law Offices (SRMO) as private prosecutor filed a Formal Offer of Evidence. CALTEX) G. however. . and pleaded not guilty to both charges. 1998. had been cleared through PCIB on October 15. courts have always been.On July 18. 2007 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS . the PCIB credited the amount of P581. hence. Furthermore. as they ought to be. After the requisite preliminary investigation. Ricarze was employed as a collector-messenger by City Service Corporation. Romano alleged that. .On November 6. Petitioner Benito Astorga is ACQUITTED of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt. and it was only after the prosecution had rested its case that SRMO entered its appearance as private prosecutor representing the PCIB. 2001. His primary task was to collect checks payable to Caltex and deliver them to the cashier. provided it is filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be better served thereby. Makati Branch. PCIB pointed out that petitioner had marked in evidence the letter of the ACCRA Law Office to PCIBank dated October 10. 160451 CALLEJO. 1997 and the credit memo sent by PCIB to Caltex .25. Inc. notwithstanding two missing checks and two other check forgeries. his right as accused would be prejudiced. Moreover. shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice. (Caltex) in Makati City. after which the Siguion Reyna.No sufficient evidence to show that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of the private offended parties. even if the evidence for defense is also weak. It contended that the PCIB had re-credited the amount to Caltex to the extent of the indemnity. Thus. Check No. 1997. contending that the private complainant was represented by the ACCRA Law Offices and the Balgos and Perez Law Office during trial. as a general rule. or except a particular case from its operation. it is always within our power to suspend the rules. the presumption of innocence of the accused must be sustained and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right. opposed the motion. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. 1997. technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights.Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with Urgent Application for Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of DISPOSITION REVERSED.8 He insisted that the amendments of the Informations to substitute PCIB as the offended party for Caltex would place him in double jeopardy.Petitioner was arraigned on August 18. on October 16. the City Prosecutor filed two (2) Informations for estafa through falsification of commercial documents on June 29.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales WON the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt HELD Procedural YES Ratio While a second motion for reconsideration is. it is within the sound discretion of the Court to admit the same. the re-credited amount was brought out on cross-examination by Ramon Romano who testified for the Prosecution. 1997 in the amount of P5. Branch 63. hence. Under the Informations. if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice. The prosecution presented its witnesses.570. as in this case.00 to Caltex on March 29. the forged checks were deposited and endorsed by him under Gutierrez’s name. . For the prosecution’s evidence must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Reasoning . the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. that the Informations can no longer be amended because he had already been arraigned under the original Informations.PCIB. He pointed out. . a domestic corporation engaged in messengerial services.790. . Since the ACCRA and Balgos and Perez Law Offices had not withdrawn their appearance. He was assigned to the main office of Caltex Philippines. Gutierrez. Caltex filed a criminal complaint against petitioner before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City for estafa through falsification of commercial documents. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences. However. and not the other way around.In the meantime. one of its depositary banks. 2001. the PCIB had been subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex as private complainant. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied on November 14.R. it was discovered that unknown to the department. a prohibited pleading. a company check. 74001 dated October 13. one of which amounted to P1. SRMO had no personality to appear as private prosecutor. the RTC issued an Order granting the motion of the private prosecutor for the substitution of PCIB as private complainant for Caltex.7 Petitioner opposed the pleading. February 9.757.Further investigation revealed that said savings account had actually been opened by petitioner. He also delivered invoices to Caltex’s customers. It appears that Darma merely extended his hospitality and entertained the DENR team in his house. while his department was conducting a daily electronic report from Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB) Dela Rosa. Substantive NO Ratio When the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty.229. No.

claiming to be in Caloocan at the time of the crime.The Court agrees with respondent PCIB’s comment that petitioner failed to make a distinction between legal and conventional subrogation.] In case of offenses against property. now Rule 110. -After a separate trial for Poncing Abergas and Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak. the designation of the name of the offended party is not absolutely indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or information can be properly identified. YES . NO . 2001 and November 14. (a) In offenses against property. Luisito Cruz was threatened by the men and forced to give the keys to his car by Vergel Bustamante. she was left at Valenzuela Bulacan as the men said the kidnapping “did not materialize”." inasmuch as Dan Tolentino. who had previously entered of plea of "not guilty" could not be served with subpoenas. 1989 NATURE Automatic Review FACTS -On or about April 8. 1980. in Gapan. ISSUE 1. The documentary evidence in the form of the forged checks remained the same. petitioner’s acquiescence is not necessary for subrogation to take place because the instant case is one of legal subrogation that occurs by operation of law. Dispositive WHEREFORE. the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complaint is not a substantial amendment. designation by which it is known or by which it may be identified. or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. However. Branch 63. and the other accused were reported to have died. Luisito reported the incident which led to the detention of Vergel Bustamante who was positively identified by Priscilla. An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance. –The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed. the property must be described with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged. Subrogation is the transfer of all the rights of the creditor to a third person. entered the house of the sps Cruz and robbed them of P3000 and jewelry.The appellate court declared that when PCIB restored the amount of the checks to Caltex. Boy Pogi. Chotse Doe alias Bernabe Sulaybar y Hernandez. WON petitioner’s rights are prejudiced with the substitution of the complainant WON there was a valid subrogation of rights by Caltex to PCIB WON charges against him should be dismissed because the allegations in both Informations failed to name PCIB as true offended party a2010 page 14 Prof. The members of the household were then made to enter a room and were tied. and all such evidence was available to petitioner well before the trial. Thus.According to petitioner. Roming Longhair. Poncing Abergas. 2. The amendment of the Informations substituting the PCIBank for Caltex as the offended party would prejudice his rights since he is deprived of a defense available before the amendment. and without need of the debtor’s knowledge. Thereafter.) praying for the annulment of the RTC’s Orders of July 18. HELD 1. Name of the offended party. She was then told she was being held for ransom of P50k but they had to stop in San Rafael Bulucan to hire a truck because the car broke down. 12. is that which takes place by agreement of the parties. Section 11.In the case at bar.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Appeals (CA. Nueva Ecija. If there is no better way of identifying him. . Section 12 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. . he must be described under a fictitious name (Rule 110. or any name or PEOPLE v GUEVARRA 179 SCRA 740 PADILLA: December 4. Petitioner further insisted that the ruling in the Sayson case did not apply to this case.The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made. without need of averring that it is a juridical person or that it is organized in accordance with law. it was subrogated to the latter’s right against petitioner. Revised Rules of Court. His defense was rejected considering the proximity of Gapan and Caloocan and since witnesses had positively identified him. if the name of the offended party is unknown. nor did it result in any prejudice to petitioner. he cannot claim any surprise by virtue of the substitution. 3. Baldo de Jesus. and which would be unavailable if the Informations are amended. Conventional subrogation. The five men then boarded a taxi and the truck driver later took her home. several armed men namely Jaime Guevarra y Arcega. Instances of legal subrogation are those provided in Article 1302of the Civil Code. Ho and People v. (b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained. Thus. he must be described under a fictitious name. -Bustamante denied the allegations and interposed the defense of alibi. damage or injury to the offended party is an essential element of estafa. It further declared that in offenses against property. on the other hand. for further proceedings. . the designation of the name of the offended party is not absolutely indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or information can be properly identified. and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. This case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. who substitutes him in all his rights. 3. the court must cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint or information and the record (c) If the offended party is a juridical person. Reyes. and Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak". Dan Tolentino. On the same night.The rules on criminal procedure require the complaint or information to state the name and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known and if there is no better way of Identifying him. 2001. . After the robbery. Boy Tae. The appellate court cited the rulings of this Court in People v. the petition is DENIED.Legal Basis: Section. judgment was rendered finding the accused Vergel Bustamante . it is sufficient to state its name. 2. NO . Priscilla Cruz was forcibly boarded in her own car by 5 of her kidnappers where she was held at knife and gunpoint. Legal subrogation is that which takes place without agreement but by operation of law because of certain acts. The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in both Informations. It may either be legal or conventional.

NO -No element of ransom exists as no ransom note was presented in court.The ff circumstances led the RTC judge of Nueva Ecija to believe that Vergel Bustamante and “Dan Saksak” are one and the same person as the accused is mentioned in each as Vergel Bustamante alias “Dan Saksak”: A subpoena issued by the MTC of Gapan. 1918 NATURE Review of a decision of the CFI of Province of Iloilo. A complaint charging the commission of the complex offense of robbery with homicide must necessarily charge each of the component offenses with the same precision that would be necessary if they were made the subject of separate complaints. the names of the persons against whom.000. the complaint must invest such person with individuality by either naming him or alleging that his name is unknown. To constitute robbery. Bustamante can only be convicted of kidnapping of a female under Article 267 with the aggravating circumstances of (a) the use of a motor vehicle and (b) the aid of armed men bringing the penalty up to the maximum. it is perfectly clear that they could be prosecuted tomorrow for robbery committed upon issue of the credibility of the witnesses cannot be raised. or against whose property. is of no importance. However. Dispositive WHEREFORE. is subject to the criticism that the defendant is thereby placed in a position where he could not be protected from a future prosecution by a plea of former conviction or acquittal. . and on occasion thereof killed the said Roman Estriba and three others. -In. is violative of the rudimentary principles of pleading. due to Article 3 Sec.The reinvestigation is evidenced by the certification of the Fiscal stating that there was reasonable ground to believe a crime had been committed and that the accused were informed of the complaint and given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. The accused Poncing Abergas. 2.00. a Return of Service of one subpoena. in charging the crime of robbery committed upon the person. It is elementary that in crimes against property. NO . he is deemed to have waived his objection to the information and is assumed to be satisfied with its legality. Where the name of the injured party is necessary as matter of essential description of the crime charged.The said discrepancies in the testimonies were minor details which could not destroy the substance of said testimonies. the a2010 page 15 Prof. 330 STREET. it may be alleged that it is unknown. But of course if his name cannot be ascertained. July 15. any case.The information in a prosecution for robbery with quadruple homicide charged that the accused criminally and by force appropriated certain articles of value. WON there was no reinvestigation conducted to justify the filing of the amended information 3. The complaint in this case therefore properly contained an averment as to the ownership of the property. 58 declares that a complaint or information shall show. NO. WON the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom HELD 1. ISSUES 1. Also. Mrs.From the fact that the name of the injured person may. FACTS . Hence. the property obtained must be that of another. -Hence. upon the other hand. was acquitted of the charge. when the first was not present. an order issued by the Municipal Court of Gapan finding a prima facie case against the accused. and upon principle. and a variance in this respect between the indictment and the proof will be fatal. Priscilla Cruz.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales alias "Dan Saksak" guilty of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention and sentenced to suffer the death penalty. in case of necessity. 4. and indictments for such offenses must name the owner. As the accused failed to do so. the death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. in the amount of P5. when known. . It is also necessary in order to identify the offense. and to indemnify the offended party. 19 of the Constitution. ownership must be alleged as matter essential to the proper description of the offense. The mere circumstance that the two crimes are so related as to constitute one transaction in no way affects the principles of pleading involved in the case. However. If we should convict or acquit these defendants today of the robbery which is alleged to have been committed upon the property of Roman Estriba. the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it is one affecting jurisdiction over the person and should have been raised before the trial court in a motion to quash the information. the offense was committed. . the proof showed that the money which was the subject of the robbery was taken from one Juana Seran who was robbed and killed separately from the other three victims. To permit a defendant to be convicted upon a charge of robbing one person when the proof shows that he robbed an entirely different person. 3. Besides. sentencing the defendants Pedro Lahoylahoy and Marcos Madanlog to death upon a complaint charging the crime of robbery with multiple homicide. if known. NO . the allegation of the owner's name is essential. As the highest degree of respect is accorded to the factual findings of the TC. It is well recognized in this jurisdiction that where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offenses the defendant can be convicted of the other. 2. this appeal. among others things. and in addition.Subsection 5 of section 6 of General Orders No. be alleged as unknown it should NOT be inferred that the naming of such person. the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support a finding of guilt even without the said extra-judicial confession. the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED US v LAHOYLAHOY and MADANLOG 38 Phil. Neither was there a demand for money in exchange for Priscilla’s safe return. WON the TC erred in convicting Bustamante upon the prosecution witnesses’ contradictory and improbable testimonies and the appellant’s extrajudicial confession 4. ISSUE WON the conviction for robbery with quadruple homicide can be sustained HELD NO . WON TC erred in ordering the amendment of the information to include Vergel Bustamante alias “Dan Saksak” despite lack of proof that the 2 are 1 and the same person. and the letter of transmittal of the records of the cases to the RTC of Nueva Ecija stating Bustamante aka Dan Saksak was detained in the Manila City Jail. the property of one Roman Estriba. the Amended Information failed to allege that the kidnapping was for the purpose of extorting a ransom. The rule is that an accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information.

The pertinent paragraphs of the said PD is its “Whereas” clause ("WHEREAS.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the property of Juana.In the light of what has been said it is evident that. ice pick with an overall length of about 8 1/2 inches in the Information filed with J. lawless violence. -ON SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION: for a complaint or information to be sufficient it must.' 'kris. criminality. and the plea of former jeopardy would be of no avail. or rebellion. . In the criminal case before the CFI Samar the accused was arraigned but at the same time moved to quash the Information. rebellion.there exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure. Without that motivation. except where such articles are being used as necessary tools or implements to earn a livelihood and while being used in connection therewith. . and that a construction of which the PEOPLE v PURISIMA 86 SCRA 542 MUNOZ-PALMA. Maceren. (3) that since it is malum prohibitum. But since it was specified in the Informations that the accused were charged with violation of Par3. and (5) that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. In other words. it is impossible to convict the two accused of the offense of robbery committed by them in this case.In the 2 cases filed before the different branches of CFI Manila.' 'barong.' 'dagger. Par. chaos and public disorder mentioned in the aforesaid Proclamation No. PD 9 shows that the prohibited acts need not be related to the subversive activities.D. the act fans within the purview of the city ordinance or some statute when the circumstances so warrant. the intention of the accused who commits it is immaterial. November 20.It is a constitutional right of any person who stands charged in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. criminality. the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed. (4) that PD was enacted to eradicate lawless violence which characterized pre-martial law days. What makes the act criminal or punishable under the decree is the motivation behind it. Polo) in violation of PD 9. or to abet. 1978 NATURE Petitions for review (26 petitions consolidated) of the decisions of the Courts of First of Manila and Samar. -ON PD 9:THIS CASE INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE INTENT OF THIS P. a2010 page 16 Prof. 9(3) must be alleged in the information in order that the latter may constitute a sufficiently valid charged. and any person found guilty thereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from five to ten years as a Military Court/Tribunal/Commission may direct. outside of the scope of the statute or the city ordinance mentioned above.' 'spear.(PD 9 punishes the offender with 5-10 yrs imprisonment. the orders of dismissal were given before arraignment of the accused. that the act proscribed is essentially malum prohibitum penalized for reasons of public policy. organized lawlessness or public disorder. it was necessary for the Court to elucidate the elements of the said PD to differentiate it from other statutes (see above) – the rest of the discussion was on the intent of the PD: to justify their decision that Par3 should be interpreted with the Whereas clause.) -Petitioner’s Contention: (1) Par 3. or an overall length of 11-3/4 inches in the Information filed with J. insurrection. Ordinance 3820 with a fine of not more than P200 or imprisonment for not more than 1 month or both).D.' 'bolo. the accused were sentenced by the Supreme Court for four separate homicides. This is essential to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly. or pointed weapon. PD 9. and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. etc. explosives and other deadly weapons”) and par3 (It is unlawful to carry outside of residence any bladed. HOWEVER. ORDINANCE NO. . connected with or related to subversion. Informations were filed with respondent judges in their respective courts (2 Branches of CFI. 1081 are committed and abetted by the use of firearms. pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the occasion of.Purisima. state the designation of the offense by the statute. Act 1780 with a fine of P500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or both. 3.' 'balisong. or public disorder. The two elements of the offense covered by P. Ratio.) . . 3820 OF THE CITY OF MANILA) which may be charged against the accused for their acts to constitute a crime. by reason of the lack of conformity between the allegation and the proof respecting the ownership of the property. the three Judges ordered their immediate release unless held on other charges. Sec26. lawless violence. a simple act of carrying any of the weapons described in the presidential decree is not a criminal offense in itself. It is necessary that the particular law violated be specified as there exists a substantial difference between the statute and city ordinance on the one hand and P. The offense carries two elements: first. and therefore they cannot be convicted of the complex offense of robbery with homicide. 9 (3) on the other regarding the circumstances of the commission of the crime and the penalty imposed for the offense. the said judges dismissed the Informations on the common ground that the said Informations did not allege facts which constitute the offense penalized by PD 90 – failed to state 1 of the 2 essential elements of the crime punished (the carrying outside of the accused's residence of a bladed. and second that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of. Reasoning. The sufficiency of an Information is determined solely by the facts alleged therein. insurrection. or in connection with subversion. if concealed. pointed or blunt weapon such as 'fan knife. There are other statutes (SECTION 26 OF ACT NO. chaos. In all the cases where the accused were under arrest. insurrection. It is the second element which removes the act of carrying a deadly weapon. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood. Where the facts are incomplete and do not convey the elements of the crime.D. then CFI Samar) but upon motion to quash filed by the several accused. rebellion.' or club. 1780. inter alia. subversion. blunt. ISSUE WON the Informations filed by the People sufficient in form and substance to constitute the offense of “Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon” penalized under PD 9 HELD NO. FACTS -The private respondents were all charged with illegal possession of deadly weapons (one (1) carving knife with a blade 1/2 inches and a wooden handle of 5-1/4 inches. socyatan in the Information filed with J. the quashing of the accusation is in order.

they all proceeded to the office of the INP Police Station of Malasiqui to report the crime and had Rebecca physically examined in that same afternoon. Rule 110 of the ROC which states that there should be only 1 offense charged in a criminal complaint or information. Art III. (a) BUT it is likewise the rule that if ever duplicity of offenses is committed. We DENY these 26 Petitions for Review and We AFFIRM the Orders of respondent Judges dismissing or quashing the Information concerned. Without costs. . Dispositive Appeal has no merit. the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. NO . conspiring and mutually helping one another. Decision affirmed.Appeal before SC: The accused filed this appeal to reduce penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. Both fled from the scene of the crime together and at the same time. (b) As clearly found by the trial court: “Both accused have. the house to report the tragic incident to Amelita. while accused Conrado held her hands placing them behind her body. 9. She ran to the upper floor of PEOPLE v LUMILAN 323 SCRA 170 DE LEON.In defense.The original death sentence was correctly imposed: Art 335 RPC states that when the crime of rape is committed by 2 or more persons. . Reasoning CFI is accused of violating the rule against duplicity of offenses in that. because of the existence of conspiracy. Sec 7 and Rule 110. aggravated by cruelty or ignominy. Neither can he claim that he was denied information that he was to be tried for two crimes. . considering that they entered the bathroom where Rebecca was. Sec 13. the People could have filed a complaint either under Sec 26 of Act 1780 or under Manila City Ordinance 3820 since most of the cases were dismissed prior to arraignment of the accused and on a motion to quash. ISSUES 1. The act of "plastering" mud on the victim's vagina right after she was raped is adequately described as "ignominy" (rather than “cruelty or ignominy”) 3. WHEREFORE. both in short pants.REBECCA is Teofilo Malong’s househelper.Appreciating the aggravating circumstance of ignominy is correct because of the greater perversity displayed by the offenders. June 25. Conrado raped her. obviously. each defendant is responsible not only for the rape personally committed by him. the same constitutes a ground for a motion to quash the complaint. SO ORDERED. The rule invoked is Sec 13. WON CFI erred in sentencing each to suffer 2 penalties of death HELD 1. Ater she had just taken a bath and still naked. 2000 . the accused were convicted for 2 crimes of rape even when under the criminal complaint against them. Fernandez then got a handful of mud near the bathroom and placed it on her vagina. WON CFI erred in holding that the rape was attended by the aggravating circumstance of cruelty or ignominy 3. NO . together and at the same time. .CFI decision: Each of the accused MELQUIADES FERNANDEZ and FEDERICO CONRADO is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two crimes of rape. conspired and confederated to commit the crime. and so on. failure of the accused to interpose the objection constitutes waiver. a possible abuse of authority or act of oppression. Dispositive. under which a death penalty already imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua. Court sentences each of them to suffer 2 penalties of death. It is to be presumed that when P. The acts complained of were stated in ordinary and concise language that any person of common intelligence would be able to understand and thereby know what acts he was to defend himself against. the sentence on appellant Conrado has to be reduced to 2 penalties of reclusion perpetua.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales statute is fairly susceptable is favored. the accused FERNANDEZ and CONRADO pleaded not guilty on arraignment and underwent trial. mischievous. 9 was promulgated by the President of the Republic there was no intent to work a hardship or an oppressive result. because each of them cooperated in the commission of the rape perpetrated by the others. the greater penalty shall be applied. the two accused. defendant a necessary knowledge of the charge so that he may not be confused in his defense. both claiming they were nowhere at the scene of the crime when it was committed. or a new one under other existing statute or city ordinance as the facts may warrant.Criminal complaint filed before the CFI alleged that the accused. -ON OTHER REMEDIES OF THE PEOPLE: Under Rule 117. Assisted by counsel. since the original death penalties imposed by the trial court are no longer imposable under the present Constitution and are reduced to reclusion perpetua. the purpose of which is to afford the PEOPLE v FERNANDEZ 183 SCRA 511 PADILLA. Penal statutes are to be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of an accused. evil. WON CFI erred in convicting them for 2 crimes of rape 2. Or. notwithstanding the advice of his counsel de officio to discontinue. surreptitiously entered the bathroom and sexually abused her. by means of force and intimidation.TEOFILO stated that upon being informed that his housemaid Rebecca was raped by the accused. and injurious consequences. indefensible. which will avoid all objectionable.” 2. In multiple rape. March 22. subject however to Our observations made in the preceding pages 23 to 25 of this Decision regarding the right of the State or Petitioner herein to file either an amended Information under Presidential Decree No. paragraph 3. But the indemnity he has to pay to the victim must be increased to P20T in line with prevailing jurisprudence. a2010 page 17 Prof. wrongful.However. in light of the 1987 Consti specifically Sec 19(1). there is only 1 crime of rape alleged. 1990 NATURE Appeal from CFI Pangasinan decision FACTS . had sexual intercourse with the 15-yr old Rebecca SORIANO. but also for the rape committed by the others.D. Fernandez withdrew his appeal. NO Ratio The imposition on each of the accused of the penalty corresponding to 2 crimes of rape is proper. the 2 denied any involvement in the offense. Art 63 RPC states that when the penalty prescribed is composed of 2 indivisible penalties and the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance. . Accused Fernandez then tied her with a piece of cloth tightly around her neck. by acts without which it would not have been accomplished. Then after Fernandez had raped Rebecca. arming one person with a weapon to impose hardship on another. The lone appellant therefore is Conrado who insists on his appeal. . Teofilo’s daughter. However. Information may be amended or ordered by the court to be amended.

under an Information charging them and accused Fred Orbiso with the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder. in violation of Presidential Decree (P.) No. each other.However. failure to interpose any objection to the defect in the information constitutes waiver. The accused. No. 8294.D. are offenses different and separate from and independent of. and three (3) counts of attempted murder. and their conviction for Murder. . where an accused uses an unlicensed firearm in committing homicide or murder. No. . for the latter is not included in the former. 4. is irregular. it had already been six (6) months since the Court held in People v. More significantly. 1866.A. Since appellants defended themselves not only against the offense of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder as specified in the Information. where the penalty for illegal possession is increased to reclusion perpetua or death by the attendance of homicide or murder. ISSUE WON the appellants may be properly convicted of murder. No. . Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that an accused may not be convicted of an offense other than that with which he is charged in the Information. he may no longer be charged with what used to be the two separate offenses of homicide or murder under the Revised Penal Code and qualified illegal possession of firearms used in homicide or murder under P.The Information charging appellants with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder. both Lumilan and Garcia entered the plea of not guilty. however. which obliterated the now obsolete concept of qualified illegal possession of firearms or illegal possession of firearms in its aggravated form.A. Nolasco Estrada.) No.Whether considered in the light of our ruling in Tacan and its progeny of cases or in the context of the amendments introduced by R. but also. 1866.. murder. . on the other. 1 of P. No.A. Sec. 8294. Mario Palomo and Romeo Pacho were drinking liquor inside the house of Policarpio Palomo when it was sprayed with bullets. HELD YES .The evidence of the prosecution reveals that in the early evening of October 12. 1866 now mandates that the accused will be prosecuted only for the crime of homicide or murder with the fact of illegal possession of firearms being relegated to a mere special aggravating circumstance. frustrated murder and attempted murder under an Information that charges them with qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder in violation of Section 1 of presidential Decree (P.Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration which was. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court. violates Sec. but what controls in the description of the said criminal acts and not the technical name of the crime supplied by the provincial fiscal. the trial court may not validly convict an accused for the former crime under an Information charging the latter offense. however. Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a complaint or information must charge but one offense. on one hand. Simeon Pacano. Duplicity or multiplicity of charges is a ground for a motion to quash under Sec.D. appellants cannot pretend that the Information did not fully apprise them of the charges against them as to cause them surprise in the event of conviction. is defective. the latter is penalized under the Revised Penal Code. the bulk of the evidence that they presented during the trial was intended to disprove their complicity in the murder. i. Simeon Pacano. as amended. such defect in the Information and the irregular conviction of appellants. and they effectively defended themselves against the charges for murder. However.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales NATURE Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan. a significant change was introduced to Sec.At the time the trial court promulgated its judgment of conviction in September 1990. 13. no longer exists in our statute books.) No. Meliton Asuncion.D. -Further. frustrated murder and attempted murder.D. Modesto Roque. unless such other offense was both established by evidence and is included in the offense charged in the Information. The successive gunshots emanated from the fence about six (6) meters away from where they were drinking. No. which used to be a distinct offense. whether or not homicide or murder resulted from its use. appellant did not file any motion to quash the Information. Jerry Palomo. 1987. In fact.Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilagan.While the Information specifically states that appellants are being accused of the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder in violation of P. 1 of P. Mario Palomo and Romeo Pacho. . the Information charging appellants with . . the prosecution for one will not bar prosecution for the other. Eliong dela Cruz. -As such. an accused charged in the Information with homicide or murder may not be convicted of qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide. and murder or homicide. may choose not to file a motion to quash and be convicted of as many distinct charges as are alleged in the information and proved during the trial.D. two (2) counts of frustrated murder.Sec. 8294. Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder. No. .Upon being arraigned. such that now.D. and attempted/frustrated murder. The appellation of the crime charged as determined by the provincial fiscal may not exactly correspond to the actual crimes constituted by the criminal acts described in the Information to have been committed by the accused. In the same vein. the instant appeal.Hence. and double jeopardy will not lie. denied . and Eliong dela Cruz and seriously wounding Jerry Palomo. Isabela. and during trial. Consequently. 2 (e). Isabela FACTS . Conversely. Benito Alonzo. 1866. While the former is punished under a special law. P. does not invalidate the criminal proceedings had in the trial court because the appellants waived their right to quash the Information. Since murder or homicide neither includes or is necessarily included in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide. its text is so worded that it describes at least three (3) crimes: illegal possession of firearms.e. No.A.In the instant case. 1866. 1866. .The Information is undeniably duplicitous. No. . . they interposed the defense of alibi. as amended by R. No. Nolasco Estrada. Modesto Rogue. except only in cases where the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. 8294 to P. found accused-appellants Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of murder. qualified illegal possession of firearms. the trial court convicted the appellants for Murder. 1866.D. the trial court declared that no proof beyond reasonable doubt was adduced by the prosecution to justify the conviction of appellants for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder. Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder.After an assessment of the evidence. and more firearm or ammunition.D. frustrated murder and attempted murder of the victims. -As amended by R. Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder. Tacan that the unlawful possession of an unlicensed a2010 page 18 Prof. killing Meliton Asuncion. . 1866 by Republic Act (R.

Matilde sought from the Court a quo a reconsideration contending that in the absence of any allegation in the body of information alleging specifically all the elements of the offense defined and penalized under PD. steal and carry away the following. it cannot be said that their conviction for the latter crimes is infirm and invalid ***Appellants in this case were nonetheless acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. Isabela is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 133. that there is no allegation in the . The Court entertained doubts as to the prosecution’s witnesses’ testimony that they were able to identify the appellants as the authors of the crime considering that it was dark outside. unlawfully and feloniously take. with intent of gain and without knowledge and consent of their employer. The Supreme Court said that the appropriate penalty is that under Article 309 (3) of the RPC-prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods if value of property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6. a2010 page 19 Prof. The information charged that petitioner and his co-accused. 1982 FACTS .000 pesos. FACTS . Although the preamble of said informations stated that petitioner was charged with the crime of simple theft "in relation to Presidential Decree No. paragraph 3. GUERRERO. who is still at large. and for this she (Rita) obtained 3 checks totaling P1. . y Cruz." nowhere was it alleged in the body of said information that the articles stolen were materials or products which petitioner was "working on. through grave abuse of confidence." .632. Branch XXVI. respondent court imposed upon petitioner. Except for the dates of commission and the amounts involved. and without the knowledge and consent of the said firm. 9553 and 9554. to wit: . From this decision. The information contains that Rita misappropriated P127.Luz Balitaan owns a baby dresses mending shop. Batangas an Information charging Rita of the crime of estafa. of the Revised Penal Code.Luz. Jr. Marciano K. Matilde pleaded GUILTY but the Court imposed the penalty under PD 133 and not those by Article 309 (3) of the RPC. its President and General Manager. 133.During trial at the MTC. y Cruz. and mutually aided one another. Rita de los Reyes is the manager of her business.58. did then and there wilfully. Disposition The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan. 1975. 133. are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that their alleged guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. paragraph 3. with intent of gain. ." does not suffice for the purpose envisioned by the constitutional guarantee that the accused should be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. ISSUE WON the information that the accused is charged with the crime of simple theft “in relation to PD 133” suffices HELD NO . imposing upon the accused Crisanto Matilde. grave abuse of confidence.97. It held that since the BALITAAN v CFI (DE LOS REYES) 115 SCRA 729. the penalty prescribed in Presidential Decree No. Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder as described in the body of the Information. Jr. Ricardo Abener y San Pascual.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales seriously against the crimes of Murder. to qualify the offense and to justify the imposition of the heavier penalty prescribed by said Decree." and that a statement in the preamble of the information that the accused is charged with the crime of simple theft "in relation to Presidential Decree No. NATURE Certiorari to nullify the judgment of respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal. the aforesaid three (3) informations uniformly stated that said accused were charged with the crime of qualified theft. thru Special Counsel Aguila. filed with the MTC of Bauan. The constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the appellants was not over-turned by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. all of them mutually helping and aiding one another. In three criminal cases. Servando Calpo y Caballero. December 29. for the crime of simple theft. 9552. The lawyer for the defense moved: (1) to strike the testimonies with regard to the voucher evidence on the ground that said testimonies are at variance with the allegations in the information. committed as follows: "That on or about the 14th day of November. being then laborers working at the Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises. 133 (which imposes a heavier penalty) instead of that imposed by Article 309. MATILDE v JABSON 68 SCRA 456 ANTONIO. 133. conspired and confederated with. (See original for exact wording of Information. in stealing the articles mentioned therein belonging to their employer. They also took note of the fact that Pacano. one of the witnesses. conspiring and confederating together with one Renato Matuto y Ann. 133. Province of Rizal. or using or producing" as employee or laborer of the complainant. 1973 in the Municipality of Pasig. that the information should aver that the articles stolen were materials or products which the accused was "working on or using or producing. only executed his sworn statement more than five months atfer the incident. it is essential. A cash voucher evidencing the receipt of said amount was entered into evidence. objective of Presidential Decree No. being then laborers. in Criminal Cases Nos. in relation to Presidential Decree No. for the crime of simple theft. as provided for in Presidential Decree No. 133. despite of repeated demands of Luz. 133 is to place a strong deterrent on workers from sabotaging the productive efforts of the industry where they are employed. and Ireneo Belver y Bale. Edgardo Cape y Atienza.When the informations were amended from Qualified Theft to Simple theft and deleting from the body of Information the phrase “Grave abuse of confidence”. the penalty prescribed in Presidential Decree No. the above-named accused. instead of that imposed by Article 309. Luz testified that Rita delivered the baby dresses to Uniware. The accused-appellants. he cannot be conviceted and penalized under the aforesaid decree. July 30. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia. of the Revised Penal Code. and directed that another one be rendered. penalty is in its minimum period.An Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed three informations in Criminal Cases Nos. Espiritu. 9552. 9553 and 9554 against Crisanto Matilde.) . .The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and set aside the judgment. But with the mitigating plea of guilty. and the only source of light were two kerosene lamps inside the house. Patricio Guiruela y Luna. Philippines.

accuses ARTEMIO CALAYCA of the crime of RAPE. Feeling the pain in her vagina. Even if deceit may be present.The presence of deceit would not change the whole theory of the prosecution that estafa with abuse of confidence was committed. 7659. 1995. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be stated must be determined by reference to the definitions and the essentials of the specific crimes. she resisted his onslaught by kicking and hitting him. January 20. "Cagayan de Oro City. This was the same finding of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Misamis Oriental upon examination of the records of the preliminary investigation forwarded to it.58 was due a Cesar Dalangin for some of the dresses he made. more or less. ISSUE WON the testimonies are at variance with the allegations in the information. . Under par 2a. unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation. and he didn’t receive the amount (he didn’t even know Rita)." But she was helpless to resist his lustful desire as he threatened her with a knife saying. 1994. is absorbed by abuse of confidence.The position of the defense is that the testimonies tend to prove another kind of estafa --. "CONTRARY TO and in VIOLATION OF Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. demand is not necessary and deceit or false representation must be shown.It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. as amended by Republic Act No. committed as follows: That on or about the 29th day of January. for administration or under any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of a2010 page 20 Prof.632. even though the obligation is guaranteed by a bond. Dispositive CFI decision to strike out testimonies is reversed and set aside.Inasmuch as the crime of estafa through misappropriation or with grave abuse of confidence is charged. Misamis Oriental when she was awakened by the weight of her father. this automatic review. Misamis Oriental on January 9.The defense then filed a petition for certiorari in the CFI of Batangas against the MTC judge for denying the motions to strike out the testimonies relating to the evidence. she was sound asleep inside their house at Barangay Solo. telling him with bitter tears. The court overruled such objections as the lawyer of the complainant told the judge that the evidence was presented to prove that the P127. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.using false pretenses or fraudulent acts (Art 315 par 2a RPC)--and not thru abuse of confidence (Art 315 par 1b RPC). Balingasag. (b) that there is conversion or diversion of such property by the person who has so received it. succeeded in having carnal knowledge (sexual intercourse) with her (sic) own daughter. CFI granted the petition and ordered the testimonies stricken out of the record. she verified the receipts of the payments. MCTC Judge Alfredo Cain found sufficient ground to prosecute the appellant for the crime of rape. diversion or denial is to the injury of another and (d) that there be demand for the return of the property. The testimony thus continued. 1995. PEOPLE v CALAYCA 301 SCRA 192 MARTINEZ. (SGD. [It turns out that Rita told Luz that P127. CASIÑO "Asst. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.97. Court of Balingasag. the abuse of confidence will characterize the estafa as the deceit will be merely incidental or. . herein appellant Artemio Calayca. . (c) that such conversion.A rape charge was initiated by Neddy Calayca through a sworn complaint with supporting affidavits and documents 3 filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial . on March 21. the appellant entered a plea of "Not guilty" to the crime charged. against her will and consent. upon sworn complaint of the offended party. HELD NO . Neddy Calayca. Three weeks later. narrated that at about 1:00 o'clock in the morning of January 29. the above-named accused did then and there willfully. But this doesn’t mean that proof of deceit is not allowed for par 1b. who is now facing a death sentence after having been found guilty of said crime in a Decision 1 dated June 13.) ROBERTO S. 1999 NATURE Automatic review FACTS . Rita gave Luz the encashed amount minus the P127. who was already on top of her. The elements of these two are different. at Barangay Solo.58 was misappropriated from the P1. herein appellant Artemio Calayca. Municipality of Balingasag. naked and armed with a bolo. "I will kill you if or to return the same.58. Cesar said he did not make the baby dresses Rita said he did. Abuse of confidence and deceit may co-exist. the information must contain these elements: (a) that personal property is received in trust. rendered by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 24) of Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case No. when she noticed that many baby dresses were lost. Luz then instructed Rita to encash the checks and pay Cesar. "I wish you would die. Philippines. and (2) in the nature of an objection to any other question or questions regarding these checks that were allegedly received by the herein accused from the Uniware Incorporated because there is no allegation in the information. 1995. Neddy Calayca. .] . . Provincial Prosecutor II" . He forcibly undressed her. . 95129.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales information whatsoever regarding these checks and this cash voucher. Hence.As long as there is a relation of trust and confidence between the complainant and the accused and even though such relationship has been induced by the accused thru false representations and pretense and which is continued by active deceit without truthfully disclosing the facts to the complainant. inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull motion. on commission. Consequently. 1995. You are a father without good morals.A daughter was again allegedly raped by her own father. Province of Misamis Oriental. March 6. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. but Rita kept the money.When arraigned under the above-quoted Information. 1994 at about 1:00 o'clock in the morning.The evidence for the prosecution was anchored mainly on the testimony of 16-year old Neddy Calayca who. Luz then demanded from Rita the said amount. the estafa committed is by abuse of confidence although deceit co-exists in its commission. on May 2. 1995. the corresponding Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court reading as follows: "INFORMATION "The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor II.

thinking their father could no longer find them there. Betty Lani and Neddy left his house on August 19.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales you will not agree. Ratio The allegations of an information should. the private complainant. but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time before the filing thereof. and Betty Lani. or that he may omit . her eldest sister Betty Lani Calayca also arrived from Manila. who were also afraid of appellant. of Isabel de la Cruz who was under 12 years old when he raped her. 32 are considered special qualifying circumstances specifically applicable to the crime of rape. Garcia. Bukidnon and worked as servants of the mayor. Her relatives. Informed of the rape incident.While the Court agrees that the penalty of death should be imposed on him. whether it is made the subject of assignment of errors or not. Section 11 provides. however. so Betty Lani had him arrested by the police. inter alia.Said CFI sustained a Demurrer to an INFORMATION and dismissed the case of rape against Antonio Javier Dichao. the precise time of commission need not be stated in a complaint or information. regrettably this is not in accord with the law and jurisprudence. merely advised her to sue him. 1993. his two daughters did not say a word. Appellant's conviction of qualified rape violates his constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. ." After the sexual assault. However.The failure to allege the fact of minority of the victim in the Information for rape is fatal and consequently bars the imposition of the death penalty. 7659 30 which amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.The trial court imposed the death penalty on appellant because of the presence of the circumstance of minority of the victim (she was only 15 years old at the time she was raped on January 29. the appellant can be convicted only of such crime and be punished accordingly with reclusion perpetua. two of whom he identified as Neddy. All that he testified to was that he was a widower in 1998 and has six children by his late wife. that where the victim of the crime of rape is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent of the victim. In a criminal prosecution. The police then took her sworn statement on the rape incident. ISSUE WON CFI committed an error in dismissing the case based upon the Demurrer HELD NO.00. She was then 15 years old when this incident happened. US v JAVIER DICHAO 27 Phil 421 MORELAND. while Betty Lani stayed with his (appellant's) brother at San Juan. . dressed up and was left weeping.There being no allegation of the minority of the victim in the Information under which the appellant was arraigned. They took his savings from the proceeds of the sale of his pig in the amount of P5. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. appellant was able to locate them. Neddy reported to the police authorities that he raped her. or about the day. Misamis Oriental. appellant had sexually abused her many times. . . it is a well-established rule in criminal procedure that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct an error as may be found in the appealed judgment. Neddy filed her complaint for rape against the appellant. 1994) as well as the relationship of the offender (father) and the victim (daughter). She. he may be.The Information stated that Dichao committed the crime of rape “on or about and during the interval between October 1910. be sufficiently explicit and certain as to TIME to inform the defendant of the date on which the criminal act is alleged to have been committed. being the stepfather. HELD NO . 1912. as we have held in the recent case of People v. He claimed that Neddy was only nine years old when his wife died. March 30. The private complainant stayed with him together with his five other children. The two then traveled to Don Carlos. that as a result of said carnal knowledge Isabel gave birth to a child on August 5. the legal guardian. Lani and Neddy decided to leave the appellant. appellant harassed them.While Sec 7 of the Code of CrimPro provides that “except when time is a material ingredient of an offense. forcing him to slap them. 1914 NATURE Appeal From CFI Davao’s Decision FACTS . While in the house of the mayor. When he asked them why they took his money. Thereafter. to an extent deprived of the opportunity to defend himself. While appellant was in jail. nevertheless. Bukidnon. it is the fundamental rule that every element of the crime charged must be alleged in the Information. Unless the accused is informed of the day. Don Carlos. . Reasoning . 1994 incident. 1994.The defense did not present any other witness nor any documentary evidence. at that period.The Demurrer alleged that the facts set forth in the Information did not constitute a public offense and that the criminal complaint did not conform substantially to prescribed form and that complaint was vague and ambiguous. 7 . Having been informed only of the elements of simple rape.000. Although the matter of the proper imposition of the penalty is not assigned as an error by the appellant.” - this DOES NOT MEAN that the prosecuting officer may be careless in fixing the date of the alleged crime. The main purpose of this constitutional requirement is to enable the accused to properly prepare his defense.Neddy Calayca first thought of immediately filing a case against appellant but was prevented by his threat to kill her. pursuant to Section 11 of Republic Act No. . the death penalty shall be imposed. ISSUE a2010 WON the correct penalty was imposed page 21 Dispositive Judgment modified Prof. This is among the seven (7) circumstances enumerated in Section 11 which. He then looked for his two daughters and found them at Bocboc. A judgment convicting the appellant of the crime charged and imposing upon him the penalty of death was rendered by the trial court. CFI’s decision must be affirmed. .Appellant Artemio Calaycadid not deny the imputation of her daughter Neddy Calayca that he raped her in the early morning of January 29. She informed them that even before the January 29. to August 1912“ (vague di ba?) in Davao and that Dichao was. She immediately went home in Solo because she feared her father. if possible. reported her awful experience with the appellant to her relatives in Mambayaan. she picked up her clothes. When she reached home. he cannot be convicted of qualified rape as he was not properly informed that he is being accused of qualified rape.

ISSUES 1. Thus. that the precise time of the commission of the offense should be stated. She was barely 17. he had moral ascendancy and influence over the victim.SC didn’t agree. . and are decided on different principles.Molero denied the charge. It should just have denied motion for reconsideration of the order granting the prosecution’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.SC then cited cases: US v De Castro~ “While it is not necessary. He succeeded in having sexual intercourse and warned her not to tell anyone. or where the prosecuting officer is NOT thoroughly satisfied that he can prove a precise date. . Dispositive Decision affirmed. this was their own problem. he is unable to defend himself properly. He also denied the sworn statement he made.question of time as alleged in the information was discussed in an incidental way for the purpose of determining whether it of itself or in connection with the other allegations sufficiently identified the transaction which constituted estafa so as to notify the defendant of the transaction referred to.In this case. . . PEOPLE v MOLERO 144 SCRA 397 GUTIERREZ JR. complaint was investigated. 1977: rape was committed Feb 13.A double jeopardy issue arose because there were two complaints filed: . US v. he pleaded not guilty.” US v. a2010 page 22 Prof.Section 9. .The question whether the allegations of the info are sufficiently definite as to time and the question which arises on a variance between the allegations and the proof are different in nature and legal effect. . Court here said that time being not an ingredient of the theft of a carabao. Also. .Mother and daughter went to Station Commander.This dismissal did not amount to an acquittal.. . any date proved which does not surprise and substantially prejudice the defense. amendment sought by prosecution should have been granted.Molero filed motion to quash 2nd criminal complaint on ground of double jeopardy. unless time is a material ingredient of the offense. After arraignment and where appellant pleaded not guilty. They were advised to report to the PC Headquarters. At the PC Headquarters. the provincial fiscal filed motion for leave to amend the complaint. .Trial court found Molero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. . YES . . September 24. saying he’s illiterate.There was no need for trial court to have used such procedure.The case was dismissed for no other reason except to correct the date of the crime. the Court may allow an amendment of the information as to time and an adjournment to the accused.During trial. The victim is illiterate and unschooled.Here.question of time was raised in the demurrer (on appeal) as to the variance bet the date of the crime in the info and that proved on the trial. Appellant was shown to have employed force and intimidation against daughter. and that. the court may in the exercise of sound discretion based on ALL circumstances. that he was not assisted by counsel during investigation. He said he was not informed of his rights to remain silent and to counsel. is it still proper to amend date of commission of crime? Applying Sections 10 and 13 of Rule 110 of Revised Rules of Court.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the date altogether. but accused didn’t want investigation to continue because accdg to him. if necessary to meet the amendment. he should allege in the information that the crime was committed ON or ABOUT a DATE NAMED. . This was granted. by reason of that surprise. Cardona. the case was not terminated because the dispositive portion of the order expressly directed the Provincial Fiscal and/or prosecuting fiscal to file a new complaint and/or information. the statement of the time when the crime was committed is too indefinite to give the accused an opportunity to prepare his defense. She was hugged fr behind by Molero and she fell to the ground.SC: the variance bet the date of the commission of the crime as alleged in the info and that as proved on trial DOES NO warrant necessarily the acquittal of the accused. Time is not a mat’l ingredient in the crime of estafa.Molero was arraigned under the first complaint.Under such an allegation he is not required to prove any precise date but may prove any date which is NOT SO REMOTE as to surprise and prejudice the defendant. 1986 NATURE Appeal from decision of CFI FACTS . . Rule 117 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure: Conviction or acquittal of the defendant or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged… . . He unsheathed his bolo. . or that he may make the allegation indefinite as to amount to the same thing. saying he couldn’t have done it because he was already committed in the provincial jail that time. This was denied.Where the exact date cannot be fixed. .Internal and external exam of victim showed she had previous sexual intercourse.filed March 30. . the new complaint.It does not authorize the total omission of a date or such an indefinite allegation with reference thereto as amounts to the same thing. WON Molero committed the rape HELD 1. Molero told daughter to go with him to the river to catch shrimps and fish.In case of SURPRISE.Molero argues that if a crime was committed by him at all. The precise time is not an essential element of rape.Sec 7 Rules of CrimPro’s purpose is to permit the allegation of a date of the commission of a crime as NEAR to the ACTUAL date as the information of the prosecuting officer will permit and when that has been done.filed March 22. it was qualified seduction. they were secretive of their plan to report because Molero is a fierce man. NO . it did not have to be proved as laid. . Enriquez. 1976 . . 1978: rape was committed Feb 5. .Molero’s alibi was readily refuted. IF such variance occurs and it is shown that the defendant is surprised thereby. order the information amended so as to set forth the correct date and may grant an adjournment for such a length of time as will enable the defendant to prepare himself to meet the variance in date which was the cause of his surprise. WON Molero was under double jeopardy 2. 1976 . . The amendment was only a matter of form and did not prejudice the rights of the appellant.The mother learned of the incident and told daughter to keep quiet for the moment.Molero was charged with rape by daughter in complaint filed in CFI Negros Oriental. . 2. and that indefiniteness is not cured by setting out the date when a child was born as a result of such crime. . still the act should be alleged to have been committed at some time before the filing of the complaint.

The accused filed another Motion to Dismiss. YES Ratio Discrepancies between the accusation and the complaint as to time of occurrence of the carnal copulations in rape do not affect any essential right of the accused. as in the case at bar. she categorically affirmed that Vicente abused her before the start of classes in June 1978. unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant Josephine M. as the case may be..Complainant Josephine Dimaunahan was born on January 7. if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons. Reasoning . appellant had already several sexual relations with complainant . WON there was a valid complaint against the appellant 2. .The Prosecuting Fiscal filed an Addendum to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. a2010 page 23 Prof. her mother.Upon arraignment on. took care of her studies and treated her like his own daughter. 1996. 1978. 1989 NATURE Petition for review of the Decision of the Trial court FACTS . PEOPLE v RAZONABLE 330 SCRA 562 PUNO. executed a joint affidavit to the same effect .-The offended party executed and filed an affidavit alleging that her father abandoned her at the age of two years and three months. and sentencing . .. Dispositive Decision of trial court affirmed PEOPLE v LUALHATI 171 SCRA 277." . finding appellant Benjamin Razonable guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his daughter. Reasoning . nor. Maria Fe Razonable. the accused pleaded not guilty . which may be considered part of the complaint required by law. Rule 110 of the 1964 Rules of Court provided: Sec. a child below twelve years old. Time of the commission of the offense. in spite of the objection of the victim's father. However." . rape. and that the same were provided by her mother and grandmother who. abduction. and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. . as the father. .Appeal from a decision by the RTC of Camarines Norte..Furthermore. Dimaunahan . 1978. where the acts occurred within the period of time alleged in both writings and the difference noted in other respects was of a formal. he still possessed the "patria potestas" over the offended party in spite of his having abandoned her. without providing for her support and studies.Fiscal alleged that the accused was being tried on the Information which charged only one offense committed "in or about the month of June 1978.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales and Molero threatened her with a bolo and rendered her practically helpless. namely: “That on or about the month of June. Appellant had sexual intercourse with complainant. and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto. nor does it order the dismissal of said cause. grandparents. April 12. . that the father of the offended party.Trial court convicted the accused of rape." (2) that which was committed "sometime prior to said period. .The defense filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint charged more than one offense. in any case." and (3) that which was committed "subsequent thereto. or guardian. dated May 3. 1967 . Attached. rather than a substantial.. absent judicial pronouncement depriving him of parental authority over the offended party." being merely eleven years old when the crime was committed. namely: (1) that which was committed "on or about the month of June.Appellant contends that the complaint is void because it charges at least three crimes of rape. It appeared that even prior to June.Argument has no merit. Attached to Josephine's complaint was her sworn statement wherein. character.In 1970. the pardon is given after the filing of the complaint in court. to the Motion to Dismiss was the joint affidavit of desistance signed by the offended party. her mother and grandmother .” . The only act that riding to Article 344 extinguishes the penal action and the penalty that may have been imposed. is the marriage between the offender and the offended party. March 16. Section 10. on the same date. ISSUES 1. HELD 1. 10. NO Ratio Art. He alleged that the express pardon given the accused was invalid for the offended party did not have "a will of her own. executed an affidavit objecting to the pardon given to the accused. but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense' was committed as the information or complaint will permit. WON the pardon given to him by the offended party. which was denied by the trial court . the accused Vicente Lualhati wilfully.Sometime in June. and grandmother extinguished his criminal liability.The rationale of the law on the prosecution of private crimes is simple: The law deems it the wiser policy to let the aggrieved woman and her family decide whether to expose to public view or to heated controversies in court the vices. 283 GRINO-AQUINO. cures any ambiguity in the complaint regarding the number of offenses committed by the accused. it comes too late to hide the shameful occurrence from public notice.Trial court denied the motion to dismiss on account of the insistence of the victim's father to prosecute the accused. faults and disgraceful acts occurring in the family.-It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense. It does not prohibit the continuance of a prosecution if the offended party pardons the offender after the cause has been instituted. That affidavit. 2.Accused filed Motion to Quash. alleging that he had been pardoned by the offended party. 1978. 344(3) of the Revised Penal Code prohibits a prosecution for seduction. while complainant's mother was at work. 2000 NATURE . or acts of lasciviousness. She likewise lived with appellant who supported her. her mother separated from her father and started to live with appellant Vicente Lualhati without the benefit of marriage. when. 1978. except upon a complaint made by the offended party or her parents. appellant and complainant were alone in the house.Trial judge denied motion to dismiss. and that. her mother and grandmother.

naïve and hapless child of twelve years. WON the lower court erred in finding that the guilt of Razonable of the three counts of rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt HELD 1.000. The only defects in an information that are not deemed waived are where no offense is charged. he was able to give an alibi as to his whereabouts at that particular time. RAZONABLE. . She was living by her lonesome self with her father. to her damage and prejudice.Firstly. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from mature persons.Although Maria Fe was raped on 3 consecutive days in the middle of June 1987. Her mother was in Isabela and her nearest sibling lived in another town. he cannot pretend that he was unable to defend himself in view of the vagueness of the allegation in the information as to when the crimes were committed. as follows: "That sometime in the year 1987. during the trial.Razonable was charged in 3 separate Informations with the crime of rape. Most often. An accused who fails to take this seasonable step will be deemed to have waived the defect in said information. It has not been shown that Razonable was taken by surprise with the testimony of Maria Fe that she was raped in the middle of June 1987.Decision of the RTC AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.Secondly. it being an essential element of the crime charged 2. In fine. and 9 o'clock positions. she was a simple. To claim this substantive right protected by no less than the Bill of Rights. complainant went to the police station and filed a complaint. the accused is the father of the offended party and that said offense was committed in their own dwelling and the offended party not having given provocation for it. However. Brgy. On the contrary. Experience teaches us that many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist. the above-named accused did then and there wilfully.000 as moral damages. "The crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of relationship. in a motion to quash said information or a motion for bill of particulars. The impression becomes more profound where the malefactor is the victim's own father. Municipality of Daet. and hence the award given by the trial court should be reduced to P150. incompletely healed hymenal lacerations at 5. Likewise. Corollarily. It could hardly be expected that such a child of tender age would know what to do and where to go under the circumstances. .The fact that Maria Fe continued to live with Razonable will not likewise crumple her credibility. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Province of Camarines Norte. NO a2010 page 24 Prof. at Purok I.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales him to suffer the penalties of 3 reclusion perpetua and to pay the amount of P200. 1981 NATURE Automatic review of the judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court imposing upon Casey and Felix the capital c\punishment for the death of Alfredo Valdez. . Thus. and hence could not properly defend himself.000 for each count of rape should be awarded by way of moral damages. consistent with recent rulings. 2. on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form. ISSUE 1.The delay in the filing of the cases does not necessarily impair the credibility of the victim. she had. . Reasoning . (2) it was unnatural for Maria Fe to remain in their house if it was true that she was threatened and intimidated. Ratio The rationale of the rule (Section 11. at the time of examination. It is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the appearance of their assailant and observe the manner in which the crime was committed. lack of jurisdiction of the offense charged.000 for each count of rape. 7. the accused is duty bound to follow our procedural rules which were laid down to assure an orderly administration of justice. the defense never objected to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution to prove that the offense was committed in the middle of June 1987. current case law dictates that the victim shall be entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50. . accompanied by her sister Ana Marie. Razonable did not raise either in a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars the defect in the Information regarding the indefiniteness of the allegation on the date of the commission of the offense. and (3) there was an unreasonable delay in the filing of the complaint which rendered the rape charges doubtful. unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his own daughter MARIA FE H. Based on the medical certificate. living alone for a long time. WON the RTC erred in not considering the information insufficient to support a judgment of conviction for its failure to state the precise date of the alleged commission of the offense. Then they proceeded to the Camarines Norte Provincial Hospital where she was examined. February 24. entirely dependent on him for all her needs. against the latter's will and by means of force and intimidation. for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain. Rule 110 of the ROC) is to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. the amount of P50. Dispositive Considering that the acts were committed prior to the effectivity of RA 7659. Mantagbac. it behooved the accused to raise the issue of a defective information. rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender's making good on his threats.It is highly inconceivable that Maria Fe would not recognize her own father with whom she has been ALMEDA v VILLALUZ PEOPLE v CASEY and FELIX 103 SCRA 21 GUERRERO. we have ruled that objections as to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. which are identically worded. extinction of the offense or penalty and double jeopardy. She also feared recurrence of the bestial acts. IV. NO Reasoning Appellant claims that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt on the following grounds: (1) the identity of the perpetrator has not been established with certitude since the room was dark and it has not been shown that it was properly illuminated. FACTS . the face and body movements of the assailant create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from their memory. the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the three cases. Her father often drank with friends inside their house and she was wary that appellant might give her to his friends." Razonable pleaded not guilty and his case was tried on the merits. At the time of the incident. . she was able to disclose the dastardly acts of her father to her elder sister only in February of 1993 because her conscience would not allow her any peace of mind. 6. .

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
FACTS - On May 22, 1968, Assistant Fiscal Herminio I. Benito filed an Information for Murder against accused-appellant Joseph Casey alias "Burl", alleging: That on or about the 31st day of March, 1968, in the municipality of San Juan, province of Rizal, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named accused, being then armed with a knife, together with one Ricardo Felix alias "Carding Tuwad" who is then armed with a firearm and who was (sic) still at large, and the two of them conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot and stab with the said firearm and knife one Alfredo Valdez, thereby inflicting upon the latter fatal wounds which directly caused his death. - In June, 1968, upon arraignment, Casey pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the said complaint. - September, 1968, accused ' appellant Ricardo Felix alias "Carding Tuwad" was arrested. Accordingly, an Amended Information was filed by the same fiscal to include Ricardo Felix as an accused, stating: That on or about the 31st day of March, 1968, in the municipality of San Juan, province of Rizal, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused Joseph Casey alias "Burl" being then armed with a knife, together with the accused Ricardo Felix alias "Carding Tuwad" who was then armed with a firearm, and the two of them conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot and stab with the said firearm and knife one Alfredo Valdez, thereby inflicting upon the latter fatal wounds which directly - The court a quo rendered the aforementioned judgment of conviction. It found that two aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, namely: employing or taking advantage of superior strength and evident premeditation, one of which qualified the killing to murder. ISSUES

a2010

page 25

Prof.
Reasoning - Indeed, accused-appellant Joseph Casey gave an extrajudicial sworn statement that he met accusedappellant Ricardo Felix and another person named Rudy in Cubao, Quezon City on that fateful day. However, there is no showing that this meeting was purposely arranged to plan the killing of the victim. In fact, the following questions and answers in the said sworn statement show that there was no preconceived design to kill the victim. - There is evident premeditation when the killing had been carefully planned by the offender or when he had previously prepared the means which he had considered adequate to carry it out, when he had prepared beforehand the means suitable for carrying it into execution, when he has had sufficient time to consider and accept the final consequences, and when there had been a concerted plan. 16 It has also been held that to appreciate the circumstances of evident premeditation, it is necessary to establish the following; (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) the act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to snow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will had he desired to hearken to its warning. - From the answers of accused-appellant Casey in said sworn statement, it can be gleaned that the killing was not a preconceived plan. It was not preceded by any reflection or deep thought. It was just a spontaneous decision reached when the victim started to run away upon being approached by accused-appellant Ricardo Felix. - There are indeed two accused-appellants in this case charged with the murder of not one victim but superiority in number does not necessarily mean superiority in strength. It is necessary to show that the aggressors "cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from their superiority in strength." 3. YES Reasoning - Although there is no direct showing that the accused had conspired together, but their acts and the attendant circumstances disclose that common motive that would make accused Ricardo Felix as a co-principal with the actual slayer, Joseph Casey. Without doubt, he performed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. - Ricardo Felix's overt acts consist in instigating the pursuit of the deceased, in firing a shot at him and in giving Joseph Casey encouragement by his armed

1. WON the Court a quo erred in illegally trying appellant Casey on the amended information without arraignment 2. WON the Court a quo erred in holding that appellants acted with evident premeditation and abuse o of superior strength, and in qualifying the crime committed as aggravated murder 3. WON whether or not there is conspiracy between the two accused in the commission of the crime 4. WON the Court erred in discounting Casey’s defense that he acted in legitimate self-defense HELD 1. NO Reasoning The lack of arraignment under the amended information is objected to by accused-appellant Joseph Casey allegedly on the ground that there is a violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the charge against him. There can be a violation of such right, however, only when the amendment pertains to matters of substance. In the case at bar, the alterations introduced in the information refer to the inclusion of accused appellant Ricardo Felix to the same charge of murder. They do not change the nature of the crime against accused-appellant Casey. Conspiracy, evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength are similarly alleged in both informations. No extenuating circumstance is likewise alleged in both. Thus the amendment of the information as far as accusedappellant Casey is concerned is one of form and not of substance as it is not prejudicial to his rights. - The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of an information has been said to be whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. A look into Our jurisprudence on the matter shows that an amendment to an information introduced after the accused has pleaded not guilty thereto, which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein, does not expose the accused to a charge which could call for a higher penalty, does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance — not prejudicial to the accused and, therefore, not prohibited by Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court. 2. YES

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
presence while the latter inflicted the fatal wounds on the deceased. From the extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant Joseph Casey, it can also be inferred that Ricardo Felix was the moving factor of the evil act perpetrated by the former against the victim. While it was Joseph Casey who inflicted the mortal wounds that caused the death of the victim, he did so out of his perverted sense of friendship or companionship with Ricardo Felix. 4. YES Reasoning - claim is uncorroborated and contrary to the testimony of the eyewitness, Mercedes Palomo. - The fact that the victim sustained four stab wounds while the accused complained merely of abrasions on his back indicates the falsity of the claim. Dispositive the judgment of the trial court under automatic review is MODIFIED in that the accusedappellants Joseph Casey and Ricardo Felix are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide without any attending circumstances and should be sentenced to reclusion temporal in its medium period. But applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, each of the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The accused are likewise sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Alfredo Valdez in the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS jointly and severally, and to pay the costs.

a2010

page 26

Prof.
the offense was committed in 1964. The defense refused to cross-examine witness Alcantara, asked respondent Court to strike off the testimony of Alcantara because it referred to an offense not mentioned in the information, and asked for a ruling by respondent Court on the prosecution's verbal motion to amend the information. - Respondent Judge required the prosecution and the defense to submit memoranda. The contested order of July 22, 1970, denying the prosecution's verbal motion to amend information on the ground that said amendment would prejudice the substantial rights of the accused was issued. ISSUE WON the respondent Court abused its discretion when it refused an amendment to the information to change the date of the alleged commission of the offense from "August 1969" to "August 1964", on the ground it would constitute an impairment of the substantial rights of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution. HELD NO Ratio While it has been held that except when time is a material ingredient of an offense, the precise time of commission need not be stated in the information, this Court stated that this does not mean that the prosecuting officer may be careless about fixing the date of the alleged crime, or that he may omit the date altogether, or that he may make the allegation so indefinite as to amount to the same thing. The prosecution is given the chance to allege an approximation of time of the commission of the offense and the precise date need not be stated but it does not mean that it can prove any date remote or far removed from the given approximate date so as to surprise and prejudice the accused. Reasoning - The period of almost five years between 1947 and 1952 covers such a long stretch of time that one cannot help but be led to believe that another theft different from that committed by the co-defendants in 1952 was also perpetrated by them in 1947. Under this impression the accused, who came to Court prepared to face a charge of theft of large cattle allegedly committed by them in 1952, were certainly caught by sudden surprise upon being confronted by evidence tending to prove a similar offense committed in 1947. The variance is certainly unfair to them, for it violates their constitutional rights to be informed before the trial of the specific charge

PEOPLE v REYES 108 SCRA 203 CONCEPCION, JR; October 23, 1981
NATURE Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction on the order dated July 10, 1970, of the respondent Judge, (Hon. Alfredo C. Reyes of the Circuit Criminal Court, 4th Judicial District, Cabanatuan City) in Criminal Case No. CCC-IV-170NE, "People v Francisco Estrella," which denied petitioner's verbal motion for the amendment of the information in said case, by deleting the year "1969" as alleged therein, and in lieu thereof to put the year "1964 ". FACTS - Sometime in October, an information for qualified theft was filed against private respondent Francisco Estrella and three others, as Criminal Case No. 6799,

in the Municipal Court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, pertinent portion as follows: That in the month of August, 1964, in the municipality of San Jose, province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused Narciso Mananing being the driver of complainant Maria Ignacio- Francisco, Florentino Alcantara, repair shop owner where the truck hereinafter described was found and recovered, Francisco Estrella, a Philippine Constabulary soldier stationed at Bulacan, and Melecio Guevarra, all conspiring together, without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away one (1) Bedford truck with Chassis No. 153559, with Motor No. 2/54/5/6, with Plate No. T-35049, Series of 1964, to the damage and prejudice of the owner, Maria Ignacio-Francisco in the amount of P23,000.00, value of said vehicle. - On November 15, 1969, the Acting City Fiscal of San Jose City, (converted into city) Nueva Ecija, filed an information (Crim. Case No. CCC-IV-170) with the respondent Court, charging private respondent Francisco Estrella and three others, with qualified theft. This time the information contained “Aug. 1969” instead of “Aug. 1964” in the previous information and alleged grave abuse of confidence and that accused dismantled the vehicle. - On January 28, 1970, private respondent Francisco Estrella was arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty. During the arraignment, respondent-Judge required his clerk to read the information to Francisco Estrella. From January 28, 1970, up to May 21, 1970, the latter date being the scheduled trial of the case, the prosecution never moved to amend the information. - On May 21, 1970 when the prosecution was scheduled to present its evidence, it verbally moved that it be allowed to amend the information so as to change the date of the commission of the offense from "August 1969" to "August 1964." Private respondent Francisco Estrella, having come to the trial court ready to defend himself from an offense allegedly committed in "August 1969", vigorously objected to the verbal motion. - Respondent Judge withheld his ruling on the prosecution's motion to amend, and instead, required the prosecution to present its first witness, to determine whether the sought amendment in the information would constitute a change of substance affecting the rights of the accused or merely of form. - Florentino Alcantara, originally a co-accused but discharged as a prosecution witness, testified that

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
against them and deprives them of the opportunity to defend themselves. Moreover, they cannot be convicted of an offense of which they were not charged. (People v Opemia) Dispositive WHEREFORE, the questioned orders dated July 10, 1970 and September 14, 1970, by respondent Judge are hereby AFFIRMED, the preliminary injunction issued on September 24, 1970 dissolved, and this petition DISMISSED for lack of merit. Without costs. Voting Fernandez,* Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.

a2010

page 27
-

Prof.
As a result of a shooting incident, two informations for frustrated homicide were filed against Sixto Ruiz in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. In Criminal Case No. 4747, Ernesto Bello was named as the victim, while in Criminal Case No 4748, Rogelio Bello was the complainant. Upon arraignment, Sixto Ruiz pleaded not guilty to the two informations. A reinvestigation of these two cases was made in the Dept. of Justice, following which State Prosecutor filed a motion for leave of court to amend the informations on the ground that the evidence disclosed a prima facie case against Luis Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco who acted in conspiracy with Ruiz. Ruiz filed his opposition to the motion. The trial Judge denied the motion to amend the information saying that allowance of the amendment alleging conspiracy would be amending the manner of committing the crime and thereby would constitute substantial amendment. As a consequence, State Prosecutor filed two new informations for frustrated homicide against Luis Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco (Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674) alleging that the two conspired with Ruiz who was referred to as accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748. Padilla and Ongchenco moved to quash the two new informations. The motion was denied by the lower court. Ruiz also filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 a motion to permit to quash and/or strike out the allegation of conspiracy in the two informations. The trial Judge ordered the striking out from the records the aforesaid motion and clarified that “the allegation of conspiracy does not alter the theory of the case, nor does it introduce innovation nor does it present alternative imputation nor is it inconsistent with the with the original allegations.” From these orders of the lower court, Ruiz, Padilla, and Ongchenco went to the CA on a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction alleging that the trial Judge exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his judicial discretion in issuing the orders in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674.

WON an information for the crime of homicide can be amended so as to charge the crime of murder after the accused had entered a plea of not guilty HELD NO. - The provision which is relevant to the problem is Rule 110, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court - The petitioner invokes the first paragraph, whereas the respondent relies on the second. - To amend the information so as to change the crime charged from homicide to the more serious offense of murder after the petitioner had pleaded not guilty to the former is indubitably proscribed by the first paragraph of the above-quoted provision. For certainly a change from homicide to murder is not a matter of form; it is one of substance with very serious consequences. - Can the amendment be justified under the second paragraph? The answer is, No. For the provision speaks not of amendment but of dismissal of the information. in other words the provision contemplates the filing of a substitute, not an amended information - Can not the information for homicide against the petitioner be dismissed since no judgment has yet been rendered and another information for murder be filed? The answer, again, is, No. For the petitioner having pleaded not guilty to homicide, to dismiss the charge against him so as to file another charge for murder will place him thereby in double jeopardy. Aquino concur: - respondent Judge relied on Dimalibot vs. Salcedo - The Dimalibot case is different from the instant case. The plea in the Dimalibot case was made during the preliminary investigation to a complaint for homicide filed in the justice of the peace court. That is not the plea contemplated in Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. The plea in the instant case was made to an information filed in the Court of First Instance.

-

-

SEPARATE OPINION BARREDO [concur]
I concur, but I believe this decision cannot bar another prosecution of private respondent under another information charging theft committed in 1964.

-

DIONALDO v DACUYCUY 108 SCRA 736 ABAD SANTOS; October 30, 1981
NATURE Petition to nullify orders of respondent judge FACTS -Petitioner Rolando Dionaldo stands charged with the crime of homicide. After he entered a plea of not guilty, the prosecution filed a motion for leave to amend the information, attaching thereto an amended information charging the accused with murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation-a more serious offense. -No explanation was given in the motion for alleging evident premeditation but as to the allegation of treachery it was explained that, "the affidavit of the complaining witness indicates that the attack was sudden and it was only after they sustained the wounds consequent to the treacherous attack that they were forced to fight back to repel further aggression." It can thus be seen that all along this claimed circumstance was known to the prosecution but it was not alleged. -Counsel for the accused opposed the motion to amend the information but the respondent judge granted the motion ISSUE

-

-

-

PEOPLE v CA (RUIZ) 121 SCRA 733 RELOVA: April 28, 1983
NATURE Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to review the decision and resolution of the CA FACTS -

Dispositive Decision and resolution of the CA are SET ASIDE. 4747 and 4748 would not have prejudiced Ruiz whose participation as principal in the crimes charged did not change. Section 13. he cannot file a motion to quash the same. 4747 and 4748 was no bar to the filing of the new informations. adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to form that can be made at anytime. therefore. The allegation in Criminal Cases Nos.However. Inc. 4747 and 4748 in the informations filed in Criminal Cases Nos. Ulpiano Villar. But the fact that the trial court erred in denying the motion of the prosecution to amend the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. The motion for reconsideration by herein petitioners to the foregoing decision of the CA was denied for lack of merit. amendments to the information may also be allowed. . merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information. Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (formerly. 1973 NATURE Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. To allow at this stage the proposed amendment alleging conspiracy among all the accused. ISSUE WON the CA erred in granting the petition of (Ruiz. would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended. will make all of the latter liable not only for their own individual transgressions or acts but also for the acts of their co-conspirators. It is incorrect to say that the allegations of conspiracy include Ruiz as a defendant in the said case. 1988 NATURE Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order FACTS .336. thereby exposing the private respondents-accused to a higher penalty as compared to the penalty imposable for the offense charged in the original information to which the accused had already entered a plea of "not guilty" during their arraignment. Ricardo Cabaloza was convicted for the robbery of the same items. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid order but the respondent court denied said motion. 14. 302 of the Revised Penal Code. thru Assistant Fiscal Virginia G. and would deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet all the allegations in the amended information. in the instant case. in the preparation of their defenses to the charge filed against them. . provided that no prejudice is caused to the rights of the accused. is likewise a substantial amendment saddling the respondents with the need of a new defense in order to meet a different situation in the trial court. all of the accused (now private respondents) entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charge filed against them. On the other hand. Decisions of lower court allowing retention of the allegation of conspiracy and the reference to Criminal Cases Nos. as to matters of form. . Orders of the respondent court AFFIRMED. TRO lifted. 4747 and 4748 considering that the amendments sought were only formal. ISSUE WON the amended information should be admitted HELD . Antonio Cimarra. would be manifestly incongruous as to be allowed by the Court. Thereafter and during the trial. .80. The amendments of Criminal Cases Nos. valued at P75. 9673 and 9674 are SUSTAINED.The allegation of conspiracy among all the private respondents-accused. articles and pieces of jewelry alleged to have been stolen in the original Information and substituting them with a different set of items valued at P71." (2) alleging conspiracy among all the accused. are clearly substantial and have the effect of changing the crime charged from "Robbery" punishable under Article 209 to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place" punishable under Art. would no longer be available after the amendment is made. . before the trial could proceed. 9673 and 9674 filed against Padilla and Ongchenco that the two conspired and confederated with Ruiz merely describe the fact that the latter was already charged with the same offense.Upon arraignment.Private respondents opposed the admission of the Amended Information. who had already pleaded guilty and had been convicted in a crimial case before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. To charge them now as accessories-after-the-fact for a crime different from that committed by the principal. and Ongchenco) HELD YES - First and foremost. filed an Information for "Robbery" before the Court of First Instance of Rizal against GARCIA v FLORIDO 52 SCRA 420 ANTONIO. and which. Bayani Catindig and Avelino de Leon. articles and pieces of jewelry belonging to Ding Velayo. this petition. March 25. articles and pieces of jewelry allegedly stolen into entirely different articles from those originally complained of. hence.591. Valdez. the change in the items. Padilla.Moreover. . . The respondent court resolved to deny the proposed amendments contained in the Amended Information. affects the essence of the imputed crime. as it originally stood. an amendment which PEOPLE v MONTENEGRO 159 SCRA 236 PADILLA. which was not previously included in the original information.Amendment of an information under Sec. Said accused (now private respondents) were all members of the police force of Quezon City and were charged as accessories-afterthe-fact in the robbery committed by the minor Ricardo Cabaloza. Dispositive Petition is DISMISSED. Thus. .The City Fiscal of Quezon City. August 31. dismissing petitioners' action for damages against respondents.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales CA granted petition. a2010 page 28 Prof.The proposed amendments in the amended information.The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or information. the trial Judge should have allowed the amendment in Criminal Cases Nos. and (3) deleting all items. the prosecuting fiscal filed a Motion to Admit Amended Information seeking to amend the original information by: (1) changing the offense charged from "Robbery" to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place.40. and when any evidence the accused might have. It will be observed that private respondents were accused as accessories-after-thefact of the minor Ricardo Cabaloza who had already been convicted of robbery of the items listed in the original information. Rule 110 of the old Rules on Criminal Procedure) may be made at any time before the accused enters a plea to the charge.

the civil action based upon quasi-delict may proceed independently of the criminal proceeding for criminal negligence and regardless of the result of the latter. whether as one that should be governed by the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 111 of the Rules which require reservation by the injured party considering that by the institution of the civil action even before the commencement of the trial of the criminal case. and Ester Francisco. for these articles were drafted . The former is a violation of the criminal law. much less has the said criminal action been terminated either by conviction or acquittal of said accused. with prayer for preliminary attachment. Inc. For by either of such actions his interest in the criminal case has disappeared. of the PU car and the passenger bus that figured in the collision. . German C. . Undoubtedly an offended party loses his right to intervene in the prosecution of a criminal case. 2850) against the private respondents. a complainant may be deemed to abandon his/her right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case.. for the reason that the law itself (Article 33 of the Civil Code) already makes the reservation and the failure of the offended party to do so does not bar him from bringing the action. 71 owned and operated by the Mactan Transit Co.At about 9:30 a. and dismissed the complaint ISSUES 1. . petitioners sustained various physical injuries which necessitated their medical treatment and hospitalization. Luminosa L. Garcia. Chief of the Misamis Occidental Hospital. or one where reservation to file the civil action need not be made. together with his wife. Some legal writers are of the view that in accordance with Article 31. al to in a motion to dismiss was that the petitioners had no cause of action for on August 11.m. denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 77-4 W Z. therefore. for a roundtrip from Oroquieta City to Zamboanga City. "without prejudice to refiling the said civil action after conviction of the defendants in the criminal case filed by the Chief of Police of Sindangan. 1971. . The proviso. Al. petitioners.As a result of this action of petitioners the civil liability of private respondents to the former has ceased to be involved in the criminal action. hired and boarded a PU car with plate No. 33 and 34 of the Civil Code. which is procedural. or 20 days before the filing of the present action for damages. which do not provide for the reservation required in the proviso. As a result of the aforesaid collision. not to the negligent act or imprudence of the driver. German C. therefore. is not applicable because Art 33 applied only to the crimes of physical injuries or homicide. that Art. in a reckless. 2. . 1971 with respondent Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental an action for damages (Civil Case No. . petitioners.. guilty of negligence. the same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extracontractual. having always had its own foundation and individuality.. Garcia. and Ester Francisco. We find no legal justification for respondent court's order of dismissal. for the purpose of attending a conference of chiefs of government hospitals. Ricardo Vayson. effect abandoned their right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case. Garcia. 33 of the New Civil Code. 1971. HELD 1. WON the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint for damages on the ground that since no express reservation was made by the complainants. not only when he has waived the civil action or expressly reserved his right to institute. while the PU car was negotiating a slight curve on the national highway at kilometer 21 in Barrio Guisukan. Zamboanga del Norte. because the liability of the employer is merely subsidiary and does not arise until after final judgment has been rendered finding the driver. Pedro Tumala. et. while the latter is a distinct and independent negligence. said car collided with an oncoming passenger bus (No. and bookkeepers of Regional Health Office No. "the proviso in Section 2 of Rule 111 with reference to . Luminosa L. respondent Pedro Tumala was charged in Criminal Case No. Zamboanga del Norte". FACTS . and driven by respondent. . Garcia.But in whatever way We view the institution of the civil action for recovery of damages under quasidelict by petitioners. in a complaint a2010 page 29 Prof. 241-8 G Ozamis 71 owned and operated by respondent." . pursuant to Sec. evident that by the institution of the present civil action for damages. but also when he has actually instituted the civil action. and Pedro Tumala. with the filing of the aforesaid criminal case.In the case at bar. Articles 32. Sindangan. and are intended to constitute as exceptions to the general rule stated in what is now Section 1 of Rule 111. 7 at Zamboanga City.It is. YES. and. bookkeeper of said hospital. et. Marcelino Inesin. 33 and 34 of the Civil Code is contrary to the letter and spirit of the said articles. Pedro Tumala. under the peculiar circumstances of the case. compensatory and exemplary damages 2. Hence. 3 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. filed by the Chief of Police and that.The principal argument advanced by Mactan Inc. 25) with plate No. the filing of the instant civil action is premature. .As we have stated at the outset.On August 4. .N. YES Ratio An action based on quasi-delict may be maintained independently from a criminal action. no civil action could be filed subsequent thereto unless the criminal case has been finally adjudicated. petitioners have thereby foreclosed their right to intervene therein. 1972. filed on September 1. .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Mactan Transit Co. Zamboanga del Norte. because the action in fact satisfies the elements of quasi-delict. may also be regarded as an unauthorized amendment of substantive law. By instituting a civil action based on a quasi-delict. the civil aspect of the criminal case would have to be determined only after the termination of the criminal case WON the lower court erred in saying that the action is not based on quasi-delict since the allegations of the complaint in culpa aquiliana must not be tainted by any assertion of violation of law or traffic rules or regulations and because of the prayer in the complaint asking the Court to declare the defendants jointly and severally liable for moral. owners and drivers. and from the order of said Court dated January 21. Reasoning . and driven by defendant.Alleging that both drivers of the PU car and the passenger bus were at the time of the accident driving their respective vehicles at a fast clip. grossly negligent and imprudent manner in gross violation of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of the passengers aboard the PU car. there is no question that petitioners never intervened in the criminal action instituted by the Chief of Police against respondent Pedro Tumala. 4960 of the Municipal Court of Sindangan. Inc. Articles 32. respectively.The lower court sustained Mactan Inc. and have opted instead to recover them in the present civil case. hospital administrative officers. . petitioners have in .

who appears in criminal cases or incidents before SC. The violation of traffic rules is merely descriptive of the failure of said driver to observe for the protection of the interests of others. ISSUE WON a private offended party in a criminal proceeding may file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. It is the government’s counsel. . . I cannot see why a reservation had to be made in the criminal case. the injured party is entitled exclusively to the bigger one. in the cases provided for by Articles 31. Dacudao and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. the actual filing of Civil Case No. 607. et all (73 Phil. there being no showing that prejudice could be caused by doing so. 2006 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS . instead of the government prosecutor representing the People of the Philippines in criminal cases. (respondents). grossly negligent and imprudent manner in violation of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of the passengers aboard the PU car" does not detract from the nature and character of the action. 2850 may proceed. all initiatory pleadings. precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. RODRIGUEZ v GADIANE 495 SCRA 368 TINGA. 22. 33. before the RTC. petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 . It should be emphasized that the same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability arising from a crime under Art. The capability of the private complainant to question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect of the case. and (e) the absence of pre-existing contractual relations between the parties. CEB-26195. 620-621).[1] A special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an aggrieved party alleging grave abuse of however. for violation of B. as one based on culpa aquiliana. Veridiano II). Since the same negligent act resulted in the filing of the criminal action by the Chief of Police with the Municipal Court (Criminal Case No. 21762194 of the New Civil Code. (c) physical injuries and other damages sustained by petitioners as a result of the collision.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Ratio An action shall be deemed to be based on a quasi-delict when all the essential averments under Articles 2176-2194 of the New Civil Code are present. provided said party has reserved his right to institute it separately. A special action on an order issued by a lower court in a criminal case may be filed by the private offended party.Article 2176 and 2177 definitely create a civil liability distinct and different from the civil action arising from the offense of negligence under the Revised Penal Code. which means that of the two possible judgments. 2850 is predicated on the above civil code articles and not on the civil liability imposed by the Revised Penal Code. there is no limitation to the capacity of the private complainant to seek judicial review of the assailed order. SEPARATE OPINION BARREDO [concur] . Reasoning . 4960) and the civil action by petitioners. seeking to set aside the MTC order of suspension. Since Civil Case No. (Metrobank v.It is true that under Sec. as well as subsequent proceedings. the Sol-Gen. but it should be noted.P. an enactment of the legislature superseding the Rules of 1940. I concur in the judgment reversing the order of dismissal of the trial court in order that Civil Case No. People v. Respondents’s Comment In all criminal cases. 1964. . it cannot stand because of its inconsistency with Article 2177. which failure resulted in the injury on petitioners. such that a private prosecutor in a criminal case has no authority to act for the People of the Philippines. Reasoning . it being substantive in character and is not within the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate. 2 in relation to Sec. namely: (a) act or omission of the private respondents. it is inevitable that the averments on the drivers' negligence in both complaints would substantially be the same. an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the civil action. must be initiated by the government counsel because the injured party is the People of the Philippines and the private complainant is a mere witness to the offense allegedly committed by the accused. July 17. it is my considered view that the latter provision is inoperative. (d) existence of direct causal connection between the damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of private respondents. 2850 should be deemed as the reservation required. The petition was docketed as Civil Case No.I would like to limit my concurrence. Garcia. assailing an interlocutory order. 25 by respondent Pedro Tumala resulting in the collision of the bus with the passenger car. As to the specific mention of Article 2177 in Section 2 of the Rule 111.Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was filed by the private complainant. a2010 page 30 Prof. Petitioner moved MFR but was denied. Jr. . RTC dismissed the petition for lack of conformity or signature of the government prosecutor. 100 of the Revised Penal Code or create an action for quasidelict or culpa extra-contractual under Arts. The MTC hearing the complaint had suspended the criminal proceeding on the ground that a prejudicial question was posed in a separate civil case then pending. may be instituted by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case. But if the order which is assailed is not one dismissing the case or acquitting respondents / defendants. the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General in behalf of the State. that degree of care. On 28 Feb. 2001. Branch 12.Besides.Thomasita Rodriguez (petitioner) was the private complainant in a criminal case filed against Rolando Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols. . Certainly excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear indication of negligence. without the conformity of the public prosecutor HELD YES Ratio If criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal. (b) presence of fault or negligence or the lack of due care in the operation of the passenger bus No. 1 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court which became effective on January 1. Veridiano II apply. Petitioner’s Claim That a person aggrieved may file a special civil action for certiorari and that “person” includes the complainant or the offended party. From these orders. that neither Section 1 nor Section 2 of Rule 111 fixes a time limit when such reservation shall be made.Accordingly. petitioner filed the instant petition for review. subject to the limitation mentioned in the last sentence of Article 2177 of the Civil Code. This distinction has been amply explained in Barredo vs. 39 and 2177 of the Civil Code.The circumstance that the complaint alleged that respondents violated traffic rules in that the driver drove the vehicle "at a fast clip in a reckless. and even if it were not substantive but adjective.

The action may be prosecuted in name of said complainant. on installment basis. after which. petitioner demanded from TSDC the issuance in his favor of the certificates of title for the three (3) lots.000. be punished by a fine of not more than twenty thousand (P20. August 18. 13. Section 1(b). 15 and 16. . The suspension of the criminal case which petitioner decries would necessarily cause delay in the resolution of the civil aspect of the said case which precisely is the interest and concern of petitioner. 957. Also. 1983. respondent Lazatin wrote petitioner a letter reiterating standard conditions of the sale.00. representing 10% of the alleged total price of P72. Civil Case No. PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF. and. 957 REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISIONS LOTS AND CONDOMINIUMS. it was prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the private respondents to jointly and severally pay the petitioner. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. the possible conviction of respondents would concurrently provide a judgment for damages in favor of petitioner. from December 1983 up to June 1984. namely.00 per square meter. Hence. upon conviction. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. -Sometime in January. Issuance of Title. of Block 26 of Timog Park.000.200. Penalties. representing unrealized gross profits. In so doing. and as a consequence." located in Angeles City. petitioner commenced the construction of a house on one lot but failed to finish it within the stipulated period of six (6) months. The assailed orders of RTC are SET ASIDE. -On 26 July 1984. CEB26195 is REINSTATED a2010 page 31 Prof. The conditions for the sale of the lots were among others. And as to the other lots.000. In a long line of cases. there is no doubt that petitioner maintains an interest in the litigation of the civil aspect of the case against respondents. which provides: "PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.529. 25. 39.00 per square meter upon completion of the house in six (6) months. -Before the civil action was filed. SEC. filed a complaint for specific performance with damages. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer. Such interest warrants protection from the courts. and which private respondents had refused to do so. petitioner also filed on 5 June 1984 with the City Fiscal of Angeles City a criminal complaint against herein respondent Manuel Lazatin. he was not entitled to the 10% rebate in price. A corresponding receipt for said amount was also issued by TSDC to the petitioner. petitioner paid TSDC the amount of P36. "(i) 10% down payment with a commitment to commence construction therefrom (thereon) in one month's time. 14 and 15. petitioner allegedly failed altogether to construct houses on them. docketed as Civil Case No. . TSDC's Board of Directors approved the petitioner's contemplated purchase of the aforesaid lots. specifically Section 25 thereof. as alleged by the private respondents. for short) as its President. which the petitioner allegedly accepted by affixing his conformity to said letter. complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds shall be collected for the issuance of such title. On 7 November 1983. Rule 111 of 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the criminal action for violation of B.200 square meters. On 10 August 1983. A corresponding receipt for the downpayment was issued by TSDC to the petitioner.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not more than ten years: Provided. Lazatin (Lazatin. . actual damages equal to P320. While the Contract to Sell between TSDC and the petitioner stipulated a two-year period within which to pay the total contract price. shall.067. that judgment be rendered ordering private respondents to deliver to him the transfer certificates of title covering the three (3) lots which he had allegedly fully paid for. 16. In his complaint. among others. and. 4224. To confirm the agreement. TSDC caused to be issued in the name of the petitioner the title to said lot. the latter made substantial payments in the months of June to August 1983. -Thereafter. 14. that in the case of NAGUIAT v IAC (TIMOG SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT CORP) 164 SCRA 505 PADILLA. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. (iii) the effective price was P70 per square meter with a rebate of P10. attorney's fees equal to P15. (ii) said construction to be finished within a period of six (6) months. The four (4) lots have a total area of 1. Each lot consists of 300 square meters. he paid the sum of P12. identified as Lots Nos. 1988 NATURE Petition to review on certiorari the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court FACTS -Timog Silangan Development Corporation (TSDC. with Manuel P. the previous payments made by petitioner did not amount to full payment as required for all the lots and which would have entitled petitioner to the issuance and delivery of the certificates of title to all the lots.00. No. Naguiat purchased. 13. No fee. last paid for.30 as his alleged full payment for Lot.00 for the four (4) lots. with a price of P60.000. SEC. for short) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of developing and selling subdivision lots in "Timog Park. this Court construed the term “aggrieved parties” to include the State and the private offended party or complainant. but the private respondents (TSDC and Lazatin) refused on the ground that the petitioner had not fully paid for said three (3) lots. moral damages at the discretion of the court. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Decree and/or any rule or regulation that may be issued pursuant to this Decree. petitioner prayed.[2] In this case.P. Lots Nos. the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith. -Private respondents contend that since petitioner did not comply with the agreement. which was allegedly his full payment for the remaining three (3) Lots.Antolin T. with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City. plus the costs of the action. Branch LX." But.00.97. Dispositive: Petition is GRANTED. petitioner. for violation of Presidential Decree No. On the same date (7 February 1983) petitioner made a down payment of P7. four (4) lots from TSDC.

will not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused. Thus. -Petitioner filed on 23 February 1985 a motion to consolidate Civil Case No. It was denied stating among others that the fifteen (5) days period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. the Regional Trial Courts. the Regional Trial Courts. which provides: "Sec. petitioner's counsel filed a Second Motion for Extension of Time to file a motion for reconsideration. If the application is granted. the Regional Trial Courts. partnership. praying for another fifteen (15) days from 15 November 1985. in whatever stage it may be found until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered. has ruled that: "Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution. . 4224 and Criminal Case No. the petitioner filed his motions for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration on 30 October 1985 and 15 November 1985.The consolidation of the two cases in question. the letter which contains the conditions for the purchase of the lots and. since they were filed before the expiration of the respective periods sought to be extended. the following rules shall be observed: (a) 'After a criminal action has been commenced. within which to file said motion for reconsideration. cooperatives. the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts. was grounded on the 2. v." -On 13 September 1984.Based on the foregoing. Japzon.In the cases at bar. petitioner invokes Rule 111. WON no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts. without prejudice to the admission of additional evidence that any party may wish to present. But as resolved also in the Habaluyas case. YES . In due course. the civil action that may be consolidated with a criminal action. and filed their Motion and Opposition to Appearance of Plaintiff as Private Prosecutor with respect to the trial of the Criminal Case. which are. Other civil actions arising from offenses. in an Order dated 20 March 1985. is one for the recovery of civil liability arising from the criminal offense. the delivery of the certificates of title to the lots which petitioner had allegedly fully paid for. the official receipts for the alleged payments made by the petitioner. and the Intermediate Appellate Court as applied in the Habaluyas rule a2010 page 32 Prof. and other related documents. an information was filed against respondent Lazatin. i. as contemplated in the first paragraph of Section 1 hereof. the factual issues in the civil and criminal actions are almost identical. the same. Sec. petitioner's counsel still filed his motion for reconsideration it was also denied. i. because the fifteen (15) day period for filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration with said courts. within which to file said motion. petitioners's counsel appeared as counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case and as private prosecutor in the Criminal Case. where petitioner's counsel may act as counsel for the plaintiff in the civil case and private prosecutor in the criminal case. and strictly enforced.Based on the aforequoted ruling of the Habaluyas case. Inc. -At the pre-trial hearing of both cases. In the case at bar. with the justification that the two (2) motions were timely and properly presented. shall be strictly enforced "beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution. both within the periods sought to be extended. . the President. Hence the Habaluyas ruling did not yet apply to bar said motions for extension. the civil action filed by the petitioner was for specific performance with damages. Rules of Court. WON the civil and criminal case should be consolidated HELD 1. as private prosecutor in the criminal action. Despite the objection and opposition of the private respondents.. The evidence in both cases. the evidence presented and admitted in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action. -On 2 December 1985. at least. and the Intermediate Appellate Court. . and the Intermediate Appellate Court." . Manager or Administrator or the person who has charge of the administration of the business shall be criminally responsible for any violation of this Decree and/or the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.In the case at bar. then the intervention of the petitioner's counsel. praying for fifteen (15) days from 31 October 1985. motions for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may no longer be filed before all courts. to which petitioner allegedly affixed his conformity. However. the respondent appellate court rendered a decision favorable to herein private respondents. the trial court granted the motion and ordered consolidation of the two (2) cases. is non-extendible. -Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the respondent appellate court. . irrespective of the motives. only beginning 1 July 1986. the rule that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts. the Habaluyas ruling became effective. dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985. -On 15 November 1985. will instead be conducive to the early termination of the two (2) cases. likewise. As admitted by petitioner himself.e. NO . 3(a). as well as to the speedy administration of justice.. constitutes the offense. or associations. ISSUES 1. Whenever the offended party shall have instituted the civil action to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense. 6727. the opposition was overruled by the trial court. and considering that the criminal action filed is one for violation of a special law where. if no final judgment has been rendered by the trial court in the civil action. petitioner's counsel filed with the respondent appellate court a Motion for Extension of Time to file a motion for reconsideration of aforesaid decision. and will redound to the benefit and convenience of the parties.The case of Habaluyas Enterprises. the same may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the criminal action. would virtually be . the nature of the issues involved. he filed with the respondent appellate court two (2) motions for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration of the latter court's decision. 2. Under the aforequoted provision. 3. -The decision of the respondent appellate court was received by petitioner's counsel on 16 October 1985. the Contract to Sell. seeking the annulment of the orders of the trial court. whether or not petitioner had fully paid for the lots he purchased from the private respondents. The main relief sought in the latter case. Private respondents objected.e. so as to entitle him to the delivery of the certificates of title to said lots. lower than the Supreme Court. or ex delicto.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales corporations. The rule in Habaluyas applies even if the motion is filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended." The Court promulgated the Habaluyas resolution on 30 May 1986.As a ground for the consolidation of the criminal and civil cases. mere commission of the act prohibited by said special law. On 30 October 1985. the pending civil action arising from the same offense shall be suspended.

to guard against oppression and abuse. represented by a private prosecutor and the failing to make a reservation to file a separate action. to clear congested dockets. the consolidation of a criminal action with a civil action arising not ex delicto. There was also admission that the private prosecutor was for proving damages against the accused.” .But. Reyes was not able to make a reservation of her right to file a separate civil action for damages. a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. based upon the express authority of Section 1. and not one for the recovery of civil liability arising from an offense. . Thus. 1986 page 33 Prof. Zenaida Cruz Reyes (petitioner) was the aggrieved party. Consolidation. there was a full-blown hearing where a private prosecutor participated actively and there could be no question that the aggrieved party's participation through the private prosecutor in said case clearly indicated her intention to have her claim for damages litigated in the criminal action against the accused. Reyes was represented by a private prosecutor named Atty. in Civil Case No.00 prevented petitioner from proving her claim for damages and making a reservation to file a separate civil action. and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence. NATURE Direct appeal on a question of law from a resolution of the Regional Trial Court (Malabon). January 29. it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions.At the pre-trial plaintiff admitted that she was represented by a private prosecutor in the criminal case against defendant Cristina Malicsi and in said case she did not reserve the right to file a separate action for damages. may still be done. The mere appearance of private counsel in representation of the offended party did not constitute such active intervention as could only import an intention to press a claim for damages in the same action. . Reasoning . . . the action went through trial on the merits. Because of her plea of guilty. and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. which provides: "Section 1. provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties . a2010 REYES v SEMPIO-DIY 141 SCRA 208 PATAJO. he is deemed to have waived his right to file a separate civil action for damages if he failed to make a CORPUS v PAJE BORDAS v CANADALLA .The issue in the RTC was WON the plaintiff. Hence the civil action filed by the petitioner was for the enforcement of an obligation arising from a contract. . the unexpected plea of guilt by the accused and her being sentenced immediately to a fine of P50. according to Roa v Dela Cruz. The reason for the Court's not making any award of damages is because of the failure of the aggrieved party to submit evidence to support her claim for damages. overtime and termination pay. The decision of the respondent appellate court. . it was held that: "A Court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act. is SET ASIDE. as he pleaded guilty upon arraignment. and not Roa v Dela Cruz. not only was the offended party represented by a private prosecutor in the criminal action. to simplify the work of the trial court. and such action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. it may order all the actions consolidated. 6727. ISSUE WON intervention of private prosecution and failure to make a reservation bars plaintiff from filing a separate civil action for damages against the accused HELD NO.00 but making no award of damages in favor of the aggrieved party.MTC (Navotas): Cristina Malicsi was charged with the crime of intriguing against honor. the aggrieved party was unable to present evidence to prove damages against the accused. Barayang.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Contract to Sell between the petitioner and the private respondent. plus damages) with a criminal action (for violation of the Minimum Wage Law).In Canos v.Instead. hence. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court. plaintiff is not barred. In said criminal case." Dispositive WHEREFORE. she filed a new action against Cristina Malicsi and her husband with the Regional Trial Court for damages arising from defamatory words which were the subject of the information in the Criminal action.The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits. defendant Luat did not proceed to trial. The Orders of the trial court.In the Roa case. . event or transaction. dated 9 October 1985. . was barred from filing a separate civil action for damages against the accused Cristina Malicsi. RTC ruled in favor of the defendant. in short the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties litigants. the petition is GRANTED. Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. It was only after the trial of the case on the merits that a decision was rendered finding the accused guilty of slight slander and sentencing her to pay a fine of P50.In the present case. In the Luat case. plaintiff is barred). dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985 are REINSTATED. reservation therefore…” (Judgment in such a proceeding becomes binding as res judicata. while it is true that Reyes was represented by a private prosecutor for the purpose of proving damages." . or ex contractu. where the Court sustained the order of a trial court to consolidate a civil action (an action for the recovery of wage differential. 4224 and Criminal Case No. involve the same or like issues. Ratio The mere appearance of a private prosecutor in the criminal case does not necessarily constitute such intervention on the part of the aggrieved party as could only import an intention on her part to press her claim for damages in said criminal case and a waiver of her right to file a separate civil action for damages. In the Roa case. SO ORDERED. An exception to the above rule.Malicsi pleaded guilty to the information and was sentenced to pay P50. the law invoked by the petitioner is inapplicable. FACTS .RTC: “There is no question that in defamation cases (such as the present) as in cases of fraud and physical injuries. to prevent delays. when the offended party actually intervenes in the criminal action by appearing therein through a private prosecutor for the purpose of recovering indemnity for damages. Controlling case should be Meneses v Luat. as held in Canos v. Peralta. Peralta. .

and (2) to set aside its resolution of November 8. -December 15. -A reply was filed by petitioners on August 26. "After a careful study of defendants' arguments. dismissing the complaint. and Master Sgt. the provision of Rule 111. NO . Dispositive Petition is granted. elements of the TFM raided several places. 1983. Alan Jazminez. 1983: Judge Fortun issued an order voluntarily inhibiting himself from further proceeding in the case and leaving the resolution of the motion to set aside the order of dismissal to Judge Lising. to the person whose constitutional rights and liberties have been violated 3. tortures and other forms of violence on them in order to obtain incriminatory information or confessions and in order to punish them. 1984: RTC Judge Esteban Lising. and its resolution dated September 21. jointly and severally with his subordinates. 1986. and (3) the complaint states no cause of action against the defendants. -May 2. that military men who interrogated them employed threats. 1985. Danilo de la Puente. therefore. although signed by only some of the lawyers. furnishing a copy thereof to the attorneys of all the plaintiffs. Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino. that during these raids. on the basis of the alleged failure of said plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's resolution of November 8. -Respondents filed comment on the petition. employing in most cases defectively issued judicial search warrants. (2) assuming that the courts can entertain the present action. that plaintiffs were arrested without proper warrants issued by the courts. 1983 granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. alleging that it was not true that the plaintiffs mentioned in the order of May 11. without acting on the motion to set aside order of November 8. a2010 page 34 Prof.1984: defendants filed a comment on said amplificatory motion for reconsideration.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . known as Task Force Makabansa (TFM) ordered by General Fabian Ver "to conduct preemptive strikes against known communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses in view of increasing reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in Metro Manila. ISSUES 1. Plaintiffs claimed that the motion to set aside the order of November 8. 1983. and attorney's fees. The suspension does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. -May 11. 1983. among others. defendants are immune from liability for acts done in the performance of their official duties. the case against the defendants (except for Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo." -Plaintiffs resolved an amplificatory motion for reconsideration signed in the name of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) of Mabini Legal Aid Committee. as to them.1984: plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. -on May 28. nor interposed an appeal therefrom within the reglementary period. certain members of the raiding party confiscated a number of purely personal items belonging to plaintiffs. that for some period after their arrest.The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not destroy petitioners' right and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention and other violations of their constitutional rights.The failure of petitioner to make a reservation to file a separate civil action did not foreclose her right to file said separate complaint for damages. April 15. be granted. the resolution of November 8. exemplary). 1983 and the amplificatory motion for reconsideration was filed for all the plaintiffs. 1984. On the other hand. November 9. issued an order declaring that since certain plaintiffs failed to file a motion to reconsider the Order of November 8. -Plaintiffs filed two separate oppositions to the motion to dismiss. -March 15. -Defendants filed a Consolidated Reply. Section 2 notwithstanding. they were denied visits of relatives and lawyers. Fortun issued a resolution granting the motion to dismiss. Alfredo Mansos and Rolando Salutin." -Plaintiffs allege." -Plaintiffs filed motion to set aside the order dismissing the complaint and a supplemental motion for reconsideration. plaintiffs' arguments in their opposition are lacking in merit. What is suspended is merely the right of the individual to ABERCA v VER 160 SCRA 590 YAP. Bienvenido Balabaere) was dismissed. 1988 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS -This case stems from alleged illegal searches and seizures and other violations of the rights and liberties of plaintiffs by various intelligence units of the AFP. -Defendants filed motion to dismiss alleging that (1) plaintiffs may not cause a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of their detention in the guise of a damage suit because. harass and punish them. Under Article 33 of the Civil Code there is no requirement that as a condition to the filing of a separate civil action for damages a reservation to file said civil action be first made in the criminal case and such reservation is not necessary. that plaintiffs were interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and counsel. that all violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights were part of a concerted and deliberate plan to forcibly extract information and incriminatory statements from plaintiffs and to terrorize. Marco Palo. 1984 declaring that with respect to certain plaintiffs. Alex Marcelino. 1984: RTC issued order dealing with both motions (1) to reconsider its order of May 11. as prayed for by the defendants. moral. said Order is now final against said plaintiffs. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. WON RTC was correct in dismissing the complaint with respect to plaintiffs Rogelio Aberca. granting the respondent's motion to dismiss HELD 1. 1983. the court finds the same to be meritorious and must. WON the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus bars a civil action for damages for illegal searches conducted by military personnel and other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution 2. 1985: petitioners (plaintiffs below) filed the instant petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside RTC's resolution of November 8. 1984 . -RTC NCR Branch 95 Judge Willelmo C. "to preclude any suspicion that he (Judge Fortun) cannot resolve [the] aforesaid pending motion with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge and to put an end to plaintiffs assertion that the undersigned has no authority or jurisdiction to resolve said pending motion. said plans being previously known to and sanctioned by defendants. its order of May 11. that complying with said order. failed to file MR within the reglementary period. 1983 had already become final. WON a superior officer under the notion of respondent superior be answerable for damages. In effect. -September 21. -Defendants filed a comment on the aforesaid motion of plaintiffs. -Plaintiffs sought damages (actual/compensatory. 1984.

At the heart of petitioners' complaint is Article 32 of the Civil Code. -Be that as it may. 2045 and 2045-A and lifting the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and cannot be sacrificed to the transient needs or imperious demands of the ruling power. Col. secure in the thought that he does not have to answer for the transgressions committed by the latter against the constitutionally protected rights and liberties of the citizen.We find respondents' invocation of the doctrine of state immunity from suit totally misplaced. Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons who are directly. employer and employee) relationship. in our view. Romeo Ricardo and Lt. But this cannot be construed as a blanket license or a roving commission untramelled by any constitutional restraint. the signing attorneys did so on behalf of all the plaintiff.In carrying out this task and mission to protect the Republic from its enemies.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales seek release from detention through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his liberty. rebellion and subversion" in accordance with Proclamation No. should be considered.This must have been also the understanding of defendants' counsel himself for when he filed his comment on the motion. The law speaks of an officer or employee or person 'directly' or "indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. No. the motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. Pedro Tango. Col. YES -The doctrine of respondent superior has been generally limited in its application to principal and agent or to master and servant (i. of liberty. The authority of an attorney to appear for and in behalf of a party can be assumed. we find it unnecessary to address the constitutional issue pressed upon us. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land to which all officials. The complaint contained allegations against all the defendants which. 1983 was filed by plaintiffs. They needed no specific authority to do that. the motion was not signed by all the counsels for the several plaintiffs but the body of the motion itself clearly indicated that the motion was filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs. Thus. civilian or military. whether direct or indirect. Now this respect implies a maximum of faith. It may be that the respondents. as enumerated therein. as they claim. a minimum of Idealism. It is obvious that the purpose of the above codal provision is to provide a sanction to the deeply cherished rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. President Corazon C. On going to the bottom of the matter. the same must be brought within one (1) year. Aquino issued Proclamation No. For this purpose. responsible for the transgression joint tortfeasors. the violation of their right to remain silent and to counsel and their right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. Its message is clear.. activity or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law including the arrest. the decisive factor in this case. 1755 which amended Article 1146 of the Civil Code by adding the following to its text: “However. but which reason nevertheless controls. constitutional and legal safeguards must be observed. 2. The question therefore has become moot and academic. he furnished copies thereof. petitioners' right and cause of action for damages are explicitly recognized in P. 2. and in pursuance of such objective. however. high or low. but to all the lawyers of plaintiffs. it does not and cannot suspend their rights and causes of action for injuries suffered because of respondents' confiscation of their private belongings. 1981. would be sufficient to establish a cause or causes of action against all of them under Article 32 of the Civil Code. and no others. Lt. the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. Our commitment to democratic principles and to the rule of law compels us to reject the view which reduces law to nothing but the expression of the will of the predominant power in the community. Ricardo Bacalso from the acts of their subordinates. -The responsibility of the defendants. -Moreover. Galileo Kintanar. to disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and protected by the Constitution. Capt. if admitted hypothetically. it is not the actor alone (i. Col. owe obedience and allegiance at all times. 3. Fidel Singson. when the action (for injury to the rights of the plaintiff or for a quasi-delict) arises from or out of any act. "to prevent or suppress lawless violence. does not exempt the respondents from responsibility. it is difficult to justify the trial court's ruling. To determine the sufficiency of the cause of action. to launch pre-emptive strikes against alleged communist terrorist underground houses. lst Lt. The cases invoked by respondents actually involved acts done by officers in the performance of official duties written the ambit of their powers. is amply set forth in the complaint. True. 2054 of President Marcos. were merely responding to their duty. is the language of Article 32. Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article. provided their acts or omissions do not a2010 page 35 Prof. as well as indirectly. . 1986. Col.e. The rule of law must prevail. 1983. revoking Proclamation Nos.e.D. except Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Master Sgt. unless questioned or challenged by the adverse constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. detention and/or trial of the plaintiff. not just to the lawyers who signed the motion. -By this provision. . Danilo Pizarro. unless the law is respected by him who makes it and by him for whom it is made. Gerardo Lantoria. the one directly responsible) who must answer for damages under Article 32. Panfilo Lacson. NO -A timely motion to set aside said order of November 8. no man may seek to violate those sacred rights with impunity. of justice. dismissing for lack of cause of action the complaint against all the defendants. Col. insurrection. -RTC was therefore mistaken in dropping defendants General Fabian Ver. only the facts alleged in the complaint. or else liberty will perish. No longer may a superior official relax his vigilance or abdicate his duty to supervise his subordinates. No such relationship exists between superior officers of the military and their subordinates. -Even assuming that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus suspends petitioners' right of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention. meaning and a larger dimension. through counsel. 2 . . Bienvenido Balaba. despite the lifting of martial law on January 27. Jr. -In filing the motion to set aside the resolution of November 8. Rolando Abadilla. the principle of accountability of public officials under the Constitution acquires added . Democracy cannot be a reign of progress. On March 25. -Applying this test.Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any public officer or employee or any private individual liable in damages for violating the Constitutional rights and liberties of another. -However. we discover that life demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment which is not derived from reason. as members of the AFP. It is well established in our law and jurisprudence that a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action must be based on what appears on the face of the complaint.

1986 was to file our government's ratification and access to all human rights instruments adopted under the auspices of the United Nations. montisco.Brandeis:"In a government of laws. appeal from the decision on the civil aspect which is deemed instituted with the criminal action and such appeal.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.. prevents the decision on the civil liability from attaining finality. including moral and exemplary. with his subordinates who committed such transgressions. Trial ensued. WON the decision of the MCTC constitutes the final adjudication on the merits of private respondent's civil liability 2. . tyrant. January 22. mean: "You are a foolish Barangay Captain. . be taken.No damages were awarded to petitioner. which denied his petition. declaring thereby the government's commitment to observe the precepts of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. as regards both civil and criminal actions. OCCENA v ICAMINA 181 SCRA 328 FERNAN. SC annuled and set aside the resolution of the respondent court. Crime is contagious. However. Petitioner may. At the same time it rejects the automatic application of the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility that would hold a superior officer jointly and severally accountable for damages. stand liable and may be sued in court for damages as provided in Art. . would bring terrible retribution. without reserving his right to file a separate civil action for damages actively intervened thru a private prosecutor. More than this.Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses are governed by Article 100 of the RPC which provides that "Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. 1990 NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the decision of RTC FACTS . and SEPARATE OPINION TEEHANKEE [concur] . 1987. malugus. Since petitioner chose to actively intervene in the criminal action without reserving his right to file a separate civil action for damages. Costs against private respondents. dated November 8. Province of Antique. 1984 and its resolution dated September 21. It was only the unappealed criminal aspect of the case which has become final. a2010 page 36 Prof. 1984. freely translated. pursuant to our Constitution which the people decisively ratified on February 2. a crime has dual character: (1) as an offense against the state because of the disturbance of the social order. it invites every man to become a law unto himself. be they public officers or employees. existence of the government be imperilled following it fails to observe the law scrupulously." . as he did.Respondents’ Comment The decision of the trial court carries with it the final adjudication of her civil liability. accordingly.Underlying the legal principle that a person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable is the view that from the standpoint of its effects. .The decision of the MCTC has not yet become final due to the timely appeal filed by petitioner with respect to the civil liability of the accused in said case. San Remigio — Belison.Petitioner Eulogio Occena instituted before the Second Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sibalom.Disagreeing. traitor. . two (2) appeals may. . or members of the military or police force or private individuals who directly or indirectly obstruct. Case remanded to the respondent court for further proceedings. To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means . a criminal complaint for Grave Oral Defamation against private respondent Cristina Vegafria for allegedly openly. The accused may seek a review of said judgment. . Hudas. 2. The right of either to appeal or not to appeal in the event of conviction of the accused is not dependent upon the other.After trial. . private respondent was convicted of the offense of Slight Oral Defamation and was sentenced to pay a fine of Fifty Pesos (P50. If the government becomes the law breaker. the independent office of the Commission on Human Rights has been created and organized with ample powers to investigate human rights violations and take remedial measures against all such violations by the military as well as by the civilian groups. slander or any other form of defamation. YES . violate or in any manner impede or impair the constitutional rights and civil liberties of another person. NO . it breeds contempt for the law. . its order dated May 11. the judgment gives the caveat that a superior officer must not abdicate his duty to properly supervise his subordinates for he runs the risk of being held responsible for gross negligence and of being held under the cited provision of the Civil Code as indirectly and solidarily accountable with the tortfeasor. 1983. the provisions for independent civil actions in the Chapter on Human Relations and the provisions regulating damages. he assumed the risk that in the event he failed to recover damages he cannot appeal from the decision of the lower court. either because the lower court has refused to award damages or because the award made is unsatisfactory to him. . and Article 2219 of the New Civil Code providing that moral damages may be recovered in libel.All persons. at which petitioner.Private respondent as accused therein entered a plea of not guilty. Criminal Case No. it invites anarchy. also found in the Civil Code." which. Aquino after her assumption of office in February. . it teaches the whole people by example. traidor. 32 of the Civil Code.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales party or the party concerned. while the complainant may appeal with respect only to the civil action. Dispositive Petition granted. Coloma: from a judgment convicting the accused.People vs. timely taken. ISSUES 1. defeat. Judas" and other words and statements of similar import which caused great and irreparable damage and injury to his person and honor. WON petitioner is entitled to an award of damages HELD 1.. ignoramus. Our government is the potent omnipresent teacher. 1717. which was never done in this case.The decision herein upholds and reinstates the civil action for damages filed in the court below by petitioners-plaintiffs for illegal searches conducted by military personnel and other violations of their constitutional rights and liberties.It need only be pointed out that one of the first acts of the present government under President Corazon C. petitioner sought relief from the RTC. For good or ill.Petitioner’s Claim The RTC decision is contrary to Article 100 of the RPC providing that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. publicly and maliciously uttering the following insulting words and statements: "Gago ikaw nga Barangay Captain." in relation to Article 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales (2) as an offense against the private person injured by the crime unless it involves the crime of treason. . is deemed barred by petitioners' failure in the criminal action to make a reservation to file a separate civil action and by their active participation in the prosecution of such criminal action. provided that the offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both scores. June 20. HELD YES Ratio When the accused in a criminal case is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Calling petitioner who was a barangay captain an ignoramus.. Br.In the course of the trial. . whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.Article 29 of the Civil Code does not state that the right to file an independent civil action for damages (under said article) can be availed of only in offenses not arising from a tortious act. and only a preponderance of evidence is required to hold the accused liable. a2010 page 37 Prof.000. the petitioners actively participated in the proceedings through their lawyer. the orders of the respondent court are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. the petitioners may also rely on Article 2176 which provides that acquittal of the accused from a charge of criminal negligence. whether on reasonable doubt or not. BONITE v ZOSA 162 SCRA 180 PADILLA. It is regarded as an unauthorized amendment to the substantive law. in this case the Civil Code.Aside from basing their action for damages in Article 29 of the Civil Code. that there be a reservation in the criminal case of the right to institute an independent civil action. (7) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case of libel. tyrant and Judas is clearly an imputation of defects in petitioner's character sufficient to cause him embarrassment and social humiliation.000) as exemplary damages. but from a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. 2 PM – Bonite.00) as moral damages and the further sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10.In the case at bar. or physical injuries were intentionally committed. espionage. and a new one is entered reinstating the complaint in the civil case directing said court to NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the order of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. whose main contention precisely is that he suffered damages in view of the defamatory words and statements uttered by private respondent. Rule 111 of the former Rules of Criminal Procedure (i. the accused was acquitted because there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. has been declared as not in accordance with law. . Dispositive The petition was granted. whether done intentional or negligently and whether or not punishable by law. The only requisite for the exercise of the right to file a civil action for damages is that the accused must have been acquitted in the criminal action based on reasonable doubt. .December 28.Article 2219. The offended party is likewise allowed to recover punitive or exemplary damages. In addition.Petitioner is entitled to moral damages in the sum of P5. . par. arising not from criminal negligence. in consonance with the decisions of this Court declaring such requirement of a reservation as ineffective. where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt (based on Article 29 of the Civil Code). private prosecutor Atty. the reservation of the right to file an independent civil action has been deleted from Section 2. a person who is found to be criminally liable offends two (2) entities: the state or society in which he lives and the individual member of the society or private person who was injured or damaged by the punishable act or omission.The active participation of the Bonite heirs does not act as a bar from pursuing a civil action for damages because the civil action based on criminal liability and a civil action under Article 29 are two separate and independent actions. rebellion. Dulalas. Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. In fact. what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation of everyone to repair or to make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his act or omission. The offense of which private respondent was found guilty is not one of those felonies where no civil liability results because either there is no offended party or no damage was caused to a private person. Dispositive WHEREFORE. fraud. . in referring to "fault or negligence" covers acts "not punishable by law" as well as acts that may be criminal in character.00 and a further sum of P5. . . a caminero of the Bureau of Public Highways was killed when he was hit by a truck driven by Abamonga. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act.000.00 as exemplary damages. J. is not a bar to a subsequent civil action for recovery of civil liability.As a general rule.000.e. in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10. Article 33 assumes defamation. 1970 – The Bonite heirs filed an action for recovery of damages against Abamonga based on the same act but the court dismissed the complaint for damages because the Court believes that the Bonite heirs did not reserve the right to do so. .There is here an offended party. FACTS . contempt and others wherein no civil liability arises on the part of the offender either because there are no damages to be compensated or there is no private person injured by the crime. Clearly. Petitioner testified to the feelings of shame and anguish he suffered as a result of the incident complained of. Zosa. under Article 29 of the Civil Code.The respondent’s argument that the applicable provision is Article 33 is devoid of merit because of the abovementioned argument. A complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed by the surviving heirs of Bonite but Abamonga was acquitted because of insufficient evidence. that a reservation be made in the criminal case of the right to institute an independent civil action) is not applicable because Article 29 does not require it. . .It has been held that Article 2176 of the Civil Code. III.September 24. 1968. slander or any other form of defamation This provision of law establishes the right of an offended party in a case for oral defamation to recover from the guilty party damages for injury to his feelings and reputation. 1988 . . the Bonite heirs have the right to file an independent civil action for damages despite the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case. Reasoning . whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may still be instituted against him.In the criminal case against Abamonga. traitor. The civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal of the accused.The requirement in Section 2 of Rule 111 of the former Rules on Criminal Procedure. . ISSUE WON an independent civil action for damages. In the ultimate analysis.

was a civil action for damages brought the plaintiff against a person who had been previously acquitted on a criminal charge. If the payment of the indemnity is not punishment for the crime. notwithstanding the fact that the offended party had actively participated in the criminal action.500 for indemnity. as reserved by the person damaged or prejudiced. the imprisonment in lieu thereof is not punishment for the crime. with instructions to execute the punishment imposed and to try the civil branch of the case? Bearing in mind the broad line of demarcation between the civil liability of the accused and his criminal liability. Oct 22.As the civil liability is no part of the punishment for the crime. a judgment finding the accused guilty and granting him damages is binding upon the offended party and he may not file a separate civil action under Article 33. meted out to the defendant for the commission of the crime. The latter was not thereby affected…. if there be any reason therefore.Almeida vs. and the sole question determined upon the second trial was the amount of civil damages. for the injury sustained by reason of the same. and so says the law. and that this is not imprisonment for debt or punishment for crime. are preserved and remain in force. NO. only 9 took part in the decision and defendant are to be considered as a modification of the punishment. It is well settled that execution against the person will issue in civil actions in case of personal injuries. unless the damaged or prejudiced person waives the same or expressly reserves the right to institute the civil action after the termination of the criminal case.The rule in Corpus vs.The court then quotes from article 114 of the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure provides: "When a criminal proceeding is instituted for the judicial investigation of a crime or misdemeanor.. 112 of the said Law of Criminal Procedure. In the course of this decision it was said: .. -On civil liability of persons accused of crime: .Springer vs. and was sentenced to one year and three months of prision correccional by the trial court. a2010 page 38 Prof. This time intervening between the judgment of guilt and the judgment of civil damages could in no way give to the latter the character of the former.What was the effect of the action of this court in affirming that judgment as to the guilt and punishment of the accused and of reversing it as to the question of civil damage. It is in lieu of the payment of the indemnity and is considered as a discharge thereof. Rep. until final sentence in the criminal proceeding is pronounced. then the compliant in the civil action must be based on some fact and or cause distinct and separate from the criminal act itself. as in this case. 1913 FACTS -Heery was charged with attempted murder. Consequently. Paje which states that reckless imprudence is not included in Article 33 of the Civil Code. is only permitted. the civil remedy should be sought therewith. -Then lower court. -Heery raised the question of double jeopardy. of 11 justices. Odlin: "By General Orders. the penal action thereunder should be extinguished. but the same shall be suspended. by increasing the penalty or otherwise. . (Art."Instituting a criminal action only. ISSUES 1. Gulf & Pacific Co." . . but if the accused be acquitted.: "According to article 112 (Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure) the penal action once started. brings the civil action as well. but was convicted of the lesser crime of maliciously inflicting serious injury upon Alex Sternberg.Rakes vs. -On appeal. was note deemed as authoritative doctrine because. SEPARATE OPINION MELENCIO-HERRERA [concur] . he would have to return to prison to serve the subsidiary imprisonment by reason of his insolvency. Atlantic." . the civil action for damages for the same act may be instituted under Article 29 of the Civil Code. (WON there is double jeopardy) 2. Abaroa (8 Phil. in whatever stage or state it may be found. in its ruling. The plea of double jeopardy can not be allowed. and after the sentence for civil damages and in case of his insolvency.. It was held that his acquittal in the criminal action was a complete bar to a civil action for damages based upon the alleged criminal act of which the defendant had been accused." . . arising out of a crime that could be enforced only on private complaint. No. and the award being excessive.Civil damages are no part of the punishment for the crime. . . the bare fact that his civil liability was determined and fixed had nothing whatever to do with the punishment imposed. restated the conviction (of one yr to 3 months of prision correccional) and then included P50. section 107. In the present case. 58. in the event that the judgment rendered in the criminal cause is a finding of guilt against the accused.4 of them merely concurred in the result. there would have been no question of double jeopardy.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales proceed with the trial of the case. the privileges secured by the Spanish law to persons claiming to be injured by the commission of an offense to take part in the prosecution of the offense and to recover damages US v HEERY 25 Phil 600 TRENT. If the civil action alone was prosecuted."The right to bring the civil action. and it is therein expressly provided that the court.However if the accused is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. unless it had been waived by the party injured or been expressly reserve by him for civil proceedings for the future. Costs against private respondent.If there has been active participation in the prosecution of a criminal case by the offended party. against the defendant in the criminal case for the damage occasioned by the wrongful act. the decision was affirmed but case was remanded because it did not include the evidence of civil damages suffered by the offended party. if there be any reason therefor. being argued that this would constitute double jeopardy. WON remanding the case for determination of civil damages and their assessment against the . the civil action arising from the crime is deemed to have been also brought in the criminal case. in case of insolvency. the civil liability of the defendant was established. it will be understood. WON award was excessive HELD 1. . may enter judgment in favor of the injured person. if there be one. 178). with subsidiary imprisonment. upon conviction of the accused.) . after the termination of the criminal case.(That) the defendant might serve the term of imprisonment fixed by the court as the punishment for his crime. no civil action arising from the same act can be prosecuted.

2. an injured person had the right to intervene in the prosecution of the accused for the purpose of having his damages ascertained. unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately”. We have reached this conclusion after a most careful examination of all the testimony upon this point. PARKER v PANLILIO and PHIL AIR LINES 91 PHIL 1 BAUTISTA ANGELO.There can be no objection to allowing the physicians' fees of P500 and P1.The failure of Parker to reserve her right to institute the civil action in the criminal case cannot in any way be deemed as waiver on her part to institute a separate civil action against PAL based on its contractual liability. WON CFI was correct in considering and applying Sec 1. invoking (then) sec 1 Rule 107.PAL set up as special defense that the plane exploded in mid-air due to “dynamite surreptitiously introduced into said air craft by criminal hands”. which provides that no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered. in violation of the provisions of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. which in no event can exceed onethird of the principal penalty. and there is no showing that the lower court has abused its discretion is suspending the hearing. impliedly instituted with the criminal action.700. The evidence of record does not establish such disability with that degree of certainly which will justify an award for that purpose. based on the alleged failure of PAL to carry safely Richard Parker from Daet. . in case of insolvency. .CFI suspended the hearing until the final determination of the criminal case which was then pending appeal in the SC. . To do so it must not only hold. While the evidence taken in the former trial was introduced in the present case for the purpose of establishing the extent of defendant's civil liability." .Asuncion Parker and her minor daughter Kathleen filed a complaint for damages against Philippine Air Lines. The trial court was required to include the amount of these damages in the judgment of conviction. ISSUES 1. NO . therefore. whereas the criminal case involves the civil liability of the accused. WON respondent judge erred in suspending the hearing HELD 1.Inasmuch as the power to grant or refuse continuances is inherent in all courts unless expressly limited by statute. she may not now institute another action under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code based on the act or omission complained of in the criminal action. to consider evidence that was never introduced in the trial court and which the government has never had an opportunity to meet in an orderly way. is not only to take the prosecution by surprise but is to establish a precedent which may be dangerous in practice and subversive of orderly procedure. March 5. That was not done in this case.The present civil case is based upon a cause of action not arising from the civil liability involved in the criminal case instituted against the accused. clearly prejudicial error. the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged is SEPARATE OPINION MORELAND [concurring and dissenting] The record being in this condition.The present civil case is directly interwoven with the criminal case in the sense that the main issue involved in both cases is the determination of the failure of Richard Parker to reach safely his destination or the determination of the cause of his death. the petition for certiorari must fail. The refusal of the trial court to allow the injured person to introduce evidence as to his damages is. Petitioners’ Claim It was a mistake on the part of respondent judge to consider and apply Sec 1. inasmuch as petitioner had failed to expressly reserve her right to institute the civil action separately. and in the resolution thereof. be substantiated by the production of the record of the former trial and the introduction of the same in evidence. Dispositive Petition denied introduced as evidence and was not.300 for the three months' salary. The plain provisions of section 107 of our criminal procedure. . that it is unnecessary to plead the defense in the trial court but must also hold that it is unnecessary to introduce evidence in that court to substantiate the plea.800. a2010 page 39 Prof. .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales "To prosecute a penal action it shall not be necessary that a civil action arising from the same crime or misdemeanor be previously instituted. This was the main reason that guided the lower court in postponing the hearing of the civil case until final judgment in the criminal case has been rendered. Camarines Norte to Manila. YES. the government would have had the right to meet it and be heard upon it in that court. . considered by that court. as her cause of action in the civil case is based on culpa contractual and not on the civil liability arising from the offense involved in the criminal case. Inc. Parker vehemently opposed. P48. NO . of the Rules of Court.When the case was set for the continuation of the hearing. the remaining part of the record was not . The remainder. and that. according to established rules and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. much less decide. 2. I am inclined to believe that this court should not take up and discuss. Respondents’ Comments “When a criminal action is instituted. being the time the injured party was incapacitated from performing the work in which he was then engaged.Rule 107 contemplates a case where the offended party desires to press his right to demand indemnity from the accused in the criminal case which he may assert either in the same criminal case or in a separate action. Rule 107 of the Rules of Court. 1952 NATURE Certiorari and mandamus FACTS . A criminal case was already filed in CFI Camarines Norte against the supposed guilty parties. the defendant to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. Rule 107. The plea of former conviction or once in jeopardy should. . Dispositive The award of damages is reduced to P1.. the question of former jeopardy. of the Rules of Court 2. quoted supra. appears to have been allowed on account of the permanent diminution of Sternberg's ability to earn money. The civil case is based on alleged culpa contractual incurred by PAL because of its failure to carry safely Richard Parker to his place of destination.Under the Spanish criminal law. expressly preserves this right to the injured person. PAL presented an oral motion for the suspension of the hearing. To permit the question to be raised here for the first time. If it had been introduced as evidence. therefore.

and the presiding judge handling the criminal action was duly informed thereof. Oct. YAKULT PHILIPPINES v CA [CAMASO] 190 SCRA 357 GANCAYCO. their enforcement cannot be conditioned on a reservation to bring the action to enforce them separately.) . Baguio City. such that no damages was awarded in the disposition of the criminal action. . the dismissal of the criminal case brought with it the dismissal of the civil action. Boado may nonetheless bring an action for damages against petitioner under the Art. . based on the same accident. Dispositive petition DENIED. 5. David) against Yakult and Salvado. The RTC decided in favor of the Camaso’s and held the defendants (herein petitioners) jointly and severally liable for damages.2176. Larry Salvado on Dec. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.On Oct. As a result of the accident. 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code are substantive rights and.There is no dispute that private respondent.CA dismissed his petition .1982. Their argument was that the civil action for damages for injuries arising from alleged criminal negligence. from Baguio City proper to its plant site at the Export Processing Authority in Loakan. which then moved said defendants Yakult and Salvado to appeal the judgment. and damages under Articles 32.An information was then filed on Jan.Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments.Private respondent admits that he did not reserve the right to institute the present civil action against Andaya’s employer. a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed against petitioner’s driver.Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal case. 1996 FACTS . 1984.One of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado along Loakan Road.5 year old Roy Camaso (standing on a sidewalk) was sideswiped by a motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines and driven by its employee. Reasoning . cannot be filed independently of the criminal action and that under Rule 111 Sec. that the rights provided in Arts. reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.A month later. 1989. such a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly made. the action could proceed independently of the criminal action. however. either against the driver. . (The records show that while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals. 33. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action. . But the trial court denied petitioner’s motion on the ground that pursuant to the Civil Code. Accordingly. CA decision AFFIRMED. the criminal action was dismissed on July 10.The CA on Nov. a civil case for damages was filed by private respondent Boado against petitioner himself HELD NO Ratio The right to bring an action for damages under the Civil Code must be reserved as required by Rule 111. Herminio Andaya.Under the aforecited provisions of the rule. He contends. . ISSUE WON a civil action instituted after a criminal action was filed can prosper even if there was no reservation to file a separate civil action HELD YES . or against the latter’s employer. a complaint for damages was filed in the RTC of Manila by Roy Camaso (represented by his father. otherwise it should be dismissed.1983 against Salvado charging him with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries. it seems to be petitioner’s argument that since the civil action to recover damages was impliedly instituted with the criminal action. otherwise they will be deemed to . Inc. February 20. 2180 and 2177 of the Civil Code and Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.petitioner argues that the civil action against him was impliedly instituted in the criminal action previously filed against his employee because private respondent did not reserve his right to bring this action separately. as offended party in the criminal case. 1992 for failure of the prosecution to file a formal offer of its evidence. it was nevertheless instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action. there being no malice. Herminio Andaya. did not reserve the right to bring a separate civil action. They also filed a peitition for certiorari in the CA challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction in the civil case. . Pro. . MANIAGO vCA (BOADO) 253 SCRA 674 MENDOZA.Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him. with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City . as such. with the consequence that the prosecution failed to prosecute its case. ISSUE WON despite the absence of reservation. citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. It added that the purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission. herein petitioner Ruben Maniago.Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code. dismissed the petition and the subsequent MFR. 1990 NATURE Petition for review of decision of the CA FACTS .1 of the 1985 Rules of Crim. It is also provided that the reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the criminal case. Baguio City. §1 quite clearly requires that a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery of civil liability.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales a2010 page 40 Prof. § 1.. ** The SC considered the actual filing of the civil action far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended party before the prosecution presents its evidence. .

It is to avoid the filing of more than one action for the same act or omission against the same party. as long as the right to bring or institute a separate action (whether arising from crime or from quasi delict) is not reserved. (hereafter. Had the driver been convicted and found insolvent.It is the conduct of the trial of the civil action .In the present case. which is the subject of the criminal action. otherwise the action will be deemed to have been instituted with the criminal action. B. .which is allowed to proceed independently of the outcome of the criminal case.000.A criminal case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig on September 18.” This ruling obviously cannot apply to this case because the basis of the dismissal of the criminal case against the driver is the fact that the prosecution failed to prove its case as a result of its failure to make a formal offer of its evidence. arising from the same act or omission. except only (1) when such action a2010 page 41 Prof. . 1998 NATURE Petition for review after a motion for reconsideration of respondent court judgment was denied FACTS . §§1-3. P50. 29 of the Civil Code which provides that “when an accused is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. filed a case for damages against petitioner SILI with the Regional Trial Court of Manila.In the afternoon of June 24. The new rules require reservation of the right to recover the civil liability. A careful examination of the cases. will show that approval of the filing of separate civil action for damages even though no reservation of the right to institute such civil action had been reserved rests on considerations other than that no reservation is needed. his employer would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. There are statements in some cases implying that Rule 111. a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. . (2) the right to bring it separately is reserved or (3) such action has been instituted prior to the criminal action. 1992. totally wrecking the Toyota van and injuring Ms. 1991.not its institution through the filing of a complaint . the acquittal of the accused will not bar recovery of civil liability unless the acquittal is based on a finding that the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist because of Art. 29 of the Civil Code. .the rulings in these cases are consistent with the proposition herein made that.500. The right of the injured party to sue separately for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes or from quasi delict under Art. . 1991 charging the driver of the bus. the criminal action was filed against the employee.000. Metro Manila. one thing is clear: The change has been effected by this Court. Inc. 2180 of the Civil Code. 103 of the Revised Penal Code or his primary liability under Art. Jao and her two (2) passengers in the process. The rule requiring reservation in the end serves to implement the prohibition against double recovery for the same act or omission.Contrary to private respondent’s contention.00 as actual/compensatory damages. as insurer of the van and subrogee. Any award made against the employer. there would be no possibility that the employer would be held liable because in such a case there would be no pronouncement as to the civil liability of the accused.00 (P454. SAN ILDEFONSO LINES.00 as exemplary damages. 2180 of the Civil Code. the requirement that before a separate civil action may be brought it must be reserved does not impair. Marave in which the right of persons injured in a vehicular accident to bring a separate action for damages was sustained despite the fact that the right to bring it separately was not reserved. 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action. . INC. diminish or defeat substantive rights. totaling P564. v CA (PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION) 300 SCRA 484 MARTINEZ. . . Dispositive The decision appealed from is REVERSED and the complaint against petitioner is DISMISSED. a Toyota Lite Ace Van being driven by its owner Annie U.000. impliedly instituted with the criminal action. SILI) collided with each other at the intersection of Julia Vargas Avenue and Rodriguez Lanuza Avenue in Pasig. . . whether based on his subsidiary civil liability under Art.Nor does it matter that the action is against the employer to enforce his vicarious liability under Art. The ruling that a decision convicting the employee is binding and conclusive upon the employer “not only with regard to its civil liability but also with regard to its amount because the liability of an employer cannot be separated but follows that of his employee” is true not only with respect to the civil liability arising from crime but also with respect to the civil liability under the Civil Code. with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries.In Abellana v. CA the ruling is that the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case for physical injuries through reckless imprudence on the ground of reasonable doubt is not a bar to the filing of an action for damages even though the filing of the latter action was not reserved. but only regulates their exercise in the general interest of orderly procedure.In Jarantilla v. §§1 and 3 are beyond the rulemaking power of the Supreme Court under the Constitution. a civil action for the recovery of civil liability is. however. But the basis of the decision in that case was the fact that the filing of the civil case was equivalent to a reservation because it was made after the decision of the City Court convicting the accused had been appealed. Reasoning A. But if the right to bring a separate civil action (whether arising from the crime or from quasi-delict) is reserved. P50. or on January 13.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales have been instituted with the criminal case.About four (4) months later.In Garcia v. April 24. . as a general rule. Jao and a passenger bus of herein petitioner San Ildefonso Lines. is waived. This is because of Art. In such a case the institution of a separate and independent civil action under the Civil Code would not result in the employee being held liable for the same act or omission. . herein petitioner Eduardo Javier. herein private respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (PISC). Florido the right of an injured person to bring an action for damages even if he did not make a reservation of his action in the criminal prosecution for physical injuries through reckless imprudence was upheld on the ground that by bringing the civil action the injured parties had “in effect abandoned their right to press for recovery of damages in the criminal case.00 as attorney's fees. seeking to recover the sums it paid the assured under a motor vehicle insurance policy as well as other damages. the employer is very much a party.Through all the shifts or changes in policy as to the civil action arising from the same act or omission for which a criminal action is brought. There is a practical reason for requiring that the right to bring an independent civil action under the Civil Code separately must be reserved. on the basis of Rule 111. Though not an accused in the criminal case. is ultimately recoverable from the accused. bus driver. Even if an action has not been reserved or it was brought before the institution of the criminal case.

Dispositive The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 24. Peralta":"… to avoid multiplicity of suits.Far from altering substantive rights. on appeal to the Court of Appeals. . then it MARCIA v CA (PAJE and VICTORY LINER) 120 SCRA 190 RELOVA.) . the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action. The accused Felardo Paje was convicted of the offense charged. and P500. Pampanga. The "manifestation and motion to suspend civil proceedings" filed by petitioners is granted.00 as appearance fees. ISSUES a2010 page 42 Prof. the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants. collided with a jeep driven by Clemente Marcia. 1956. 34 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. is bound to observe the procedural requirements which Ms. Feria. petitioners elevated the matter to this Court via petition for certiorari which was. a passenger bus operated by private respondent Victory Liner. at the fore is Section 3.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales P10. 1. an action for damages was filed in the CFI of Rizal by Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap.Private respondent PISC. .1995 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof are reversed." . private respondent Felardo Paje. resulting in the latter's death and in physical injuries to herein petitioners. 33. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. . Without such reservation. Jao ought to follow had she herself instituted the civil case.00 as litigation expenses. 1983 NATURE Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.According to Justice Jose Y. January 27. 1993 . the independent civil action which has been reserved may be brought by the offended party. Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which reads: "Sec. however. In other words. to clear congested dockets. 33. . and Felardo Paje. 1995 and the Resolution dated April 3. Jao (as owner of the insured Toyota van). Inc. this petition for review after a motion for reconsideration of said respondent court judgment was denied. and that appellant was NOT even guilty of CIVIL NEGLIGENCE. Thereupon. to borrow the words of the Court in "Caños v. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.On January 23.While said Civil Case was in progress in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. 2.that the "independent" character of these civil actions does not do away with the reservation requirement. a decision adverse to petitioners once again was rendered by respondent court. . NO . to simplify the work of the trial court. together with their respective parents. On February 24. but also damages under Article 2176 (quasi-delicts) of the said code.It should be noted that while it was ruled in Abella vs. Hence. WON an independent civil action based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code can be filed if no reservation was made in the said criminal case WON a subrogee of an offended party can maintain an independent civil action during the pendency of a criminal action when no reservation of the right to file an independent civil action was made in the criminal action and despite the fact that the private complainant is actively participating through a private prosecutor in the aforementioned criminal case HELD 1. 1995. he was acquitted with the CA holding that "CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is WANTING in this case. to prevent delays. NO . This was denied by the Manila Regional Trial Court in its Order dated July 21. is not exempt from the reservation requirement with respect to its damages suit based on quasi-delict arising from the same act or omission of petitioner Javier complained of in the criminal case. against the Victory Liner. 1957. Under the present Rule as amended. to guard against oppression and abuse. . alleging that the mishap was due to the reckless imprudence and negligence of the latter in driving the passenger bus. referred to public respondent Court of Appeals for disposition. an information for homicide and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed against Felardo Paje in the CFI of Pampanga.After their motion for reconsideration of said July 21. remedial law expert and a member of the committee which drafted the 1988 amendments. petitioners filed on September 18. and driven by its employee.On December 23. Marave (57 SCRA 106) that a reservation of the right to file an independent civil action is not necessary. unless previously waived or instituted. However. 1993 Order was denied. Inc. As private respondent PISC merely stepped into the shoes of Ms. in the municipality of Lubao. “the 1988 amendment expands the scope of the civil action which is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless waived. reserved or previously instituted. as subrogee. it is easily deducible from the present wording of Section 3 as brought about by the 1988 amendments to the Rules on Criminal Procedure -." 2. FACTS . 1992 a Manifestation and Motion to Suspend Civil Proceedings grounded on the pendency of the criminal case against petitioner Javier in the Pasig RTC and the failure of respondent PISC to make a reservation to file a separate damage suit in said criminal action.In the cases provided for in Articles 32.000.particularly the phrase "… which has been reserved" -. When civil action may proceed independently. which dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioners against private respondents in the concept of an independent civil action for damages for physical injuries resulting from reckless imprudence. prior reservation is a condition sine qua non before any of these independent civil actions can be instituted and thereafter have a continuous determination apart from or simultaneous with the criminal action. shall proceed independently of the criminal action. whose learned explanation on the matter was aptly pointed out by petitioners. 3.Even though these so-called "independent civil actions" based on the aforementioned Civil Code articles are the exceptions to the primacy of the criminal action over the civil action as set forth in Section 2 of Rule 111. the criminal action proceeded in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. such a civil action includes not only recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code and damages under Articles 32.With the issues having been joined upon the filing of the petitioners' answer to the complaint for damages and after submission by the parties of their respective pre-trial briefs. in short. upholding the assailed Manila Regional Trial Court Order. the primary purpose of the reservation is.On the chief issue of "reservation". such a reservation is necessary under the amended rule. -.

We do not agree.In the cases provided for in Articles 31.As a consequence. 33. 1973. that "the acquittal of the accused from the criminal charge will not necessarily extinguish the civil liability unless the court declares in the judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. ISSUE WON the Fiscal’s dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction with rape extinguished the civil liability of Conrado Bunag Jr HELD NO . unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist. Hence. Rule 111 of the New Rules of Court). They filed their application for marriage license with the Local Civil Registral of Bacoor. may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case. We have held in the case of Tan vs. However. .despite the prior dismissal of the complaint therefore filed by Zenaida with the Pasay City Fiscal’s Office. Cavite. no civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. Afterwhich he said that he would not let her go unless they get married. as he intended to marry her . and Felardo Paje. 91 Phil." . it is as good as saying as if he did not commit the crime charged. On August 10. 20ktemperate damages and 10k attorney’s fees) Bunag Sr. Where the court states 'that the evidence throws no light on the cause of fire and that it was an unfortunate accident for which the accused cannot be held responsible.Bunag Jr contends that both the trial court awarded the damages on the basis of a finding that he is guilty of forcible abduction with rape. . Conrado filed an affidavit withdrawing his application for a marriage license. 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. the charge against Felardo Paje was not for homicide and physical injuries but for reckless imprudence or criminal negligence resulting in homicide (death of Clemente Marcia) and physical injuries suffered by Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. 32. -The two proceedings involved are not between the same parties (the criminal action is between the State and the defendant and the civil case is between the offended party and the defendant). the CA held that this was a case of PURE ACCIDENT. 29. The Trial Court ordered Bunag Jr. 2. civil action—preponderance of evidence) finding that the facts upon which civil liability did not exist. ." . defendants in Civil Case of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. provided the right is reserved as required in the preceding section. There being no crime committed. abducted her in the vicinity of San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City and brought her to a motel where she was raped. July 10.The Cirilo’s filed a complaint for damages against Conrado Bunag Jr. And that the reason why Conrado broke off their plan to get married was their bitter disagreements over money and Zenaida’s threats to his life.' this declaration fits well into the exception of the rule which exempts the accused. was absolved from any and all liability. However.Also. Criminal Liability will give rise to civil liability ex delicto only if the same felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof. (Zenaida’s uncle claims that Bunag Sr. ISSUE WON the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting the accused in reckless imprudence on the ground that the incident was accidental. to pay damages (80Kmoral damages.and Zenaida Cirilo had earlier made plans to elope and get married (same as first set of facts) .It is the stand of herein petitioners that Section 2. Also.The dismissal did not in any way affect the right of Zenaida Cirilo to institute a civil action arising from the offense. Plaintiff’s Claim Conrado Bunag Jr. after a few days. so much so that she promised not to make any scandal and to marry him. 1992 NATURE Petition for review from the decision of the CA FACTS . v CA (CIRILO) 211 SCRA 440 REGALADO.CA affirmed in toto . 8. should apply in the case at bar. assured them that the couple were to be married). They went to his gradmother’s house and lived together as husband and wife for 21 days until Bunag Jr.(criminal action – proof beyond reasonable doubt. Section 2 of Rule 111 merely refers to the institution of an independent civil action without waiting for the filing or termination of the criminal action and requires only preponderance of evidence to prosper and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as required for conviction in criminal cases. BUNAG JR. Reasoning . there are different rules as to the competency of witnesses and the quantum of evidence in criminal and civil proceedings. extinguished by implication the civil action for damages HELD YES Ratio Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil. not Section 3 (c) thereof. Inc. an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. from civil liability. an acquittal based on the a2010 page 43 Prof.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Insofar as appellant was concerned. no civil liability arises.Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil case might arise did not exist. the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision dismissing plaintiffs' complaint against the defendants Victory Liner. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Rule 107 of the Rules of Court (now Section 3 (c). brought Zenaida Cirilo to a motel or hotel where they had sexual intercourse and later that evening he brought Zenaida to the house of his grandmother’s house where they lived together as husband and wife for 21 days until Sept.On Sept. Standard Vacuum Oil Company. herein private respondents." . moved for the dismissal of the complaint invoking the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting Felardo Paje and citing Section 1 (d). therefore. this recourse. 1973 Conrado Bunag Jr. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. As early as 1952. Petitioners appealed the case to the CA. left and never . Respondent’s Comment Conrado Bunag Jr. Since.20K-exemplary damages. 672. Reasoning -Generally. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. which basically affirmed the RTC decision. and his father Conrado Bunag Sr. every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. the CA found that this case was of pure accident. 1966. returned which humiliated Zenaida and compelled her to go back to her parents. bars the filing of an independent civil action if it is based on the crime. Independent civil action. "Sec. They are not one of the three (3) crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code and.

The Court. In other words. 1971 in lznart Street. to recover damages on both scores. There is no declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil case might arise did not exist. and a motion for reconsideration thereof was denied for the same reason in a resolution of October 28.Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then City Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 1975.. the trial court issued on April 3. petitioner appealed said decision to the CA but said respondent court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court with a few changes in the amount of the damages to be paid. the failure of the respondent to reserve his right to file a separate civil case and his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing such separate civil action for damages. Iloilo City" The respondent Court of Appeals concurred in the findings of the court a quo that the said vehicle which figured in the mishap. that his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing a separate civil action for damages.. 47207 inasmuch as when said criminal case was instituted the civil liability was also deemed instituted since therein plaintiff failed to reserve the civil aspect and actively participated in the criminal case. . ISSUE WON the private respondent. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. 1974.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . 1977 in favor of the herein private respondent and ordering herein petitioner to pay damages. In his answer filed therein.The aforecited case of Lontoc vs.. 3 Rule 111. 1989 NATURE Appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the decision of the trial court awarding damages to the private respondent. which was docketed as G. provided that the offended party is not allowed. 47027. where the trial court acquits the accused on reasonable doubt. prohibition and mandamus. And that the failure of the court to make any pronouncement. 1975 an order of denial. Private respondent. L-40992.R. additionally. The rules nowhere provide that if the court fails to determine the civil liability it becomes no longer enforceable. Hill that: . Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday were charged with estafa in the CFI of Cavite with the information alleging that they misappropriated P20. Dispositive Decision of CA affirmed. . March 21. that the two cases were anchored on two different causes of action. and that in the judgment in the criminal case the aspect of civil liability was not passed upon and resolved. . March 29. as to the civil liability of the accused amounts to a reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated and determined in a separate action. No.Ofelia V. in arriving at the conclusion hereinbefore quoted.Under the present jurisprudential milieu.On October 30. 1968 FACTS . and that private respondent sustained physical injuries as a consequence. . as the complaining witness therein. said civil case may proceed as authorized by Article 29 of the Civil Code. was then driven by petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street toward the direction of the provincial capitol. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. involved virtually the same factual situation. and which civil action involved the same subject matter and act complained of in Criminal Case No. especially considering that the accused therein was acquitted because his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. the court below rendered judgment on May 23. Inc. whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasidelict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused . Branch IV. favorable or unfavorable. a2010 page 44 Prof. assailing the aforesaid order of the trial court. acting on a motion to dismiss of therein defendant. expressly declared that the failure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his right to file a separate civil case is not fatal. the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. .. 1975. 47207 thereof. the criminal case being on a violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code while the subsequent complaint for damages was based on a quasi-delict. et al.Thereafter. JARANTILLA v CA (SING) 171 SCRA 429 REGALADO. Petitioner thereafter filed in this Court a petition for certiorari. that the latter's cause of action. refers JIMENEZ v AVERIA 22 SCRA 380 DIZON. if he is also actually charged criminally. Thus. petion denied. They also . if any. private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the former Court of First Instance of Iloilo. .After trial. the petitioner alleged as special and affirmative detenses that the private respondent had no cause of action and. MD Transit & Taxi Co. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. 9976. a Volkswagen (Beetle type) car. is barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No. it could very well make a pronounce ment on the civil liability of the accused and the complainant could file a petition for mandamus to compel the trial court to include such civil liability in the judgment of acquittal. did not reserve his right to institute a separate civil action and he intervened in the prosecution of said criminal case through a private prosecutor. exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. can file a separate action for civil liability arising from the same act or omission where the herein petitioner was acquitted in the criminal action on reasonable doubt and no civil liability was adjudicated or awarded in the judgment of acquittal HELD YES . who was the complainant in the criminal action for physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and who participated in the prosecution thereof without reserving the civil action arising from the act or omission complained of.In this case  the dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction with rape was by mere resolution of the fiscal at the preliminary investigation stage. .The action is based on a quasi-delict. (c) of Sec. FACTS . Consequently. The Court has also heretofore ruled in Elcano vs. .Private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swiped by a vehicle in the evening of July 7. Petitioner was acquitted in said criminal case "on reasonable doubt". docketed therein as Civil Case No.000 received from Manuel Jimenez for the purchase of a fishing boat named Basnig. Ratio The allegations of the complaint filed by the private respondent supports and is constitutive of a case for a quasi-delict committed by the petitioner. Said petition was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's resolution of July 23.

thus requiring the resolution of the civil action for the determination of the criminal case HELD NO Ratio: A prejudicial question. to the degree required by law. Therefore. in turn. even supposing that both the civil and the criminal case involve the same question and one must precede the other. the accused filed a civil suit against Jimenez in the Quezon CFI contesting the validity of a certain receipt signed by them on October 26. and jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in another court. to return the aforesaid amounts on January 30.Pisalbor.00 as agent's commission. The contention of the private respondents herein would be tenable had they been charged with falsification of the same receipt involved in the civil action.A prejudicial question has been define to be one which arises in a case. and the further sum of P240. it should be the civil case which should be suspended rather than the criminal. the civil case parties charged with estafa. They assert now that they never received any amount from Jimenez and that they signatures were taken through the means of fraud and deceit by Jimenez . they misappropriated the money and refused or otherwise failed to return it to him upon demand. the cases could proceed independently pursuant to Art. their guilt could still be established by other evidence showing.00 with which to buy for him a fishing boat. v. . then the trial for the criminal case.319 (Removal. He contended that a prejudicial question was involved. thus he could no longer be tried pending the termination of the civil suit. which is must be determinative of the case before the court. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. * * *. with the obligation. and that jurisdiction to try and resolve said question must be lodged in another tribunal. May 31. ISSUE WON the is a prejudicial question. . Tesoro: CFI erred in holding that the criminal case should be suspended.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales have the obligation to return the money if they do not purchase the boat. is not present in this case. one of the causes of action of which consisted of petitioner having executed a chattel mortgage when a prior chattel mortgage was still valid and subsisting.It is indispensable then for this petition to succeed that the alleged prejudicial question must be determinative of the criminal case before respondent Judge.319 violation was the filing of 5 estafa cases against Rojas. 1963 in case they were unable to buy the fishing boat. It is not so in this case. that they had actually received from the complaint the sum of P20. determination of the charge of falsification would be based on the truth or falsity of the narration of facts in the affidavit of adjudication. to await the result of the latter. . duress or intimidation. In the present proceedings. may not affect the alleged crime committed by the notary public. . raising therein the issue that he had not received from the latter the amount alleged to have been misappropriated. The respondents. Rojas filed an action for certiorari against the arraignment order. which provides: In cases of defamation. in the sense that it must be first resolved before the proceedings in the criminal case for estafa may proceed HELD NO . which they did not do. Reasoning . a civil case was filed against him by the offended party (CMS Estate) for the termination of a management contract. pledge of mortgaged property) of RPC for executing a new chattel mortgage on personal property (Caterpillar Tractor) in favor of another party w/o the consent of the previous mortgagee. based . there would hardly be a case for estafa that could be prosecuted speedily. instead of doing so. ISSUE WON the determination of the issue raised in the civil case mentioned heretofore is a prejudicial question.000. because even on the assumption that the execution of the receipt whose annulment they sought in the civil case was vitiated by fraud. on the civil action for the revocation of the management contract. it will be readily seen that the alleged prejudicial question is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the a2010 page 45 Prof. they filed a motion to suspend the proceedings of the criminal case pending the resolution of the prejudicial question in the civil case – whether or not their signatures were taken through means of fraud and deceit by Jimenez. ROJAS v PEOPLE (ALIKPALA) 57 SCRA 243 FERNANDO. 1962 wherein they acknowledged having received from him the sum of P20. and should have filed a mandamus to the SC instead – to compel the lower court to proceed with the case.After a few days. the civil case does not involve a question prejudicial to the criminal case.Before arraignment. the resolution of which. it being the easiest thing for the accused to block the proceedings by the simple expedient of filing an independent civil action against the complainant.33 of CC.Rojas was charged w/ violation of Art. entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. Simply put.Dela Cruz v City Fiscal: Regardless of the outcome of the pending civil case for annulment of the affidavit of adjudication. .Applying these to the case. . and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. which is the subject of the criminal case. on their part. and prohibition against the order setting the trial.Note: the trigger for the filing of information re: art. and that. contended that the resolution of the civil case will not determine the liability of Rojas in the criminal case (not a prejudicial question). The criminal court must now try the estafa case against the two accused. But. (question ) is a logical antecedent of the issued involved in said case. . a civil action for damages.00 with which to purchase for him a fishing boat and its accessories.Pre-ratio: Jimenez erred in the filing of a certiorari petition.If the ruling were otherwise.CFI Judge Alikpala ordered the arraignment. sale. Reasoning: .000. for to whomsoever the land may be awarded after all the evidence has been presented in the civil case.The issue of fraud and deceit raised in the civil case does not constitute a prejudicial question. the questions must be determinative of the case before the court. thus giving lie to his express manifestation that the property was free from all liens and encumbrances.Judge Averia granted the motion and hence this certiorari petition . 1974 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS . and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. and even granting that there was a prejudicial question. After the criminal case was instituted. . fraud and physical injuries.

considering that Ras' defense in Civil Case of the nullity and forgery of the alleged prior deed of sale in favor of Pichel (plaintiff in the civil case and complaining witness in the criminal case) is based on the very same facts which would be necessarily determinative of Ras' guilt or innocence as accused in the criminal case. > therefore the alleged deed of sale in Pichel's favor sought to be declared valid was fictitious and inexistent . Concepcion. On January 18.Luis Pichel filed a COMPLAINT against Alejandro Ras and Bienvenido Martin before CFI Basilan praying for the nullification of the deed of sale executed by Ras in favor of Martin and for the declaration of the prior deed of sale allegedly executed in his favor by the defendant Alejandro Ras as valid. according to the petitioner. . August 30. Ratio A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein. and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. . . 1978 of criminal case in CFI Basilan denying petitioner's motion as accused therein to suspend proceedings due to the existence of a prejudicial question in Civil Case of the same court FACTS . . thus they are to proceed independently. then there would be no double sale and petitioner would be innocent of the offense charged. . 1978 .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales aforementioned does not involve a prejudicial question. 1978 . 1978 .November 6. the petitioner. under the circumstances. and a901B which were all sugar lands. Librodo.If the first alleged sale in favor of Pichel is void or fictitious. Dispositive Petition DENIED.there appears to be a prejudicial question in the case at bar.For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the criminal action pending the determination of the civil. Art. that’s why this digest is also full of it. Democrata Guantero. for a period of ten agricultural crop years. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. September 18. 1982 NATURE Petition for certiorari to review Negros CFI order FACTS . A conviction in the criminal case (if it were allowed to proceed ahead) would be a gross injustice and would have to be set aside if it were finally decided in the civil action that indeed the alleged prior deed of sale was a forgery and spurious.in this case.Moreover. On August 10. be passed upon by the court trying the criminal case. .In the meantime. . Gonzales: there is a prejudicial question only when the matter that has to be priorly decided by another authority is one the cognizance of which pertains to that authority and should not. involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is based.RAS ANSWER > they never sold the property to Pichel > the signatures appearing in the deed of sale in favor of plaintiff Pichel were forgeries . Dispositive Order of respondent judge in Criminal Case dated December 12.while Civil Case was being TRIED before CFI Basilan. 1906-B. Guanteros. Reasoning . . Jr (more analogous): the fact that the principal issues in both cases are the same and did arise from the same facts would not show any necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case. 1978. (GUANTERO) 116 SCRA 303 MELENCIO-HERRERA.Benitez v. 1978 . a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. 1977.petitioner filed a MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF ACTION in said Criminal Case claiming that same facts and issues were involved in both the civil and criminal case and that the resolution of the issues in the civil case would necessarily be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. may be brought by the injured party. there’s realy no discussion. Rufino leased the properties to Dr. a2010 page 46 Prof. a Criminal Case (the Criminal Case) was filed against the respondents for theft RAS v RASUL 100 SCRA 125 TEEHANKEE. Democrata filed a petition to re-open the intestate proceeding on the ground that she was not present when the subdivision plan was submitted and that the judgment has not become final as the boundaries on the partition have not been platted. . harvested the sugar canes he planted on the land he leased from Rufino.33 explicitly provides that in cases of xxx fraud. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on May 16. 1978 .respondent judge saw no prejudicial question and accordingly denied the motion ISSUE WON civil case would be prejudicial to the criminal case given that they would discuss same facts and issues HELD YES . . but also that the resolution of the issues raised in said civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.December 12.On August 31.Isip v. Personal note: ang pangit ng case. and Zosimo Guantero. Such civil action SHALL proceed independently of the criminal prosecution xxx. Negros Occidental.Rufino’s share of the estate comprise of lots designated as Lots 559-B. JR. fraud is the basis for both the civil and criminal actions. xxx.Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed his opposition on . The invocation of the doctrine of prejudicial question is thus attended with futility. 1979 is hereby made permanent and respondent judge is enjoined from proceeding with the arraignment and trial of the criminal case unless the civil case shall have been finally decided and terminated adversely against petitioner. His estate was settled in a special proceeding on November 24. 1976 and was terminated on the basis of a Project of Partition among Rufino Rivera Damandaman.Felipe Rivera died leaving certain properties in San Carlos. it must appear not only that the civil case LIBRODO v COSCOLLUELA. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. 1910-B. private respondents. 1980 NATURE Petition to review and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated December 12.April 27. puro citations.September 5. . 1978 is hereby set aside. the Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed an INFORMATION for Estafa (criminal case) in the same court against Ras arising from the same double sale subject matter of the civil complaint filed by Luis Pichel.December 4.

. the order of the judge is set aside and he is instructed to proceed without delay with the trial of the criminal case. that would not be determinative of the criminal responsibility of private respondents for theft of the sugar cane. and for it to suspend the criminal action. the Intestate Case. the court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case and all subsequent actions that may be taken by the public prosecutor in relation to the disposition of the case must be subject to the approval of the said court. which spring from the lease contract. That said. as amended. This was denied. During the pendency of the Criminal Case.Balgos et al were charged with violation of Section 3(c) of RA 3019. This was likewise denied by the Sandiganbayan.Lim. ISSUE WON the denial by the Sandiganbayan of the motion to withdraw the information and of another motion to suspend proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question in a pending civil action constitute a grave abuse of discretion. respondents asserted that the lots are still under co-ownership among the heirs and that this is the subject of another special proceeding (the Intestate Case). BALGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN 176 SCRA 287 GANCAYCO. August 10. . after a preliminary investigation.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales demanding damages amounting to Pesos 15. the plaintiff and prevailing party in Civil Case No. Democrata contended that Rufino could not execute the lease contracts without her conformity without her conformity as co-owner.While the public prosecutor has the sole direction and control in the prosecution of offenses. another case for damages (the Damages Case) against the private respondents alleging damages to the petitioner caused by the private respondents’ theft of the sugar canes and their occupation of the leased properties thus preventing him from cultivating or taking possession of the same. Reasoning . the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. are not determinative juris et jure of guilt or innocence in the Criminal Case. Hence this appeal. The said complaint was filed with the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya. petitioners filed . Before a re-investigation of the case may be conducted by the public prosecutor. And if after such reinvestigation the prosecution finds a cogent basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause the dismissal of the case. and the ejectment case (the Ejectment Case) which was filed by Rufino against Democrata on January 13. determinative of their guilt in the criminal action and hence constitutive of a prejudicial question..In the case at bar. no necessity arises for that civil Case to be determined ahead of the Criminal Case.BAlgos et al filed a motion to suspend proceedings in the criminal case against them on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question in Civil Case No. On the same day. The same was granted. in an information that was filed with the Sandiganbayan by the Special Prosecutor which was approved by the Deputy Tanodbayan.00. The Guanteros filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the Criminal Case on the ground of pendency of the Damages Case.In their answer. the issues raised would not constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Case.Petitioners are public officers charged with having violated Section 3(c) of RA 3019. The Ejectment Case also does not constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Case. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act.280. once the complaint or information is filed in court. which petitioner claims he planted in good faith by virtue of the valid lease agreement.Despite the objections made by the petitioner.120. 1977. Dispositive In the absence of a prejudicial question. it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also a2010 page 47 Prof. . hence. . for evident bad faith and manifest partiality in enforcing the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 5307. Even if the Intestate Court should annul the division and uphold the co-ownership.00. 4047 against a Mustang car registered in the name of Leticia Acosta-Ang (complainant) who is not the judgment debtor thereby causing undue injury to said complainant that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case. 1989 NATURE Petition to review the decision of Sandiganbayan FACTS . A decision therein in favor of Democrata would not affect the rights of Librodo. such proposed course of action must be addressed to the sound discretion of the court. . He alleged that this resulted in his being deprived of income for two years amounting to Pesos 78. . The Intestate Case involves only the co-heirs and the facts involved are totally unrelated to the Criminal Case. It involves the issue of possession between co-owners. . therefore. ISSUE WON the issues raised in the three cases mentioned involve a prejudicial question that warrants a suspension of the Criminal Case HELD NO The issues raised in the three cases do not involve the pivotal question of who planted the sugar can and.The only instance when the appellate court should stay the hand of the trial court in such cases is when it is shown that the trial court acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or otherwise committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to such lack or excess of jurisdiction.Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to withdraw the information against petitioners.A prejudicial question is one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.The Tanodbayan ordered to dismiss the case for lack of merit and to withdraw the Information filed in Criminal Case No. the permission or consent of the court must be secured. a motion for reinvestigation in the Tanodbayan. .The respondents took the position that the various cases focused on the issues of possession and ownership of the lots involved as well as of the improvements thereon. With regard the Damages case. the lower court issued the order finding that a prejudicial question existed and suspending the Criminal case proceeding. 11414 as soon as possible in the interest of justice. HELD NO. it is actually the civil aspect of the Criminal Case as the two cases are of the same facts. . . 4047 filed a complaint for rescission of the sale of the car by Juanito Ang to private respondent Leticia Acosta-Ang for being allegedly in fraud of creditors. and the entitlement to damages being predicated on the unlawful taking treated of in the Criminal Case. .

Arraignment . was a sham intended to defraud his creditors. P271. By arrangement the petitioners made with the Edano spouses. Still the burden is on the petitioners to establish that they acted in good faith in proceeding with the execution on the car even they were presented evidence tending to show it did not belong to Juanito Ang anymore. 8769 seeks the annulment of the deed of sale in favor of Orosea on the gound that there was fraud in misrepresenting that the land is free from all liens and encumbrances. 8769 involves a prejudicial question. June 21. The car was registered in the name of Leticia Ang six months before the seizure. was set on September 4.The arraignment was again postponed thrice.500. ISSUE WON proceedings should be suspended until the civil case is disposed of. Manila Branch. petitioners must demonstrate that the seizure was not attended by manifest bad faith in order to clear themselves of the charge in the criminal action.The respondents are aware that the complainant is not a party to the civil case filed by the creditor against spouses Juanito and Lydia Ang and that a writ of execution cannot be implemented validly against one who is not a party to the action. OROSEA secured a loan of P1. Sometime on Sept. Thus. . Ledesma) are officers of the Orosea Dev’t Corporation. and that it is not tenanted.00 from the Philippine Veterans Bank using this property as security. . the son of Juanito Ang. Resolving the motion to suspend.The information was filed by the Provincial Fiscal against petitioners on May 21.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales and giving unwarranted benefits to the judgment creditor in said case. .The pending civil case for the annulment of the sale of the car to Leticia Ang is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the petitioners for the acts allegedly committed by them in seizing the car. 1423-I. .On October 14. 036. P 270. that the deed of absolute sale which ostensibly was executed before a notary public appeared to be fictitious inasmuch as the entry of the document in the notarial register of said notary public on said date referred to a catering contract of other parties. and that upon the execution of the judgment. 4047. 1984 which showed that the document of sale was actually executed only on or about the same date. . CV No. with a Supplemental Motion To Suspend Proceedings. 8769 involves issues. 1981. subject of the criminal case. civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. seven days after Juanito Ang received copy of the adverse decision in Civil Case No. denying the motion. 4. 1981 but petitioners failed to appear. because whatsoever the issue raised in the a2010 page 48 Prof. A petition for certiorari is filed with CA and CA affirmed. Even if in the civil action it is ultimately resolved that the sale was null and void. This was postponed. who admitted that the car belonged to his father by showing the receipt of its repair in the name of Juanito Ang.Upon reinvestigation of the criminal case by the Tanodbayan. . the Edano spouses filed a complaint for estafa against petitioners. The checks they have issued were dishonored.However. the deed of sale they seek to be annulled. a deed of absolute sale in the name of Orosea Dev’t Corp. it cannot be denied that at the time the acts complained of in the estafa case were committed. 1979. 1423-I. Petitioners then filed a 'Motion to Suspend Arraignment and Further Proceedings. HELD NO.000. respondent Judge issued his orders. allegedly indisposable public land.Although at the reinvestigation. when in truth and fact. 1989 is hereby lifted. . the judgment debtor. since CV No.00 was honored upon its presentment. 5307 is well taken. P270.500 payable on 4 installments (P225. the Tanodbayan was persuaded that in fact the sale of the car to Leticia Ang was fraudulent. if and when the court hearing CV No.000. hence.000) They issued for this purpose 4 checks drawn against the Chartered Bank. As a consequence of the dishonor of these checks. OROSEA filed a Complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon against the Edano spouses for the annulment/rescission of the Contract of Sale for which the petitioners issued the checks. now under question. All these. Thereafter.CV No. Until the nullity of the sale is declared by the courts. . . Province of Queazon for P1. was executed even of the full purchase price has not yet been fully paid. coupled with the under haste in which the levy on the Mustang car was made without first ascertaining the true owner thereof demonstrate quite convincingly the evident bad faith and manifest partiality of the respondents. and it was docketed as Criminal Case No. The first check for P225. It was reset to October 5. thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the judgment creditor to the damage and prejudice of the complainant. the resolution of which will determine whether or not petitioners are criminally liable in CR No. This is the basis of the motion for withdrawal of the information of the Tanodbayan. was still binding to the parties. it does not necessarily follow that the seizure of the car was rightfully undertaken.The estafa case was again set for arraignment. Umali purchased from spoused Homorio and Solina Edano a lot in Mulanay. 1990 NATURE Review on certiorari FACTS . 1981. petitioners twice asked for deferment. this did not necessarily clear petitioners of the aforesaid Anti-Graft charge against them. 1423-I. resulting in the dismissal of CR No.000. 7869 annuls the subject deed of sale. Dispositive The petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the restraining order dated June 6. the land is covered by the land reform program and that vast portions thereof are timber land.The denial of the motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of the pendency of a prejudicial question in Civil Case No. that the certificate of registration of the car was issued to complainant only on June 13. 1981 but this was postponed upon motion of petitioners.000. he found evidence tending to show that the sale of said car to the complainant by Juanito Ang.000. UMALI v IAC (EDANO) 219 SCRA 339 PADILLA. on ground of improper venue. This was opposed by the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon. then. They further argue that. the same is presumptively valid. Calleja. that is. the car was found in the possession of Alvin. With the entry of a new counsel. CFI of Zambales also denied the same motion. Therefore. No costs. their obligation to pay private respondents under the said deed would be extinguished. . according to petitioners. When the check for the second installment fell due. .Petitioners (Umali. The contracts are thus voidable with the existence of fraud vitiating their consent. The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play usually in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed. but this motion was withdrawn by petitioners before it could be resolved. petitioners filed a motion to quash the estafa case.

the justice of peace and the CA. It could not affect said jurisdiction. and 2) that she is over 12 and under 18 years of age. but the outrage to the family and the alarm produced in it by the disappearance of one of its members.". and that. no prejudicial question is involved between the said two (2) cases. . shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents. . FACTS . nor in any case. affirming that of the CFI of Cagayan. it is well settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is and may be conferred only by law. matter of the action wrt the offense of abduction with consent.Jan 25. not alleged. . 1423-I.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . . it is settled that the virginity mentioned in Art 343 RPC. if the offended has been expressly pardoned by the above. or guardian. Art 344 (3) RPC states that: ". according to him. namely: 1) that the offended party is a virgin. 56 – Ester Ulsano filed with the justice of peace a criminal complaint charging Valdepenas with forcible abduction with rape of Ester Ulsano.named persons. His behavior . MFR was denied Petitioner’s claims – there was no complaint for abduction with consent filed and that the lower court acquired no jurisdiction over his person or over the crime of abduction with consent.CFI rendered decision reiterating findings of CA.Given the nature of a prejudicial question.On the other hand.Art 344 RPC does not determine the jurisdiction of our courts over the offense therein enumerated. . may not be conferred thereto by the parties involved in the offense. . not by RPC. 17 years of age . . and of chastity.The gist of petitioner's pretense is that there are some elements of the latter which are not included in the former. against her will and taking advantage of the absence of her mother" from their dwelling and carried "her to a secluded spot to gain carnal intercourse with the offended party against her will. the second stage of which was waived by Valdepenas.Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is acquired upon either his apprehension. or his submission to the jurisdiction of the court. guilty parties. because the same is governed by the Judiciary Act of 1948. but also. 8769 is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the petitioners-accused in CR No. and (b) the resolution of such issue in the civil action determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Dispositive Wherefore. the petition is DENIED. hence.The complaint in the case at bar alleges not only that Ester Ulsano is a minor 17 years of age. 1966 NATURE Appeal by Maximino Valdepenas from a decision of the CA. His actions show that he never questioned the judicial authority of the CFI. under an information for forcible abduction. 8769 and CR No. The presumption of innocence includes that of morality and decency. with or without warrant. . hence.MFR was filed on the ground that lower court had no jurisdiction over the person and the subject PEOPLE v PLATEROS 83 SCRA 401 AQUINO. . and. not merely a submission to the jurisdiction thereof. the offenses of seduction. intimidation and violence. a second year college student drank beer in the kitchenette.CFI found him guilty as charged and sentenced him accordingly. but also that petitioner "willfully. That jurisdiction over a given crime. and. convicting him of the crime of abduction with consent. . The complaint required in said Article 344 is merely a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the VALDEPENAS V PEOPLE 16 SCRA 871 CONCEPTION." This allegation implies that Ester is a minor living under patria protestas. should not be understood in its material sense and does not exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of good reputation because the essence of the offense "is not the wrong done to the woman. as an essential ingredient of the crime of abduction with consent. that he urged the courts to exercise the authority thereof over his person. in the complaint filed herein. rape or acts of lasciviousness. .On appeal. . 1423-I.As regards the first element. . 14504 is hereby AFFIRMED. . It is not claimed that petitioner had not been apprehended or had not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. with costs against the petitioner Maximino Valdepenas. not vested by law upon a particular court. to the effect that complainant was below 18 y/o at the time of the occurrence. .The two (2) essential elements for a prejudicial question to exist are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action. the justice of peace found that there was probable cause and forwarded the complaint to the CFI.Valdepenas filed MFR and new trial contesting the findings of CA. as the case may be". . which states that Ester Ulsano is "a minor . . abduction.particularly the motions therein filed by him — implied. we agree with the ruling of the respondent Court of Appeals that the resolution of the issues in CV No. hence. unlawfully and feloniously" took her by force and violence . After the preliminary investigation. using force. and. with lewd designs." . . Pedro Candel together with other pedicab drivers and Tomas Metucua. which deals primarily with the definition of crimes and the factors pertinent to the punishment of the culprits. the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. Dispositive WHEREFORE. CA modified the decision. He is deemed to have waived whatever objection he might have had to the jurisdiction over his person. and considering the issues raised in CV No. the accused may be convicted of abduction with consent. ISSUE WON CA erred in not reversing he decision of the TC for lack of jurisdiction over the accused and the subject matter of the action for the offense abduction with consent HELD NO. grandparents. thus leading to the presumption that she is a virgin apart from being virtuous and having a good reputation. The decision was set aside and the case was remanded to the CFI ." . The decision dated 23 September 1982 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. a2010 page 49 Prof. And such condition has been imposed "out of consideration for the offended woman and her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial. over 12 and below 18 years of age. Motion was granted. to have submitted himself to the Court's jurisdiction. convicting him of abduction with consent. May 30 1978 FACTS One night. The second element is clearly set forth in said complaint. Seated at another table were Warlito Plateros and Murillo Lahoy who were also drinking beer. It is so ordered. Petitioner again appealed to CA which affirmed the CFI decision. April 30.

However. . or which were committed on the same occasion as the offense punished by death or reclusion perpetua should be certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals. which reads: "SEC. his co-accused. hostile and menacing. who could have stabbed Candel or Metucua inside the kitchenette. Añora and Piquero. as boon companions. YES The feeble denials of Plateros and Lahoy (who admittedly were near the owns of the crime. sudden and unexpected. accompanied by Metucua. modify or affirm on appeal. when it was perpetrated) cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal declarations of the eyewitnesses. Lahoy allegedly stabbed Metucua. final judgments and decrees of inferior courts herein provided. . The acquittal of Lahoy in connection with the wounding of Metucua would not affect the determination of his guilt or innocence in connection with the death of Pedro Candel. The assault was deliberate.The trial court tried the two cases jointly and rendered only one decision. regardless of whether the accused are charged as principals. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Where. NO. accomplices or accessories.) Reasoning: . Plateros and Lahoy were found guilty of murder. . WON the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting Lahoy of attempted murder should be set aside for lack of appellate jurisdiction or as a “lawless thing” On Murder case 2. 3.In other words. Revised Penal Code). Hence.This holding does not in anyway emasculate the rule in section 17(1) that criminal cases appealed to the Court of Appeals. 4. Procedure . which is not punishable by death or reclusion perpetua but which arose out of the same occurrence or was committed on the same occasion. YES. or whether have been tried jointly or separately. he stabbed Candel (maybe thinking that it was Metucua who was inside the pedicab because Candel is the driver – abberatio personae) two times. (The reason for the law ceasing. WON the crime should be categorized as simple homicide only and not murder HELD 1. left the kitchenette and went to their pedicab. NO Lahoy and Plateros.The murder case was elevated to SC for review. that the appellants were the authors of the stab wounds which caused Candal's death. 101 Phil. When Metucua was talking with Estrella. . Plateros also stabbed Candel. WON there was conspiracy between Lahoy and Plateros 4. revise. had been together since four o'clock in the afternoon. Without any warning. and those involving other offenses which. thereby annoying Metucua. Plateros and Lahoy. That is the characteristics manifestation of treachery (alevosia).At about midnight. cessat et ipsa lex. They are entitled to credit for their preventive imposed is death or life imprisonment. sentencing each of them of reclusion perpetua. as the law or rules of court may provide. reverse. Metucua sat on the driver's seat. the cashier in the kitchenette. -x x x " x x xx x x x x x "The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review. the trial court's judgment is affirmed with costs against the appellants. Cariño. the former case need not be elevated to this Court (People vs.Lahoy appealed to the Court of Appeals and the CA acquitted him." . as that giving rice to the more serious offense. Lahoy appeared to be angry. in the instant murder case the victim was Pedro Candel. 1206). although not so punished. did not do so. He fell on the ground face down. as the case involving an offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua pending in this Court. Plateros went near them and refused to leave them. x x x. Plateros and Lahoy fled from the scene of the assault. 14(16). The attempted murder case decided by the Court of Appeals involved the wounding of a certain Tomas Metucua whereas. the trial court convicted Lahoy of attempted murder (Plateros. between the decision of the Court of Appeals and this Court's decision in the instant murder case inasmuch as the victims in the two cases are different. was acquitted) of Metucua. the killing was properly categorized as murder by the trial court (Art. Their guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. In that same decision. his alleged sweetheart. the Solicitor General elevated the attempted murder case be he believed that the decision of CA is void because Lahoy’s appeal ought to have been certified to the Supreme Court by the CA because the attempted murder imputed to Lahoy was committed on the same occasion and arose out of the same occurrence as the murder imputed to him and Plateros in this case. WON the guilt of Lahoy and Plateros was proven beyond reasonable doubt 3. Their intention was to make a surprise attack without any risk to themselves. ISSUES On Attempted Murder Case 1. Piquero. the law itself also ceases. There was a conspiracy between Plateros and Lahoy as shown in their concerted efforts to injure Candel. They waited for Metucua and the pedicab drivers to leave the kitchenette. by allowing the Court of Appeals to decide a can involving an offense. arose out of the same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the same occasion.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . that general rule has an exception.Candel was brought to the hospital but he died on that same morning. 2. Then. formerly section 17(4) of the Judiciary Law. the attempted murder case like the instant murder case. Lahoy and Plateros came out of the kitchenette.Two informations were filed in the Court of First Instance of Bohol accusing Plateros and Lahoy of (1) Murder of Candel and (2) Attempted Murder of Metucua. 17. It is this Court that would determine whether or not the cases appealed to the Court of Appeals should be decided together with the case appealed to this Court. Moved by the instinct of selfpreservation. there will be no conflict between the decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals. Ratio: The rule in section 17(1) is designed to avoid conflicts between the decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals in cases involving offenses which arose from the same occurrence or which were committed on the same occasion usually by the same accused. The rationale of that exception to the general rule is found in the maxim: Cessanie ratione legis. as contemplated in section 17(1). Candel and Añora. They had gone to different places and repaired twice to the kitchenette. Candel jumped out of the sidecar. comes within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the SCt and should have been decided together with the instant murder case.The doctrine of the Cariño case may be applied in this case because here there can be no conflict . They were together when they left the scene of the stabbing. Dispositive WHEREFORE. involving offenses which arose out of the same occurrence. Candel was seated in the sidecar of the tricycle. . in "(1) All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty a2010 page 50 Prof.Metucua and Plateros were rivals for the affection of Estrella Silamro. . Together with it.

Respondent maintains that the filing of the complaint with the OPP comes under the phrase "such institution" and that the phrase "in all cases" applies to all cases. Although the RTC retains subject-matter jurisdiction to try and decide the refiled case under PD 818. from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. 2. by filing the complaint directly with the said courts. . . the complaint may be filed only with the office of the fiscal.000 or both. a2010 page 51 Prof. In all cases such institution interrupts the period of prescription of the offense charged. 1990 and the information was filed with the MTC of Rodriguez. should the information be refiled with the RTC. 1990. the lower penalty provided in Art 315 (otherwise within the jurisdiction of the City Court) should be imposed. However. and the MCTC in the following cases: B. the petitioner argues that the charge against her is governed by the following provisions of the Rule on Summary Procedure (RSP): Section 1. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months. This rule shall govern the procedure in the MetTC. Series of 1988. without distinction. Even if the court where the complaint or information is filed may only PEOPLE v LAGON 185 SCRA 442 FELICIANO. ISSUE WON the City Court had jurisdiction over the case HELD NO . the court may not impose a more onerous penalty upon Lagon.. as the trial commenced. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. allegedly committed on May 11. the RTC of Rizal affirmed the denial of the motion. jurisdiction is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender in after trial but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes. should.It is settled doctrine that jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is determined by the law in effect at the time of the commencement of the criminal action and not the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense charged. in which penalties provided do not exceed prision correccional or fines no exceeding P6. 1990.: May 18. Scope. However on Dec. and does. 211 SCRA 277 CRUZ. -At the time of the commission of the crime. but the motion was denied. ISSUE WON the offense has prescribed HELD YES . Violations penalized by special acts shall. 1990 FACTS -On July 7 1976 a criminal action was filed with the City Court of Roxas charging Lagon with estafa for allegedly issuing a P4. Dispositive WHEREFORE. the imposable penalty under Art 315 of the RPC was arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional it is minimum period. providing as follows: Section 1. . How Instituted For offenses not subject to the rule on summary procedure in special cases. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the Court in which the information is filed. or a complaint with the fiscal's office.232 check as payment for goods knowing she had insufficient funds. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law. the MTC.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales imprisonment under the conditions laid down in article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. PD 818 had increased the imposable penalty to prision mayor in its medium period. Petitioner’s claims In this petition. prescribe in accordance with the following rules: . -Under Sec 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. on October 2. it is retained regardless of whether the evidence proves a lesser offense which carries a penalty that would otherwise fall within the jurisdiction of an inferior court. interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility. The referral-complaint of the police was received by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Rizal on May 30. 2. On appeal. in Metropolitan Manila and other chartered cities.The petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed. "An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run. The SolGen invokes Section 1. the City Court dismissed the information on the ground that the penalty prescribed by law for estafa was beyond the court’s authority to impose. -In the instant case. Prosecution’s position The prosecution contends that the prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing of the complaint against her with the OPP. JR. given the date of the commission of the crime (before effectivity of PD 818). Jr.The filing of the complaint in the MTC. Criminal Cases: 3. the Court resolved to DENY the petition ZALDIVIA V REYES." reading as follows: Section 1. unless otherwise provided in such acts. 1992 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS The petitioner Lus Zaldivia is charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor's permit in violation of Ordinance No. 3326. of the Municipality of Rodriguez. July 3. the institution of criminal action shall be as follows: …b) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the MTC and MCTC. . Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (RCP). presided by Judge Andres Reyes. -The real question raised by petitioner is whether the said doctrine disregards the rule against retroactivity of penal laws. including those falling under the RSP. Section 2. and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. But when the information was filed. .Petitioner concludes that as the information was filed way beyond the two-month statutory period from the date of the alleged commission of the offense. and if the same be not known at the time.Petitioner also invokes Act No. Violations of municipal or city ordinances. the charge against her should have been dismissed on the ground prescription. even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation. Hence this petition for review. . It has been repeatedly held that in criminal prosecutions. even if the court where the complaint or information is filed can not try the case on its merits. in the Province of Rizal. “municipal judges in the capitals of provinces and sub-provinces and judges of city courts shall have like jurisdiction as the CFI to try parties charged with an offense within their respective jurisdictions. falling well within the jurisdiction of the City Court. .

Under Section 9 of the RSP. 1983. Pagdayuman]. vesting in such courts: (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months. Preliminary investigation conducted. 1990. after the crime had already prescribed. is not allowed to "diminish. having been incorporated therein with the revision of the RCP on January 1. WON the prayer for writs of certiorari and prohibition is proper HELD 1. and thus outside the jurisdiction of said court Other procedural issues 2. . Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. On the other hand. except for the last paragraph. Respondent judge denied motion to quash. The phrase "in all cases" appearing in the last paragraph obviously refers to the cases covered by the Section.These offenses are not covered by the RSP. . This means that the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actual filed in court and not on any date before that. which is for violation of a municipal ordinance of Rodriguez. Ratio. the case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court. and ended two months thereafter. But since City Fiscal continually failed to act on their motion to dismiss. including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon. Angeles City Fiscal reinvestigated to give them opportunity to present exculpatory evidence. parties charged moved for the dismissal of the case mainly on the ground that the City Court of Angeles had no jurisdiction over the offense because the private document that contained the alleged false statement of fact was signed by them outside the territorial limits of said city (One in Makati. regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties. 1 of the RCP begins with the phrase. And if there be a conflict between Act No. 1985. and should not be allowed since by filing the said motion. No. Allegedly. prescription shall be suspended "when proceedings are instituted against the guilty party. WON the motion to quash was improper.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales proceed to investigate the case. ISSUE 1. -Petitioners asked for a reinvestigation. After reinvestigation.This interpretation is in consonance with the aforequoted Act No. NO. 1988.Sec. "the complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation. the other one in QC)." the obvious reference is to Section 32 (2) of B. however. that is. in the exercise of its rule-making power. That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not exceed twenty thousand pesos. petitioners filed a motion to quash instead. It is important to note that this decision was promulgated on May 30. charging petitioners with crime of falsification of private document. but this was done only on October 2. So petitioners filed present action. nature. 3326 and the RCP. de Castro was the judicial guardian of the said minors). . or amount thereof. 1966 NATURE Petition for review on Certiorari and Prohibition FACTS -Petitioners (Roy Villasor. set arraignment. value.The charge against the petitioner. Aurora and Angelina made it appear that they were the guardians of minors George and Alexander Meijia (sons of the spouses?) when they weren’t the guardians at the date of the execution of the document. on the ground that court had no jurisdiction. the former should prevail as the special law. The judicial proceeding that could have interrupted the period was the filing of the information with the MTC of Rodriguez. Section 1 of Rule 110 is new. Section 5 (5) of the Constitution Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right. increase or modify substantive rights" under Article VIII. the latter must again yield because this Court. 3326. or a fine of not more than four thousand pesos. At any rate. 1983. -However. 1990. WON City Court of Angeles City had jurisdiction to try and decide the criminal case for alleged falsification of a private document allegedly done by the parties named in the info even if the acts of falsification was allegedly done in Makati and QC.Where paragraph (b) of the section does speak of "offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the MTC and MCTC." Both parties agree that this provision does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to. RPC." contrary to the submission of the SolGen that they include administrative proceedings. irrespective of kind. Angelina Meijia Lopez and Aurora Mejia Villasor) and other heirs of spouses Manuel Meijia and Gloria Lazatin entered into a contract with respondent Trinidad Lazatin for the development and subdivision of 3 parcels of land belonging to the intestate estate. "for offenses not subject to the rule on summary procedure in special cases.P. Fiscal filed with Court in Angeles City information . the resolution of their motion to dismiss was delayed and the City Court already set their criminal case for arraignment. on July 11. its actuations already represent the initial step of the proceedings against the offender. It was not interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the OPP on May 30. . 129.The prescriptive period for the crime imputed to the petitioner commenced from its alleged commission on May 11. Provided. which was added on October 1. The place where the criminal offense was committed not only determines the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction [US vs. Respondents (with conformity of City Fiscal) filed an opposition to the motion to quash." which plainly signifies that the section does not apply to offenses which are subject to summary procedure. as this was not a judicial proceeding. the petitioners necessarily assumes the truth of the allegation of the information to the effect that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Angeles City 3. those offenses not governed by the RSP. in accordance with Section 1 of Act No. October 29. 3326 which says that the period of a2010 page 52 Prof. is governed by the RSP and not the RCP. . 1990. a certain Carolina M. two months before the promulgation of the RSP on August 1. Case is DISMISSED on the ground of prescription. LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE 18 SCRA 616 DIZON." The proceedings referred to in Section 2 thereof are "judicial proceedings. . the Court feels that if there be a conflict between the RSP and the RCP. par4. However. -Petitioners and co-heirs filed an action in CFI QC for rescission of said contract with Lazatin for alleged gross and willful violation of its terms. Lazatin transferred his rights to Terra Dev’t Co (TDC). -Respondents (Lazatin and TDC) filed with Fiscal’s Office of City of Angeles a complaint against petitioners for violation of A172 in relation to A171. whether or not the prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. or both such fine and imprisonment. Petitioners secured several postponements of the arraignment. 1990.

whether such falsified document is or is not put to use illegally.2(d) RPC. The argument of the respondents refer to the now obsolete demurrer to an information. as it is not limited to defects apparent upon the face of the complaint or information but extends to issues arising out of extraneous facts. The lack of jurisdiction of the City Court of Angeles is patent and it would be highly unfair to compel the petitioners to a2010 page 53 Prof. judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the offense charged in the information filed in Criminal Case No. ** This is actually a decision for two petitions: the other case involved Cecilia’s husband.The judge quashed the information for the reason of improper venue. 568. The improper and illegal use of the document is not material or essential element of the crime of falsification of a private document [US vs. Section 2 of said Rule provides for former jeopardy or acquittal. 1977 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of Orders of CFI Bulacan FACTS . 315 par. so it is essential to determine when and where the offense of falsification of a private document is deemed consummated or committed. Costs against the private respondents. The crime of falsification of a private document is consummated when such document is actually falsified with the intent to prejudice a 3rd person. YABUT filed a MOTION TO QUASH contending that: (1) the acts charged do not constitute the offense as there is no allegation that the postdated checks were issued and delivered to the complainant prior to or simultaneously with the delivery of the merchandise. Deceit has taken place in Malolos (thru issuance and delivery of worthless checks).” . The motion to quash now provided for in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court is manifestly broader in scope than the demurrer. YES Ratio. Its basic elements of deceit and damage may independently arise in separate places. which necessarily involve questions of fact in the determination of which a preliminary trial is required. as extraordinary legal remedies. the court already took cognizance of said writs. payable to Freeway Tires Supply. 315 par 2(d) of the RPC may be a transitory or continuing offense. Yabut’s office. Rule 110 of the ROC: “In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the Court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. . What is decisive is the delivery of the instrument which is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation. . overlooking the flaw in the procedure followed in the interest of a more enlightened and substantial justice. WON CFI Bulacan had jurisdiction over the case 2.. NO Ratio. to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority and to provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice. not using a falsified document. among the grounds for a motion to quash. GEMINIANO .The estafa charged in the 2 informations involved here appear to be transitory or continuing in nature. The checks were dishonored because of insufficient funds.Place of business of Freeway Tires is at Malolos.Cecilia YABUT was accused of ESTAFA by means of false pretenses before the CFI Bulacan. penalizes the postdating and that Malolos court can exercise jurisdiction since the last ingredient of the case. In this as well as in other jurisdictions. resolution of this controversial issue on the undergo trial in said court and suffer all the embarrassment and mental anguish that go with it. . Barreto] 2. RA 4885.The People opposed and maintained that new law on checks. said court is hereby restrained and prohibited from further proceedings therein.The venue of the offense lies at the place where the check was executed and delivered to the payee. US vs. YES Ratio Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check under Art. as shown by the circumstance that. April 29. 2. She.People’s MFR for this dismissal was denied. Payment should then be considered effected there. extinction of criminal action or liability. Petitioners are charged with having falsified a private document. C-2268 of the City Court of Angeles City is not within the jurisdiction of said court and that. Reasoning.Due to the absence of concrete evidence on the specific nature of the obligation assumed or supposedly discharged by the issuance of the bad checks. raise on appeal the same legal questions covered by his motion to quash. intended to annul void proceedings. Dispositive WHEREFORE. Reasoning Section 14(a). where the checks were dishonored by the drawee banks there. . who was also charged with estafa. WON facts charged in the informations constitute estafa HELD 1. (3) venue was improperly laid because checks were issued and received by complainant in Caloocan. -The writs of certiorari and prohibition. amending Art. the institution of the criminal action in either place is legally allowed. nor issue a writ of prohibition to prevent said court from proceeding with the case after such denial. . The exact same thing happened in his case (motion to quash -> improper venue reason -> quashed -> MFR denied). signed or dated does not necessarily fix the place where they were executed. in his capacity as the President of Yabut Transit Lines. Infante.The place where the bills were written. In several cases. YES . made out 3 checks in the total sum of P6. .94 drawn against the Merchants Banking Corp (located in Caloocan City). PEOPLE v YABUT 76 SCRA 624 MARTIN. therefore. in the ultimate analysis.Instead of entering a plea. this is no longer the hard and fast rule. Bulacan from where the tire and gas purchases were made by the private respondents. Yabut failed to deposit the necessary funds to cover the checks. transpired in Bulacan (residence of the complainant) after the dishonor of the checks for lack of funds. The other issue was not resolved by the judge. insanity of the accused etc. ISSUE 1. damage. however. while the damage in Caloocan. WON new law punishes the postdating or issuance thereof in payment of a pre-existing obligation 3. if convicted. are. .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Reasoning.The receipt of the bad checks by a certain Yambao in Caloocan cannot be taken as delivery of the checks to Freeway Tires because he did not take delivery of the checks as holder. (2) estafa is not indictable when checks are postdated or issued in payment of pre-existing obligations. Reasoning. 3. as treasurer of the Yabut Transit Lines. it being the rule that upon such denial the defendant should enter his plea of not guilty and go to trial and. . In the event of such occurrence. The general rule is that a court of equity will not issue a writ of certiorari to annul an order of a lower court denying a motion to quash.

Mahinan. the criminal action is transitory and the injured party has a choice of venue. inveterate gambler. irrespective of where it was written or printed. chronic falsifier". or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such actions may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article. despoiler of public office. -On July 23. As GSIS branch manager. shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: "Provided. Nueva Vizcaya a complaint for written defamation against Agbayani. and an "unreformed ex-convict".The motion to quash on the ground of improper venue must yield to the express allegations of the informations. 1976 in Bambang. Under that rule. -Experience had shown that under that old rule the offended party could harass the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or distant place. and Agbayani's "unusual incident report" subscribed and sworn to before a Manila notary and enclosing documentary evidence to support his charges of malversation and falsification against Mahinan and praying for the latter's separation from the service. YES Reasoning In considering a motion to quash based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. . would meet the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law. 1977 on the ground that Mahinan was not a public officer within the meaning of article 203 of the Revised Penal Code since the insurance business of the GSIS is not an inherently governmental function. the provincial fiscal of Nueva Vizcaya filed in the Court of First Instance of that province an information for libel charging Agbayani. was the manager of the Cagayan Valley Branch of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) stationed at Cauayan. Dugay. 1289 and 4363) . Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person. Bautista. the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published… "Preliminary investigation of criminal actions for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city. Dispositive Appealed orders ordering the quashal of the estafa informations against the two private respondents are reversed and set aside. and in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila. They argued that the provincial fiscal of Nueva Vizcaya had no authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and to file the information. -Quoted in the information were the affidavits of Pascual and Bautista signed at Cauayan. and Renato Romeo P. It also imports on the part of the accused a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information." (As amended by Republic Act Nos. Isabela when the alleged libel was committed and. Bautista. and thereafter. however. Carmelo N. the trial on the merits to proceed immediately.Persons responsible. all those documents allegedly depicted Mahinan "as an incorrigible managerial misfit. . ".Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales basis of the averments in the informations alone is not ripe. . spendthrift of GSIS funds. the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city SEPARATE OPINION TEEHANKEE [concurring] . -Article 360. -On March 8. Isabela. 4363 was enacted so as to prevent the offended party in written defamation cases from inconveniencing the accused by means of out-oftown libel suits. 1976. That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense. Bautista. Isabela. . the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published. bearing in mind that what determines jurisdiction are the allegations in the information and that venue is sufficiently conferred wherein any one of the essential ingredients of the offense charged took place. Among his subordinates were Wilson Agbayani. they filed in this Court the instant petition. he is unquestionably a public officer. 1976. Pascual and Dugay. 3. the rule was that a criminal action for libel may be instituted in any jurisdiction where the libelous article was published or circulated. a2010 page 54 Prof. "The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter.Before article 360 was amended. Pascual. Nueva Vizcaya. Mahinan filed with the fiscal's office at Bayombong. under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. Bautista's undated letter asking for Mahinan's dismissal. -According to the information. AGBAYANI v SAYO 89 SCRA 699 AQUINO. . -The four accused filed a motion to quash contending that the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya has no jurisdiction over the offense charged because Mahinan was a public officer holding office at Cauayan. -Republic Act No. the offense charged comes within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Isabela. if hypothetically admitted. ISSUE WON the CFI of Nueva Ecija was the proper venue of the criminal action for written defamation filed by Mahinan HELD NO -There is no issue as to whether Mahinan is a public officer. Facts alleged should be taken as they are. -It was denied by the trial court in its order of April 25. Pascual and Dugay with having maliciously made defamatory imputations against Mahinan on or about February 17. Pablo R. -After petitioners' motion for the reconsideration of that order was denied. April 30. . the point of resolution is whether the facts alleged. which lays down the rules on venue in cases of written defamation and which specifies the officer or court that should conduct the preliminary investigation. reads as follows: ART. a lawyer. Arraignment of the private respondents in the criminal cases should be set at the earliest date. 1979 NATURE Instant petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS -Conrado B. meaning complaints filed in remote municipal courts -The rules on venue in article 360 may be restated thus: 1. 360. .

versus HON. -TC and CA dismissed motion hence this petition before the SC ISSUE PEOPLE v GROSPE 157 SCRA 154. and the PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE. Branch 24. March 25. MELENCIO-HERRERA . since as a GSIS branch manager. Place where action is to be instituted. or by the municipal judge of Ilagan. 1988 FACTS .307. petitioner proposed to the General Manager of the PCSO. a case of concurrent jurisdiction by the proper court of the place wherein "anyone of the essential ingredients thereof took place. the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense. 2. Judge of the CFI Manila. His services were terminated without prejudice to whatever court action the PCSO will take for the recovery of the amount involved. As such.45. Petitioner. or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such action may be instituted. .918. 509. he received sweepstakes tickets on consignment. It is directed to dismiss Criminal Case No. No. The preliminary investigation of the complaint should have been conducted by the provincial fiscal of Isabela. the libel case against the petitioners." He contended that "on the basis of the prosecution's evidence. Remand to the trial court for further proceedings in the ordinary course of law CATINGUB v CA (PCSO) 121 SCRA 106.(Parulan’s bank is Planters Development Bank in Bulacan) . he was a public official stationed at Cauayan. — (a) In all criminal prosecutions. where it was filed. He issued two checks in favor of SMC (P86.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales where the libelous article is printed and first published. If the offended party is a private individual. without prejudice to the filing of another criminal action for written defamation in the Court of First Instance of Isabela a2010 page 55 Prof. Isabela and the alleged libel was committed when he was (as he still) in the public service. PUNO. 1983.Manuel Parulan is a wholesale dealer of San Miguel Corp (SMC). to settle his shortages by making monthly payments in the amount of at least P200. Dispositive Decision of CA Affirmed. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense. 14. 4. then forwarded to the SMC Regional Office in San Fernando. was charged with the crime of malversation (take note: crimes of estafa and malversation are similar in nature: difference is that the funds in malversation are public in character) in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Cagayan de Oro Branch that he has been found short of P12. . This is therefore. 38698-R entitled "PEDRITO L. Petitioner was ordered to explain the shortage in writing and to produce the missing amount. GUERRERO.Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court. In a letter. 14(a) provides: "Sec. WON CFI of Manila has jurisdiction to continue with the trial of the offense as charged in view of the evidence presented by the prodecution HELD YES. -Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction Dispositive Petition granted. . Cagayan de Oro branch. has jurisdiction to entertain the criminal action for written defamation initiated by Mahinan against the petitioners and that the provincial fiscal of that province had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation. -The criminal action could have been filed also in the Court of First Instance of the province or in the city court of the city where the libel was printed and first published. the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Later. -The information in this case is defective or deficient because it does not show that the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya. in Cagayan de Oro." But the choice of venue lies with the prosecuting officer and not with the accused. the provincial capital.Catingub was designated Temporary Sales Supervisor of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) assigned at the Cagayan de Oro Branch. .80) that were dishonored for insufficiency of funds.00." FACTS . which proposal was. January 20. Pampanga. or by the Court of First Instance of the same province. He failed to do so.20 and P11. the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila.The checks were received at the SMC Bulacan branch. the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense. the proper venue of Mahinan's criminal action for written defamation against the petitioners is the Court of First Instance of Isabela. -Catingub. he was informed by the Auditing Examiner of the PCSO. 3. however. Pampanga branch. Manila.SMC Finance Officer deposited the check in BPI San Fernando. denied by the General Manager (there was already an admission in this letter). The trial court's order denying petitioners' motion to quash is set aside. Respondents. Sec. He could also be charged in the City of Manila since the final accounting must be rendered in the Central Office. -As a corollary. RICARDO C. with the express obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sales of these tickets to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.” -Petitioner could have been charged and tried in Cagayan de Oro City for it is not disputed that he received the sweepstakes tickets from the PCSO. CATINGUB. together with all its essential ingredients occurred and the consummation thereof (was) completed. the offense charged. Manila. He filed motion to dismiss after arraignment on the sole ground that "the prosecution made a wrong choice of jurisdiction.071.R. The essential ingredient of receiving the sweepstakes tickets took place in Cagayan de Oro City. -Applying the foregoing rules. NATURE This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. the preliminary investigation of the criminal action for written defamation shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city.

therefore. and. which is an essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a continuing eventuality.By the terms of the petitioner's probation. 1999 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to review the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila FACTS . he was submitting a supplemental report which recommended the revocation of probation "in the light of new facts. he contended. The case. subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein. the respondent probation officer filed on January 6. The petitioner was then placed under probation for a period of one (1) year. Bulacan which received them from the BPI. 1984. San Fernando. . But. affirmed in toto the lower court's decision. the proceedings before the RTC can’t be said to have been lawfully terminated. as previously adverted to. thereof. As such. information.Thereafter. through Assistant City Fiscal Jose D. but the Court of Appeals. however. YES . After the case had been remanded to the court of origin for execution of judgment. at Santa Maria. 2800 and 2813 of his Court and to render judgment of either conviction or acquittal in accordance with the evidence already adduced during the joint trial of said two cases. The Information filed herein specifically alleges that the crime was committed in San Fernando. deceit and damage.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . one year after the order granting the same was issued. . therefore. the offense also appears to be continuing in nature. Therefore. Judge is ordered to reassume jurisdiction over Criminal Cases Nos. in effect falsifying a genuine Art. on April 9. the drawee bank.The petitioner had been indicted for removing and substituting the picture of Diazen which had been attached to her United States of America passport. the petitioner filed his opposition to the motion on the ground that he was no longer under probation. WON any of the essential elements of the offenses charged occurred or took place within the jurisdiction of RTC Pampanga. public or official document. The petitioner seasonably appealed. at the same time attaching his progress report on supervision dated January 5. The trial court adjudged petitioner Bala in Criminal Case No.After hearing the facts and evidence. The determinative factor (in determining venue) is the place of the issuance of the check. 24443. instead. Dispositive Petition granted. it is likewise true that knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds. ESTAFA under par 2d . 315. which means the payee or indorsee of a bill or note. the order of final discharge could not be issued because the respondent probation officer had not yet submitted his final report on the conduct of his charge. The motion alleged that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. the respondent People of the Philippines. filed a motion to revoke the probation of the petitioner before Branch XX of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. it being understood that the first Court taking cognizance of the Case will exclude the others. Judge Grospe of the Pampanga RTC dismissed the case because he said that the two essential elements. . The same motion. The rule is that the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who takes it as a holder.The probationer (petitioner) asked his supervising probation officer for permission to transfer his residence from BF Homes to Phil-Am Life Subdivision in Las Piñas specifically 33 Jingco Street.Jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the Information. with that of Notarte. the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike out the motion to revoke probation. or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank. his probation period having terminated on August 10. 1980. jurisdiction may be entertained by either the Bulacan or the Pampanga court.In respect of the Bouncing Checks Case.Elements: (1) Deceit took place in Pampanga. who in this case is the Financial Officer of SMC (2) Damage took place in Bulacan. a motion to terminate Manuel Bala's probation. it should have expired on August 10. where it was uttered and delivered. It is true that the offense is committed by the very fact of its performance. 1983. or the bearer. As if to confirm the Manila Assistant City Fiscal's motion to revoke the petitioner's probation. The dismissal being null and void. whether the accused be within one territory or another. of the offenses charged occurred and took place in Bulacan. WON this petition for Certiorari places accused in double jeopardy. The probation officer verbally granted the probationer's request as he found nothing objectionable to it. which stated that the probation officer was not pursuing the motion to terminate dated January 6. jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense also lies in the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga. and that the Bouncing Checks Law penalizes not only the fact of dishonor of a check but also the act of making or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check. . 1984.SMC filed for violation of BP22 (1st check) and for estafa under par. could have been filed also in Bulacan. became the subject of a "Manifestation. where the check was dishonored by the drawee bank. . no valid reason existed to revoke the same. guilty of the crime of falsification of a public document. DECEIT took place when Parulan gave the checks to SMC in Bulacan. NO The case was dismissed not on merits but on the erroneous conclusion of the judge that his court had no jurisdiction over the case. presided over by the respondent judge. However. the Court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case. who is in possession of it. there is no second proceeding to place the accused in double jeopardy. Cajucom of Manila. 1984.Therefore. HELD 1. 1983. DAMAGE occurred at the moment the checks issued by the accused were dishonored by the Planters Development Bank. BALA v MARTINEZ 181 SCRA 459 MARTINEZ. 1984. . or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check ." dated January 10. Pampanga branch for clearing purpose. ISSUES 1.On January 4. 2(d) states: 'By postdating a check. 1982. the petitioner applied for and was granted probation by the respondent judge in his order dated August 11. which are controlling. 1984. 2. par. January 20. Accordingly. within the jurisdiction of the Court below. In transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another. with the false assurance that it had sufficient funds. and evidences.A person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or province where the offense was in part committed. 2. . Subsequently. 2d2 (2nd check) with the RTC in Pampanga. Pampanga." . BP 22 violation 2 a2010 page 56 Prof.

granting bail to the accused in the criminal cases mentioned above. Indeed. otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. 1700-1706. also in Las Piñas. 18 Needless to say. the various branches of the regional trial courts of Makati or Manila under the National Capital Region. 1980: the PC provincial commander filed 7 separate complaints for murder against the accused Pablo Sola. temporary release. Ricardo Garcia. in this case. 1981: The Court Resolved to: (a) [Note] the comment of the Solicitor General on the urgent petition for change of venue and cancellation of bail bonds. . Negros Occidental. (1) the setting aside. 1981: petition for cancellation of bail bonds and change of venue was filed. (b) [Transfer] the venue of the aforesaid criminal cases to Branch V of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental at Bacolod City. Such being the case. It is to be remembered that when the petitioner-accused applied for probation in the then CFI of Manila. and in such a case a copy of the probation order the investigation report and other pertinent records shall be furnished to said Executive Judge. the Executive Judge to whom jurisdiction over the probationer is transferred shall have the power with respect to him that was previously possessed by the court which granted the probation. Diggings made in a canefield yielded two common graves containing the 7 bodies. Control and Supervision of Probationer. 13. be instituted only by the Solicitor General. by certiorari. . Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a place under the jurisdiction of another court.February 12. Branch VI at Himamaylan has an compels change of venue. venue is an element of jurisdiction.March 4.Without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales questioning the jurisdiction of the court over his case inasmuch as his probation period had already expired. most of the accused remained at large. this petition.In criminal cases. he merely moved from BF Homes to Philam Life Subdivision 33 Jingco Street.After due preliminary examination of the complainant's witnesses and his other evidence. It is therefore incorrect to assume that the petitioner's change of abode a2010 page 57 Prof. Court of First Instance of that place. and (2) the petition for a change of venue or place of trial of the same criminal cases to avoid a miscarriage of Justice. . the CFI issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the deceased bodies of 7 persons believed in the hacienda of Pablo Sola at Sta. the court granted them the right to post bail for their . . . their safety could be jeopardized. of the order of the Municipal Court of Kabankalan. control over him shall be transferred to the Executive Judge of the." Nonetheless. Las Piñas is one among the municipalities included in the National Capital Judicial Region (Metro Manila) with a seat at Makati. which granted the probation.February 11. which provides Sec. and necessarily. 129. in the apportionment of the regional trial courts under Batas Pambansa Blg. the petition for a change of venue or place of trial of the same criminal cases to avoid a miscarriage of justice. to the Executive Judge of the RTC of his new residence. . Kabankalan.. On the other hand. . presided over by Judge Gasataya. forms part of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region.September 16. 19 Accordingly. Dispositive Petition dismissed PEOPLE v SOLA 103 SCRA 393 FERNANDO. Garcia and Cabral posted bail and have since been released. HELD NO . Isabel. 1981 FACTS . 1980: elements of the 332nd PC/INP Company proceeded to the place of Sola. presided over by Judge Rafael Gasataya. In addition. Judge. In other words. and 2. not in the judges. the Manila RTC would not be deprived of its jurisdiction over the probation case. . The assertion of the petitioner private prosecutors that they are instituting the action 'subject to the control and supervision of the Fiscal' will not.September 15. therefore. his change of residence automatically transferred the venue of the case from the RTC of Manila to the Executive. presided by Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio.. P. are coordinate and co-equal courts. Pablo Sola. Thereafter. To uphold the petitioner's contention would mean a depreciation of the Manila court's power to grant probation in the first place. Rightly. under the law. considering that District Judge Ostervaldo Emilia of the Court of First Instance. of the order of the Municipal Court of Kabankalan. RTC Branch XX of Manila. has not lost control and supervision over the probation of the petitioner. Moreover. there have been reports made to police authorities of threats made on the families of the witnesses. because then the Manila CFI was without jurisdiction to grant him probation as he was a resident of Las Piñas. the Regional Trial Court in Makati. Hence. 968. he was a resident of Las Piñas as he is up to now.. Jurisdiction is vested in the court.September 23 and October 1. . 1981: the Court required the comment of the Solicitor General as well as of the private respondents. the totality of which is only one Regional Trial Court. of the RTC of Makati which latter court include under its jurisdiction the Municipality of Las Piñas the probationer's place of residence. any petition before this Honorable Court on behalf of the People of the Philippines can. As pointed out earlier. Sola. Jose Bethoven Cabral. the setting aside. Francisco Garcia. granting bail to the accused in the 7 Criminal Cases. pursuing the petitioner's argument on this score to the limits of it logic would mean that his probation was null and void in the place. the case does not attach to the branch or judge. et al. At least two of the accused are officials with power and influence in Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. March 17. adopting the plea of the petition.D. It thus issued an order for their arrest. It opened with this preliminary statement: "The present petition was filed by the private prosecutors in Criminal Cases Nos. 1981. Negros Occidental. although in a different subdivision. like the Manila Regional Trial Court. People v. invoking Section 13. improve their legal standing. namely. -The witnesses informed the prosecution of their fears that if the trial is held at the CFI Himamaylan which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan. ISSUE WON his transfer of residence automatically transferred jurisdiction over his probation from the Manila Regional Trial Court to the same court in his new address.The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. . No. control over the petitioner. Florendo Baliscao and 14 other persons of unknown names. by certiorari. Negros Occidental. 1980: acting on the evidence presented by the Philippine Constabulary commander at Hinigaran.March 15. the Comment was submitted by Solicitor General Mendoza. pending trial before the CFI of Negros Occidental. Thus. Therefore. it adopted the two-pronged trusts of the petition: 1. the municipal court found probable cause against the accused.

00 for actual exemplary and moral damages. We are to keep the balance true. The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in mind. though due to the accused. Dispositive The assailed order of Judge Gasataya granting bail to private respondents is nullified. and to betray the very purpose for which courts have been established. . As a matter of fact. In this particular case. Romero Valdellon started the trial of the case on October 15. to whose sala the cases had been transferred is directed forthwith to hear the petitions for bail of private respondents. -The date when the crime was said to have been committed was changed from September 30. That fact did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character. 1981 due to a mild attack of cerebral thrombosis and that the said Branch V is the nearest court station to Himamaylan: and (c) [Await] the comment of respondents on the petition to cancel bail. Bulacan. the issue of a change of venue has become moot and academic. the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present. and thence to Talavera. as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil action.Again Judge Granados conducted a preliminary investigation and on November 18. he issued an order for the arrest of Bulanadi. the cancellation of the bail bonds was also sought. all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. . Alvaran remained at large. Judge Alfonso Baguio of the CFI of Negros Occidental. . neither Bulanadi or Gorospe appeared for which reason. starting in Plaridel. 1975. be less than terrifying. 1974. sentenced each of the accused to suffer 2 perpetual penalties of reclusion perpetua to be served in accordance with Art. de Vega who decided the case –CFI: found Gorospe and Bulanadi guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape committed against Anastacia de Jesus as charged in the information. 1974 with the Municipal Court of Pulilan. and to pay the costs." Thus. ISSUE WON the bail bonds should be cancelled HELD YES Ratio Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial. the complainant.000. it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue. Granados is his first cousin by affinity (to make sure that the decision to be rendered in this case shall be above suspicion) -So it was Judge Jesus R.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales approved leave of absence covering the period from January 12 to March 12. Granados of the Municipal Court of Pulilan received the complaint and conducted a preliminary investigation. within a reasonable time.Municipal Judge Alfredo V. but on that day. 1984 FACTS ." a2010 page 58 Prof. Rufino Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. there need not be a petition of this character filed before this Court. 1974. and declared to be without force and effect. (People v San Diego) Reasoning . 70 of the RPC. there is justification for the procedure followed in view of the fact that along with the change of venue. however. as we have seen. -Bulanadi and Gorospe posted the requisite bail. -But Judge Purisima inhibited himself from deciding the case because J.1973 Constitution: The Supreme Court could order "a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. is due to the accuser also. On change of venue . No costs. 1974 to September 25. set aside. This decision is immediately executory. Kliatchko filed with the CFI of Bulacan an Information for forcible Abduction with Rape against Gorospe and Bulanadi. Privileges so fundamental as to be inherent in every concept of a fair trial that could be acceptable to the thought of reasonable men will be kept inviolate and inviolable. Judge Granados declared that they had waived their right thereto and elevated the case to the CFI of Bulacan. May 15. Anastacia de Jesus (14 yrs old) accused Gerardo Fajardo. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. -The accused and their counsel de parte had long been notified that the case was to be tried on that day but they did not appear so the former were tried in absentia.March 19.People v. If. the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity.Rufino Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe were again named but Gerardo Fajardo was dropped and Oscar Alvaran was named instead." It may be added that there may be cases where the fear. first stage. She was made to lose her consciousness first by waiving a hankerchief on her face before they abducted her and eventually taking her to said place. Bulacan. ISSUES . 1975. with the prosecution being duly heard on the question of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the respondents is strong.In a verified Complaint filed on October 8. But said information was later on amended. -Judge Nelly L. Nueva Ecija (in a hut where she was detained for 9 days and sexually abused during the night.) . 1974: the Complaint was amended. there would be a violation of procedural due process. to some individuals. Such a plea could have been done administratively.October 25. Gutierrez: To compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make a mockery of the judicial process. In case of doubt. 1975: Provincial Fiscal Pascual C. Judge Valdellon was transferred to Metro Manila and she was replaced by Judge Fidel P. however crushing may be the pressure of incriminating proof. . thru Pulilan. to indemnify de Jesus in the amount of P40. -After hearing part of the testimony of Anastacia de Jesus. but the question must always be the effect it has on the witnesses who will testify.It does not suffice that the questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was granted could be characterized as searching. 1974. and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground.Bail was granted to the accused without hearing the prosecution -Justice Cardozo: "The law. . Purisima who finished the trial. . objectively viewed. But justice. -The second stage of the preliminary investigation was set on February 5. may. Exec. PEOPLE v FELICIANO GOROSPE and RUFINO BULANADI 129 SCRA 233 ABAD SANTOS. Gorospe and Alvaran and fixed their bail at P15. is sedulous in maintaining for a defendant charged with crime whatever forms of procedure are of the essence of an opportunity to defend.The crime was said to have been committed on September 30. without prejudice to the public officials concerned taking the necessary measures to assure the safety of the witnesses of the prosecution.000. with all the accessory penalty of the law." .00 each.

Complaint was filed with Office of City Fiscal TANDOC v RESULTAN 175 SCRA 37 PADILLA. Fiscal opposed. but was released upon filing of bond. Jurisdiction is vested in the court. Petitioner’s counsel filed motion asking fiscal to furnish clerk of court w/ testimony of witnesses who testified at preliminary investigation. Sec. 105 Phil. Grave Threats and Physical Injuries. filed by Fred de la Vega against Beda Acosta. There was an altercation between Tandoc and respondent. with the charges of Trespass to Dwelling.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 1. in effect. together with Manuel Cancino. . Beda Acosta. Bernabe. filed by Pacita Tandoc against Arnulfo Payopay. HASHIM v CITY FISCAL OF MANILA 71 Phil 216 LAUREL. And the CFI of Bulacan [as well as the CFI of Nueva Ecija] had jurisdiction because essential elements of the offense took place in Bulacan [and also in Nueva Ecija]. Reasoning "Where a court of first instance is divided into several branches." [Lumpay. WON Judge Vega had authority to hear the case (***there are other issues but no longer related to the topic “venue” so I didn’t include them anymore ~ eoc) HELD 1. . Rule 110. Its purpose is to secure the innocent against hasty prosecutions and protect him from public accusation.Hence it may be "tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. defendant shall have speedy trial. . picked up the stone and struck Tandoc but her helper. and Trespass to Dwelling.The Municipal Court of Pulilan had jurisdiction because the abductors and their captive passed Pulilan on their way from Plaridel to Talavera. ISSUE WON in prelim investigation by fiscal. jurisdiction does not attach to said branch or judge alone. 1980: Respondents entered the store and dining room of the Pacita Tandoc without her permission. Nueva Ecija but in Pulilan. Nadong Fernandez and Arturo Syloria. Fred Menor. . filed by Bonifacio Menor against Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay. and after investigation of fiscal. Petition for certiorari to annul orders of the City Court of San Carlos FACTS . Trial may be had or proceedings may continue by and before another branch or judge. Sec 13 deals with transmission of records requirements and Sec 11 deals with prelim investigation by justices of peace and judges for purpose of issuance of warrant. Pacita Tandoc. Act No 612: In cases triable only in CFI. vs.In this case. 14[a]). et al. Slight Physical Injuries.Sec 2. against Pedro Tandoc. Bulacan (and if yes. the Office of the City Fiscal recommended the dropping of said charges because they "were found to be in the nature of a counter charge.. that Court itself conduct the investigation under Sec 4 of Rule 108. was hit and suffered physical injuries which according to the medico-legal certificate will heal in more than 30 days. Rogelio Ercella." (Rules of Court. 968 (1959)]. 1989 NATURE . regarding the stoning of the store and house. Rudy Diaz. .2 December 1980: Arnulfo Payopay and his father Conrado Payopay. each of the branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others.Hashim was caught in possession of counterfeit treasury certificates. Serious Oral Defamation. 154 [1912]). after investigation. (U. 2. information was lodged. was hit instead and suffered injuries which injury will heal in less than 9 days. Arnold Payopay. who was behind Arnold Payopay. shall have presented an information against him. . as to the charge of Trespass to Dwelling filed by Conrado Payopay. a2010 page 59 Prof. then WON an error was by the CFI of Bulacan in hearing the said case and not by the CFI of Nueva Ecija) 2. Beda Acosta. Reasoning Abduction is a persistent and continuing offense. This investigation is called preliminary. Grave Threats and Physical Injuries .October 19. Beda Acosta.10 December 1980: the investigating fiscal found reasonable ground to believe that respondents Arnulfo Payopay. to be followed by trial proper. . Thus.With respect to the criminal complaint filed by Arnulfo Payopay and Manuel Cancino against petitioners for Serious Oral Defamation. Case was docketed and Judge issued arrest warrant. Bulacan or Talavera. Manuel Cancino. and also to protect the State from useless prosecutions. to ask for another prelim investigation.Petitioner’s counsel asked that warrant of arrest be cancelled and the court conduct preliminary investigation. Fred de la Vega. Sr. NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.Counsel for petitioner put in motion that should his first motion be acted upon adversely. not upon proof beyond reasonable doubt.Prelim investigation by fiscal is not within purview of Sections 13 and 11 of Rule 108. Dispositive The judgment of the Court a quo is hereby affirmed in all respects. Judge denied motions and the MFRs. NO ." However. to ask for abstract of testimony at that stage for no other purpose than to scrutinize the same is. against Pedro Tandoc. . but shall not be entitled as of right to a prelim investigation where prosecuting attorney. Bonifacio Menor. Sr. 1941 NATURE Certiorari and mandamus FACTS . to the exclusion of the others. not in the judges.Judge de Vega had the power to decide the case. Payopay picked up stones and struck Tandoc but instead her helper. Informations were filed with the City Court. a prima facie case was found by the investigating fiscal. . Investigating judge or prosecuting officer acts upon probable cause and reasonable belief. Nadong Fernandez and Arturo Syloria committed the crimes charged. so that when a complaint or information is filed before one branch or judge. WON there was error in filing the complaint since it was not filed in Plaridel. YES.S.19 October 1980: a criminal complaint was lodged with the Office of the City Fiscal with the charges of Serious Physical Injuries. Moscoso. vs.THE RIGHT TO A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS STATUTORY. . Manuel Cancino. 23 Phil. January 13. Fiscal opposed. Hence the instant certiorari and mandamus petition. Juan Rosario and Fred de la Vega. also filed a complaint with the Office of the City Fiscal. the same having been filed after more than 1 month from the date of the alleged incident. July 5. accused is entitled to be informed of substance of testimony and evidence against him HELD NO . an information was filed with the City Court.

with the consequent extension of deprivation of the accused's liberty.Nature: merely inquisitorial. which were previously the subject of a preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the City Fiscal and thereafter dismissed by the latter. investigation proper conducted by the City Fiscal could have been dispensed with. but also by reason of the place where it was committed. . although said warrants were later suspended upon motion of the petitioners. . in case he fails to post bail. .CASIANO MARFORI was convicted of the crime of injurias graves (aggravated slander). filed by Conrado Payopay. . there must be a former judgment. found reasonable ground to believe that the offenses charged may have been committed by the herein petitioners and that the latter were probably guilty thereof. which must be the same or at least comprised within it. as borne out by the examination and sworn written statement of the complainants and their witnesses. The court a quo denied said motion. filed by Manuel Cancino.The result of a preliminary investigation can neither constitute nor give rise to the defense of double jeopardy in any case. and to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials. . which at times outlasts the period of the penalty provided by law for the offense. wherein the accused. Rogelio Ercella. Reasoning .The prescriptive period of a crime depends upon the penalty imposed by law.Stages: (1) the preliminary examination of the complainant and his witnesses prior to the arrest of the accused to determine whether or not there is ground to issue a warrant of arrest. Sr." . (4) against Pedro Tandoc.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales .. (2) against Rudy Diaz. the so-called first stage of preliminary investigation or the preliminary examination. . . The complaints could be filed directly with the City Court which is empowered to conduct a preliminary examination for purposes of issuance of warrants of arrest.13 August 1981: City Court. directly lodged with the City Court of San Carlos City the following criminal complaints: (1) against Pedro Tandoc. HELD YES Ratio As long as the offense charged has not prescribed. However. In order that the defense of jeopardy may lie.Purpose: to protect the accused from the inconvenience. either of acquittal or of conviction. Neither did the earlier order of dismissal of the complaints by the investigating fiscal bar the filing of said complaints with the city court on the ground of double jeopardy.The issuance of warrants of arrest was ordered against them. upon his arraignment (without having to undergo the second stage of the preliminary investigation). Conrado Payopay. not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. to pay a fine of P65. with Arnulfo Payopay as private complainant. and Manuel Cancino. Rogelio Ercella. Dispositive Petition dismissed. is informed of the complaint filed against him and is given access to the testimonies and evidence presented. Juan Rosario and Fred Menor for Serious Physical Injuries.The offenses charged against petitioners for Trespass to Dwelling. in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of an inferior court. and sentenced to six months and one day of destierro (banishment) for a distance of 25 kilometers from the municipality where the crime was committed.28 July 1981: Arnulfo Payopay. the Office of the City Fiscal has no authority to re-investigate. On the other hand. Grave Threats and Less Serious Physical Injuries. Juan Rosario & Fred Menor for Grave Threats to Kill. On Preliminary Investigation: . to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information.Under Section 10. . rendered by a court competent to render the same. 1916 FACTS . Rule 112 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Sr.Petitioners moved for a re-investigation of the cases by the Office of the City Fiscal. The complaints were filed with the City Court only 9 months from said occurrence. because such preliminary investigation is not and does not in itself constitute a trial or even any part thereof. . Rudy Diaz. not only by reason of the offense committed. The purpose of this stage of investigation is to determine whether or not the accused should be released or held before trial. conducted by the duly authorized officer.The re-investigation sought by petitioners applies only to instances where a case is cognizable by the Court of First Instance but filed with the City Court for purposes of preliminary investigation only and thereafter dismissed by the latter on the ground that no prima facie case exists. December 9. . and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime.A motion for reconsideration was denied. and arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period for Serious Physical Injuries. (2) preliminary investigation proper. the accused was not entitled to be heard in a preliminary investigation proper. and thereafter to proceed with the trial of the cases on the merits. for cases cognizable by inferior courts and filed with the same not only for purposes of preliminary investigation but for trial on the merits. Rudy Diaz. ISSUE WON the city court has the power and authority to conduct a new a preliminary examination of charges. Rudy Diaz. and it does UNITED STATES v MARFORI 35 Phil 666 CARSON. but it was likewise denied. expense and burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless the reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent officer. filed by Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay. Petitioners sought a reconsideration of said order. The penalties for the crimes charged are: arresto mayor for Trespass to Dwelling. generally suffices to establish the existence of reasonable ground to charge the accused with having committed the offense complained of. (3) against Pedro Tandoc. Juan Rosario and Fred dela Vega for Less Serious Physical Injuries. are eliminated with the assurance of a speedy and expeditious trial for the accused. The prescriptive period of offenses punishable by arresto mayor is 5 years. while crimes punishable by correctional penalties prescribe in 10 years. Grave Threats and Physical Injuries were all within the jurisdiction of the City Court. The reason behind this rule is as follows: " The loss of time entailed in the conduct of preliminary investigations. and he is also permitted to introduce evidence in his favor. after conducting a preliminary examination of the 4 aforementioned cases. after his arrest. Juan Rosario and Fred Menor for Trespass to Dwelling. the city court has the power and authority to conduct a preliminary examination and proceed with the trial of the case properly within its jurisdiction. and of a prompt verdict on his guilt or innocence. not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy. as well as in cases within the concurrent jurisdiction of the city courts or municipal courts with Courts of First Instance. The preliminary a2010 page 60 Prof. besides the mental anguish suffered in protracted litigations.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales together with subsidiary destierro as prescribed by law on failure to pay this fine and to pay the costs. the fiscal believes that the evidence is not sufficient to establish prima facie the guilt of the accused. and the court having found meritorious the reasons alleged therein. . . and the bond filed for the temporary release of the accused is hereby ordered cancelled. June 27. not to be brought to trial except in pursuance of like proceeding or the proceeding substituted by law. being of opinion that there was no probable cause to believe him guilty of the offense. or the trial judge. The complaint charges him of having spoken of the complainant in a manner which reflected adversely upon her virtue and good name in the presence of several witnesses. Its denial. the latter not only has the power but also the duty to investigate the facts upon which the complaint filed in the justice of the peace court was based. for the purpose of bringing the accused to trial despite the order of discharge and over his objection based on the ground that he has not been remanded for trial as a result of a preliminary trial. The complaining witness renewed the complaint in the CFI. ISSUE WON the trial court erred in bringing the accused to trial. and before the provincial fiscal has filed the necessary information. he could have secured the arrest of the accused upon a new complaint. thereby keeping within the powers conferred upon him by section 1687 of the Revised Administrative Code. when Marfori was called upon to plead. add case is hereby dismissed. with costs de oficio. . I think) held in accordance with law. FACTS . accused is prejudicial error. (Act 1627.ORDER OF CFI:"The provincial fiscal having filed a motion in the above entitled case praying for the dismissal of the case. over his objection. or both acting together were permitted to make use of the record of the proceedings had before a justice of the peace at a preliminary trial.The order of the justice of the peace discharging the accused did not operate as a final acquittal. no order remanding him for trial having been issued by a competent magistrate as a result of a preliminary trial (old term for PI. . If the fiscal was not satisfied with the action of the justice of the peace.But it would manifestly defeat the end sought to be attained by the provisions of law for the holding of preliminary investigations if either the fiscal." HELD After a criminal case has been remanded by the justice of the peace to the Court of First Instance which has jurisdiction to try it on the merits. The provincial fiscal of Laguna complied with all these requirements before asking for the dismissal of the present case." ISSUE WON the provincial fiscal has authority to conduct another preliminary investigation and thereafter ask the Court of First Instance to dismiss the criminal case remanded by the justice of the peace. Dispositive Judgment convicting and sentencing the accused REVERSED with the costs of both instances de officio and the record REMANDED to the court below for further proceedings. is a substantial one. as a result of which the accused was discharged.Upon arraignment. Ratio The right of an accused not to be brought to trial except when remanded as the result of a preliminary examination before a committing magistrate or. 37) . over his objection without having been committed or remanded for trial by an investigating magistrate. . PEOPLE v OVILLA 65 Phil 722 VILLA-REAL.The complaint was originally filed in the court of a justice of the peace who held a preliminary investigation and discharged the accused on the ground that he was not guilty of the crime with which he was charged. as prayed. An information was filed in that court and Marfori was brought to trial without further proceedings. that the justice of the peace had erred in discharging the accused. Sec. and that he should have remanded the accused for trial.The trial judge overruled the objections of counsel. 1938 NATURE . and ordered the parties to proceed with the trial on the ground that the report of the proceedings had at the preliminary trial held by the justice of the peace disclosed a reasonable probability that the crime charged had been committed and that the accused had committed it. and although a so-called “report of the proceedings” was forwarded to the fiscal and doubtless submitted to the trial judge. and sought an order remanding the accused for trial in a second preliminary investigation had before either the justice of the peace who held the first investigation or before the judge of the CFI in the exercise of his functions as a committing magistrate. for the purpose of determining whether there is at least prima facie evidence establishing the guilt of the accused and overcoming the presumption of innocence in his favor. to examine the evidence submitted to the justice of the peace and such other evidence as the parties may deem proper to submit on their own free will or on demand of the fiscal. Reasoning The accused was brought to trial. . If after he has done all this and considering all the circumstances of the case. his counsel declined to proceed on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to bring Marfori to trial. within the city of Manila. The justice of the peace who held the preliminary investigation dismissed the original complaint against the accused. It is so ordered. original jurisdiction to commit the accused for trial as result of those proceedings was vested exclusively in the justice of the peace before whom they were had. liberty or property without due process of law. and was not a bar to re-arrest and prosecution for the offense originally charged.Marfori’s counsel then exempted to the ruling and insisted on the right to a preliminary trial. in the absence of an order remanding him for trial based upon a preliminary trial held in accordance with the provisions of law HELD YES. Petra Flores. after the latter had conducted the preliminary investigation and issued an order to the effect that there was probable cause to prosecute the offense charged which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. over the objection of the a2010 page 61 Prof. he should submit to the court before which the case is pending the corresponding motion for dismissal. from the order of the Court of First Instance of Laguna. in that it subjects the accused to the loss of life. Marfori refused to enter a plea so that the court was compelled to direct the entry of a plea of not guilty in his behalf.A report of the proceedings was forwarded to the provincial fiscal by the justice of the peace. This is an appeal by the offended party.

Cesar V. reversed its former ruling and ordered the dismissal of all the four (4) cases against them. old coins. and (3) in the absence of adequate proof that it was he who killed the deceased Hermenegildo Odiamar. 1982 NATURE Automatic review of CFI decision imposing the capital penalty of death on accused Veloso for the crime of robbery with homicide and double serious physical injuries FACTS . a2010 page 62 Prof. or before the New 4. They were as follows: 1. Richard Doe and John Doe. They stole money. he filed a manifestation stating that he “Waives his right to present evidence at the second stage of the preliminary investigation.Prudencio Cichon. Criminal Case No. September 30. the order appealed from is hereby affirmed. Criminal Case No. The prosecuting officers certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation of the case in accordance with law. four (4) informations were filed by the prosecuting fiscals before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City.Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents was filed in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City against Prudencio Cichon and Paulino Duma. ISSUE WON the trial court erred in dismissing these cases on the ground that the preliminary investigations conducted therein were not in accordance with Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112. The corresponding warrant of arrest for each of the accused was accordingly issued. 1966. and it appears that accused entered his non-guilty plea without raising the question of lack of preliminary investigation. all the accused pleaded not guilty. thru counsel. jewelry. 3128. 3084.On September 27. the accused in the four (4) cases. . PEOPLE v GOMEZ 117 SCRA 72 RELOVA. Dispositive The judgment under review is hereby affirmed PEOPLE v VELOSO 112 SCRA 173 PER CURIAM. the lower court. Atilano and two other unidentified persons. Also has certification of the State Prosecutors that they had conducted a preliminary investigation in the case… The two accused pleaded not guilty. 1970 (the case says july but I think it’s a typo… probably june) : Judge Templo conducted preliminary examination .Veloso and others entered the Odiamar’s house and robbed them around 7:30 in the evening. The prosecution also certified under oath that they conducted a preliminary investigation of the case… Upon arraignment. inadmissible in evidence. the accused instead filed a manifestation waiving his right to present evidence at the second stage of the preliminary investigation.June 22. Such waiver carried with it the waiver of any procedural error or irregularity that may have attended the preliminary investigation. without prejudice to the refiling of the same. issued warrants for their arrest on the same day. .In 1962. he should be held guilty of the offense of robbery only. When the case was forwarded to the CFI. was charged for robbery with homicide and double serious physical injuries . and not of the complex crime of robbery with homicide and double serious physical injuries. 3088. Prudencio Cichon and Lorenzo Delantar pleaded not guilty. . The accused Pedro Cuento and Cesar Castillo pleaded not guilty. February 25. The aforesaid constitute waiver of the accused’s right to preliminary investigation.' with costs against the appellant. Castillo. 3083. .-.-. Prudencio Cichon. for lack of merit. ISSUE WON the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the case for want of preliminary investigation HELD NO Reasoning . among others. So District Judge himself made the preliminary investigation and once satisfied that a prima facie case against the three accused existed.Veloso. 1966. . and that they believed that the offense charged had been committed and the accused were probably guilty thereof. HELD YES Ratio The preliminary investigations in these four (4) cases were terminated in 1962. No certification that a preliminary investigation of the case had been made by the prosecutors.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Dispositive Finding no merit in the sole error assigned by the appellant. therefore. in relation to Rule 144 of the Revised Rules of Court. Jesus F. It is wellsettled that the right to preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right and that the same may be waived expressly or by silence. Jesus F Atilano and Pedro Cuento were charged with Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents. the accused entered his plea without raising the question of lack of preliminary investigation. Petitioners' Claim (1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the case for want of preliminary investigation (2) the extrajudicial confession he executed was obtained through force and intimidation and. 1966.When Judge Templo set the case for preliminary investigation to afford the accused occasion to confront the witnesses against him.the case was forwarded to the CFI.July 5. 3. At the arraignment.instead of availing himself of this opportunity.Edilberto Gomez. Criminal Case No. while the Odiamar spouses sustained serious physical injuries. Prudencio N. Cichon.Upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the accused. Jesus Atilano. the offended party in this case. 2. thru their counsel.On June 22. the lower court. on November 2. 1970 – Judge Templo set the case for preliminary investigation to afford the accused the occasion to confront the witnesses against him and to present his own evidence . Criminal Case No.-. .Hermenegildo Odiamar was shot and killed during the robbery. 1982 FACTS .Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents against Lorenzo Delantar. denied the aforesaid motion. Pedro Cuento and John Doe charged with Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents. tear gas gun.-.” . filed a MOTION TO DECLARE INFORMATIONS AND WARRANTS OF ARREST null and void on the ground that the prosecution failed to observe the provisions of Section 13 and 14 of Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court regarding preliminary investigation and prayed the court to cancel the warrants of arrest issued.

Section 6. particularly in the light of the long standing practice of the Office of the City Fiscal of Butuan of attaching to the informations filed with the court the affidavits of prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation -judge denied motion. that the required investigations were complied with. 1966 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga is set aside and the said court is hereby ordered to proceed with the trial of the said criminal cases. IV of the 1973 Constitution). 3128. for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. . And as already pointed out. If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause. therefore. in Criminal Case No. a2010 page 63 Prof. before entering their plea.D. Rules 112 and 113 thereof cannot.But then. 1 SCRA 478)." -the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of arrest. apply to these cases at bar. the time of the entry of their plea in the Court of First Instance. . there is reasonable ground to believe that the crime charged has been committed and that herein accused is probably guilty thereof. under the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases. The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. But the Court decided to tackle the issue nonetheless. ordered the arrest of the defendant. They filed the motion to declare informations and warrants of arrest null and void only after more than one (1) year thereafter." (People vs. from the information and the affidavits attached thereto. -The primary requirement for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of probable cause (Sec.” -respondent judge set a hearing to determine the propriety of issuing warrants of arrest. that on the basis of the sworn statements and other evidence submitted before this Office. compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation HELD NO. assuming that the informations did not contain the requisite certificates regarding the Fiscal's having held a preliminary investigation. 3. Dispositive ACCORDINGLY. he may disregard the fiscal's certification and require the submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a probable cause. P. having examined the complainant and his witnesses. Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Rules of Court took effect on January 1. If there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants. issue a warrant of arrest. And. as a matter of longstanding practice had been attached to the informations filed in his sala. petitioners submitted the documents rendering the case mute (haha) and academic. order the fiscal to conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted. invite the attention of the court to their absence. Without the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other evidence which. After hearing. PLACER v VILLANUEVA 126 SCRA 463 ESCOLIN. he finds the same to be patently without basis or merit -petitioners the City Fiscal of Butuan City and his assistants filed in the City Court of Butuan certain informations and certified them as follows: “that a preliminary examination has been conducted by me in this case. judge issued orders requiring petitioners to submit to the court the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence in support of the informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by petitioners -petitioners filed two separate motions for reconsideration stating that they were authorized to determine the existence of probable cause ni a preliminary investigation and that their findings constitute sufficient basis for the issuance of warrants of arrest. 911 authorizes the fiscal or state prosecutor to determine the existence of probable cause. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective. should conduct such investigation. except lack of jurisdiction or failure of the information to charge an offense. No. Some warrants were granted. the court. therefore. Consequently. he found the charges patently without basis or merit. But this does not bind the judge to issue a warrant . December 29. when issued. . the order dated November 2. "instead of dismissing the information. 1983 FACTS . the omissions are not necessarily fatal. From the informations and affidavits presented to him. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court:: "Warrant of arrest. Thus. the respondent judge has the power to order the outright dismissal of the charge if. -respondent justifies his order as an exercise of his judicial power to review the fiscal's findings of probable cause. respondent found the informations inadequate bases for the determination of probable cause -Also.There is thus no dispute that the judge may rely upon the fiscal's certification of the existence of probable cause and. *eventually. they waived the right to a preliminary investigation when they failed to invoke it prior to. 1964. some were remanded to ISSUE WON the respondent city judge may. Art. is applicable to some of the crimes in the said informations. Casiano. when they entered a plea of not guilty. The defendants in these cases did not question the validity of the informations on the ground of defective certifications or the right to preliminary investigations before they entered the plea of not guilty. anxiety and expense. he must issue a warrant or order for his arrest. Reasoning The government prosecutors certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation in said cases. or at least at. on the basis thereof. they thereby waived all objections that are grounds for a motion to quash. For respondent to issue the warrants of arrest and try the accused would only expose the latter to unnecessary harrassment.If the judge be satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted by him or by the investigating officer that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed it. It is clear. He further maintains that the failure of petitioners to file the required affidavits destroys the presumption of regularity in the performance of petitioners' official duties. This rule requires that the “complaint or information must be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses in such number of copies as there are defendants plus two (2) copies for the court's files” -judge also did not commit grave abuse of discretion in remanding some of the cases to the City Fiscal for further investigation. it was District Judge Gregorio Montejo who conducted the preliminary investigation and. And asked the submission of documents earlier asked for. finding the existence of a prima facie case.

Go got out of his car and shot Maguan. Upon arraignment. In this case. 1991 – Go presented himself in the San Juan police station with his two lawyers in tow to verify reports that he was being hunted down by the police.September 23. . . . February 11. a plea of not guilty was entered because Go refused to enter a plea. This was followed by three more witnesses on October 3. . Asst. Police then launched a manhunt for Go. 1991: 8. 1991. . 1991: 6. Ramos where the Court upheld that a warrantless arrest was valid 14 days after the crime was committed. . Go contended through a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. prohibition and mandamus.July 16. . in the presence of his lawyers. 1991: a2010 page 64 Prof. Reasoning .August 23. Go refused.” He was positively identified by the witness and his identity had been established when he came to the police station. . . . Prosecutor Villa Ignacio informed Go. 125. The trial court granted LEAVE to conduct preliminary investigation and cancelled the arraignment scheduled on August 15. 1991: 3. Police were able to identify the card owner as the accused Go and when his picture was shown to the security guard who positively identified him as the supposed assailant.July 9. Go’s counsel filed an OMNIBUS MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND PROPER PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION with the allegations that an illegal warrantless arrest had been effected and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted and prayed that Go be released on bail. The police detained Go and a COMPLAINT for FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE was filed against him.July 23. 1991 – The trial started and the prosecution presented its first witness. 4.July 2.The police were informed that the petitioner had a meal at the bake shop where his credit card was used to pay for the transaction. Respondents’ Comments: Go had been validly arrested because the crime had been committed 6 days before he was arrested.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales GO v CA (PELAYO) 206 SCRA 138 FELICIANO. of his right to avail of preliminary investigation but in so doing. he nearly collided with the car of accused Rolito Go. . NO. Go filed an urgent EX-PARTE MOTION FOR SPECIAL RAFFLE in order to expedite action on the bail recommendation. prohibition and mandamus on the following grounds. The cash bond was approved and Go was released from jail.Umil vs. Sec. Prov. Respondent judge issued a commitment order for Go. 1991: 9. >None of the arresting officers had personal knowledge of the facts indicating that Go was the gunman as required in the RoC. Sec.July 12. In so doing. 1. 125. The prosecutor stated that no preliminary investigation was conducted because Go refused to waive provisions of Art. WON the accused Go had waived his right to preliminary investigation HELD 1. wife of the accused.A security guard of a nearby bake shop witnessed the event and was able to note the plate number of the petitioner. . 1991 – Maguan died as a result of his gunshot wounds before an INFORMATION could be filed. 5 because: >The “arrest” took place 6 days after Maguan was shot whereas the RoC provide that the crime should have been just committed. 5. The prosecutor filed an INFORMATION for murder. 1991 – Eldon Maguan entered a one-way street (Wilson St. The petition for habeas corpus was consolidated with the petition for certiorari. PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS that the information was null and void because no preliminary investigation had been conducted. b) Waiver of the right to preliminary investigation when he did not invoke it properly and waiver of any irregularity in his arrest when accused posted bail. RPC.None of the police officers who arrested him had any “personal knowledge” of the crime. RPC. . instead of an information for frustrated homicide. 7 states that a complaint for information can be filed sans preliminary investigation when a person has been lawfully arrested without a warrant except than an affidavit should be executed by the person who was responsible for the arrest.) from the opposite direction (counterflow).September 19.The prosecutor proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicable and required petitioner to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carrying out a preliminary investigation. 1991 – Go surrendered to the police and the judge set the arraignment on August 23. Murder is not a continuing crime because it happens in one place at a particular point in time and ends there as well. . Ramos only applies to continuing crimes so it does not apply in the case at bar. the person arrested must waive the provisions of A125. 1991 – The CA dismissed the petition for habeas corpus and the petition for certiorari. WON the warrantless arrest was lawful 2. among others: a) Validity of the warrantless arrest because the crime had been “freshly committed.July 19. c) Validity of the information against the accused precluded the grant of the petition for habeas corpus Petitioners’ Claim: Go contends that the crime had not been “just committed” because of the 6-day disparity. The information that the police had was derived from eyewitness accounts. the warrantless arrest was not lawful Ratio Rule 112. 2. He may also apply for bail despite the waiver and the investigation must terminate within 15 days. Prosecutor filed a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION and prayed that the court proceedings be suspended momentarily. ISSUES 1.The warrantless arrest does not follow the requisites in Rule 113. is about to be committed or is being committed. 7. 10. Go was entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded him without any conditions. . RPC with the assistance of counsel (a lawyer or another person of his choice if a lawyer is not available). Go filed a PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS and the CA issued the writ. . The car was eventually traced to an Elisa Ang Go. 1992 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS . 1991.July 8. Guevarra St. .Invoking Umali vs. Go had to waive the provisions in Art. heading towards P. But the person arrested can ask for preliminary investigation by the proper officer before the complaint or information can be filed.July 11.

and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 September 1991 hereby REVERSED. if he is one of those unfortunates who seem to spend more time behind bars than outside.The need for a trial court to follow the Rules and to be fair. petitioner is hereby ORDERED released forthwith upon posting of a cash bail bond of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100. . still entitles the accused to preliminary investigation.Meantime.However. did not impair the validity of the information for murder nor affect the jurisdiction of the trial court. Go did ask for a preliminary investigation on the very day that the information was filed without such preliminary investigation. > As for bail. a trial for merits had already commenced and the prosecution had already presented 4 witnesses. remembering instead that its only guide was the mandate of the law. Dispositive ACCORDINGLY.However. Reasoning . At the time of his arraignment. Such compulsion and the unjustified denial of a clear statutory right of the petitioner vitiated the proceedings as violative of procedural due process. Go had not waived his right to preliminary investigation. GUTIERREZ [concurring] . Ratio The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation is waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. is not a mere formal or technical right. and to complete such preliminary investigation within a period of fifteen (15) days from commencement thereof. there is no need to conduct a preliminary investigation the sole purpose of which would be to ascertain if there is sufficient ground to believe that a crime was committed (which the petitioner does not dispute) and that he (the petitioner) is probably guilty thereof . filed in the trial court. more so. . contrary to petitioner's contention.000. at such stage. while constituting a denial of the appropriate and full measure of the statutory process of criminal justice. The trial on the merits of the criminal case in the Regional Trial Court shall be SUSPENDED to await the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. GRIÑO-AQUINO [dissenting] . . . even if eventually. in effect. After such reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. . however.According to Crespo vs. impartial. Mogul: The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. Mogul.Go’s act of posting bail cannot be deemed to be a waiver of his right to preliminary investigation. Should the evidence against the accused be strong. it is a substantive right.There was no waiver of the right to preliminary investigation because Go had vigorously insisted on his right to preliminary investigation before his arraignment. > This. The point is that Go was not accorded his proper rights.When Go walked into the police station 6 days after Maguan was shot. Go asked for release on recognizance or on bail and for preliminary investigation in one omnibus motion. SEPARATE OPINION CRUZ [concurring] . the trial court should not have been influenced by this irrelevant consideration. . NO. .In the case at bar. petitioner was already before the Court of Appeals on certiorari.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . the failure to accord preliminary investigation. the Court Resolved to GRANT the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The petitioner as portrayed by the media is not exactly a popular person. Obiter . Nevertheless. The Prosecutor also filed a MOTION for LEAVE TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION so the omnibus motion of Go was. Go’s omnibus motion asked for a PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION not REINVESTIGATION as discussed in Crespo vs. > To hold that the rights of Go were obliterated by the presentation of evidence in the proceedings in the trial court would be to legitimize the deprivation of due process. .It appears that the trial court has been moved by a desire to cater to public opinion to the detriment of the impartial administration of justice. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case. This release shall be without prejudice to issue. The Court is not ready to ignore that act by Go and consider it as a waiver based simply on the contention of the SolGen that the motion should have been filed with the trial court and not the prosecutor. prohibition and mandamus precisely asking for a preliminary investigation before being forced to stand trial. the permission of the Court must be secured.The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is hereby ORDERED to conduct forthwith a preliminary investigation of the charge of murder against petitioner Go. Go is still entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right. and that the trial court was 5 days later apprised of the desire of the petitioner for such preliminary investigation.There was no waiver of the right to preliminary investigation even if Go freely participated in his trial and his counsel even cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. the prosecutor may or may not find probable cause. he also filed an OMNIBUS MOTION for IMMEDIATE RELEASE and PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. On the day the information for murder was filed. among them an eyewitness who identified the accused as the gunman and a security guard who identified the plate number of the gunman's car. and persistent in getting the true facts of a case is present in all cases but it is particularly important if the accused is indigent. . the bail can then be cancelled. 2.Go had from the start demanded a preliminary investigation and that his counsel had reluctantly participated in the trial only because the court threatened to replace him with a counsel de oficio if he did not. a2010 page 65 Prof. should the any lawful order that the trial court Office of the Provincial Prosecutor move for cancellation of all at the conclusion of the preliminary investigation.The nature of the crime demanded that a preliminary investigation be conducted. . he did not surrender (so as not to imply that he committed the crime) nor was he arrested but he placed himself in the disposal of the police authorities. The Order of the trial court dated 17 July 1991 is hereby SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED.After 4 witnesses have already testified. in the case at bar. Go did ask for a preliminary investigation from the start.The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty.00). The petitioner was virtually compelled to go to trial. Trial on the merits should be suspended or held in abeyance and a preliminary investigation should accorded to petitioner. He had thus claimed his right to preliminary investigation before respondent Judge approved the cash bond posted by petitioner and ordered his release.

since the preventive suspension has exceeded the reasonable maximum period of ninety days provided in Section 42 of the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines. nor constitute an infringement of the right of the accused to confront witnesses. If he demands it. Hernandez and Allado. nor impair the validity of the information.This case did not suffer from a lack of previous investigation. In the practice of their profession. . 7 days after the shooting. and on the basis of an alleged extrajudicial confession of a security guard (Umbal). just as the conduct of such preliminary investigation is not more important than the hearing of the application for bail. led to the identification of the suspect who. Special Prosecution Officer filed in the Sandiganbayan an information against petitioner. the charge against him had been changed as directed by the ALLADO v DIOKNO 232 SCRA 192 BELLOSILLO. he alone may waive it.The Special Prosecutor filed a motion to suspend accused pendente lite. as indicated by the Solicitor General. presumably believed to be so). 1989 NATURE Petition for Certiorari FACTS . . WON the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the information 2. it is not a constitutional right.Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Over the objection of the accused the Sandiganbayan ordered his suspension pendente lite from his position as PCGG Commissioner and from any other office he may be holding. but more importantly (b) whether or not the evidence of his guilt is strong. or property without due process of law. . It does not affect the court's jurisdiction. There witnesses identified him to be the assailant. The judge's determination that the evidence of his guilt is strong would naturally foreclose the need for a preliminary investigation to ascertain the probability of his guilt. 1988. That right of the accused is substantial and its denial over his opposition is a prejudicial error in that it subjects the accused to loss of life. alumni of the College of Law. a former commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Good Government for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with his shareholdings and position as president and director of the Doromal International Trading Corporation which submitted bids to supply equipment to the DECS and the National Manpower and Youth Council. the SC annulled the information . the State may not withhold it. they have been accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder of a German national named Van Twest by the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission DOROMAL v SANDIGANBAYAN (OMBUDSMAN and SPECIAL PROSECUTOR) 177 SCRA 1989 GRINO-AQUINO. as the absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash the complaint or information. liberty. YES . September 7. However.Since the petitioner is an incumbent public official charged in a valid information with an offense punishable under the Constitution and the laws.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales (which the prosecutor.It should be remembered that as important as is the right of the accused to a preliminary investigation. Quintin Doromal.A new information was filed in the Sandiganbayan .Upon the annulment of the information against the petitioner. the Special Prosecutor sought clearance from the Ombudsman to refile it . An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested. against petitioner. the Special Prosecution Officer conducted a preliminary investigation of the charge . Diligent police work. or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest a2010 page 66 Prof.January 25. Its absence is not a ground to quash the information. . 2. 1994 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order FACTS . WON the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending the petitioner from office despite the President’s having previously approved his indefinite leave of absence until final decision in the case HELD 1. His approved leave of absence should not be a bar to his preventive suspension for. University of the Philippines. the proceedings upon such information in the Sandiganbayan should be held in abeyance and the case should be remanded to the office of the Ombudsman for him or the Special Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation. Mendoza.October 1987. with ample media coverage. by filing the information against him. Dispositive Petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted. appeared at the San Juan police station to verify news reports that he was the object of a police manhunt. . and approved leave. However. Since the right belongs to the accused.The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the SC questioning the jurisdiction of the Tanodbayan to file the information without the approval of the Ombudsman after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution. The court's hearing of the application for bail should not be subordinated to the preliminary investigation of the charge. . NO . Moreover. are partners of the Law Firm of Salonga. The hearing should not be suspended.June 30. the law’s command that he “shall be suspended from office” pendent lite must be obeyed.A new preliminary investigation of the charge against the petitioner is in order not only because the first was a nullity but also because the accused demands it as his right. May 5. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. 1988. . . ISSUES 1. whether it be for a fixed of indefinite period may be cancelled or shortened at will by the incumbent.Go was indeed arrested by the police.The petitioner's motion for a preliminary investigation is not more important than his application for release on bail.The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash . but should be allowed to proceed because the parties will have an opportunity to show not only: (a) whether or not there is probable cause to believe that the petitioner killed Eldon Maguan. it should now be lifted. Ombudsman.The Ombudsman granted clearance but advised that some changes be made in the information previously filed . The petitioner’s right to a preliminary investigation of the new charge is secured to him by Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information for being invalid because there had been no preliminary investigation and defective because the facts alleged do not constitute the offense charged.

Petitioners filed this petition and principally contended that respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in "whimsically holding that there is probable cause against petitioners without determining the admissibility of the evidence against petitioners and without even stating the basis of his findings. if not awkwardly.The petitioners filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor a motion for the reconsideration of the Joint Resolution and with the DOJ a Petition for Review. . we said that the judge (a) shall personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and." However. On the contrary. rigors and embarrassment of trial is a function of the prosecutor. Umbal claims that Van Twest was completely burned into ashes with the use of gasoline and rubber tires from around ten o'clock in the evening to six o'clock the next morning. if not ridiculous.In Soliven v.Several thousand holders of “349” Pepsi crowns in connection with the Number Fever Promotion filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City complaints against the petitioner officials of PEPSI." Petitioners maintain that the records of the preliminary investigation which respondent judge solely relied upon failed to establish probable cause against them to justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest.Respondent Judge Asuncion issued the challenged order (1) denying the petitioners’ Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold In Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of Arrest and the public prosecutor’s Motion to Defer Arraignment and (2) directing the issuance of the warrants of arrest “after and setting the arraignment on 28 June 1993. This is a2010 page 67 Prof." . Dispositive Petition granted highly improbable. may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion on the existence of probable cause. after reviewing the information and the document attached thereto.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales (PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by respondent judge. Petitioners likewise assail the prosecutors' "clear sign of bias and partiality.In People v. he merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents to him.The petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for a temporary restraining order. (b) The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. finds that no probable cause exists. There is no reason to hold the accused for trial and further expose him to an open and public accusation of the crime when no probable cause exists. . and therefore. believes and rules that probable cause exists. we discern a number of reasons why we consider the evidence submitted to be insufficient for a finding of probable cause against petitioners. even Asst.ALLADO DOCTRINE: If upon the filing of the information in court. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore." and in "relying on the Resolution of the Panel and their certification that probable cause exists when the certification is flawed. (b) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. he must either call for the complainant and the witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case. it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. otherwise.Verily. . Even crematoria use entirely closed incinerators where the corpse is subjected to intense heat.In the Order of respondent judge. respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of petitioners it appearing that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. on the basis thereof. after Van Twest's reported abduction which culminated in his decimation by cremation. there is serious doubt on Van Twest's reported death since the corpus delicti has not been established. Solicitor General Estoesta believes that counsel of Van Twest doubted the latter's death. Hence. For. JR. They contended therein that respondent Judge Asuncion had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the . . We have painstakingly examined the records and we cannot find any support for his conclusion. It merely assists him in making the determination of probable cause. By itself. issue a warrant of arrest. . Makasiar. we emphasized the important features of the constitutional mandate: (a) The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge. the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual.Strangely. A human body cannot be pulverized into ashes by simply burning it with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an open field. 1996 FACTS . the transcript of stenographic notes (if any). preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released. The determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. Instead. . there should be no confusion about their objectives. Inting. a warrant of arrest should be issued. whether or not he should be subjected to the expense. It is the report. nor have his remains been recovered. the trial judge. March 5. Thereafter. Even if the two inquiries be conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding. and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge in his determination of probable cause. ISSUE WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest HELD . . we are unable to see how respondent judge arrived at such ruling. . Only the judge and the judge alone makes this determination. For one. his counsel continued to represent him before judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. the Office of the Solicitor General argues that the determination of probable cause is a function of the judge who is merely required to personally appreciate certain facts to convince him that the accused probably committed the crime charged. . and. or.The PACC relies heavily on the sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal who supposedly confessed his participation in the alleged kidnapping and murder of Van Twest. he would have found out that the evidence thus far presented was utterly insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioners. the affidavits. The petitioners also Motions to Suspend Proceedings and to hold in Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of Arrest on the ground that they had filed the aforesaid Petition for Review.On the other hand. the remains undergo a process where the bones are completely ground to dust. (c) Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the ROBERTS v CA 254 SCRA 307 DAVIDE. it is expressly stated that "[t]his court after careful evaluation of the evidence on record. .

January 21. . It may. Allado. he made no specific finding of probable cause. or even convincing logic. as in the present case. on the ground that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest warrant was insufficient. . and Webb reject the proposition that the investigating prosecutor’s certification in an information or his resolution which is made the basis 3 The Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. 5. It is an executive function. 5 The issuance of the warrants of arrest by a judge solely on the basis of the prosecutor’s certification in the information that there existed probable cause.In the present case.The daughter of the victim executed an affidavitcomplaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of conspiracy in the killing. Lim5. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taking of the evidence.The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. And strangely enough.The determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor. is null and void. It merely assists him to make the determination of probable cause. But then compliance with a constitutional requirement for the protection of individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition. which is a judicial function.The teachings of the cases of Soliven3. Rosalinda Dy in the presence and at the office of his father private respondent Billy Cerbo.The Court of Appeals then issued a resolution denying the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. However. for the filing of the information. . be argued that the directive presupposes a finding of probable cause. .. A warrant for his arrest was later issued.6 .The determination of probable cause to hold a person for trial must be distinguished from the determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. at pointblank range.. there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscal’s bare certification. 278 SCRA 657. .Corrollarily. . Clearly. HELD YES. the judge should not override the public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause to hold an accused for trial. or both. All of these should be before the Judge.An information for murder was filed against Jonathan Cerbo. the prosecution filed an amended information including Billy Cerbo in the murder case. Dispositive Reversed. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor the Election Supervisor to ascertain. he had only the information. the affidavits. when respondent Judge Asuncion issued the assailed order directing. ignominy. viz. “the affidavits. . and Joint Resolution as bases thereof. . . Sept. and there is no showing of manifest error. ISSUE WON public respondent Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest without examining the records of the preliminary investigation. ISSUE WON the CA erred in finding that no probable cause exists to merit the filing of charges against private respondent Billy Cerbo PEOPLE v CA (CERBO) (Republic v CA in page 5 of the outline) 301 SCRA 475 PANGANIBAN. . such summary proceeding also protects the state from the burden of the unnecessary expense of an effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from false. . Article III of the present Constitution provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. . It is the report. 1997.The Court of Appeals debunked the petitioner’s assertion that the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion and that the evidence presented thus far did not substantiate the charge.Secondarily. By itself.The respondent judge issued an order dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo and recalling the warrant for his arrest. . the trial court should respect such determination. until the reasonable probability of his or her guilt in a more or less summary proceeding by a competent office designated by law for that purpose.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales aforementioned order. the Prosecutor’s certification of probable cause is ineffectual. 4 The supporting documents may consist of.The public prosecutor has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court. The Judge does not have to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. however. would suffice in the judicial determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.Section 2.Billy Cerbo filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest arguing that the same was issued without probable cause. nothing accompanied the information upon its filing with the trial court. conjecture.Accordingly. or groundless charges. Inting4. He did not have the records or evidence supporting the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. expense. . .A judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is no probable cause for doing so. Hence this petition.7 . . the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any). without having before him any other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause. and stress of defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial. amended information. grave abuse of discretion and prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor. frivolous. and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s certification which are material in assisting the Judge to make his determination of probable cause a2010 page 68 Prof. . Id. he merely directed the issuance of warrants of arrest. . Only the Judge and the Judge alone makes this determination.The determination of probable cause is a function of the Judge. 1999 NATURE Petition for Review FACTS .Therefore. CASTILLO v VILLALUZ 6 7 Ledesma v. .The petition is meritorious. HELD YES . CA.Private Respondent Jonathan Cerbo shot. among other things. and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s certification which are material in assisting the Judge to make his determination. the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any).The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free respondent from the inconvenience. if the information is valid on its face. the issuance of warrants of arrest.

asks to recall witnesses for the prosecution to enable such counsel to cross-examine them. He ordered Provincial Fiscal to file the corresponding information against the respondent before the court of competent jurisdiction within 24 hours from receipt of said order. as well as the pertinent doctrines. R. WON judge erred in compelling fiscal under sanction of contempt. -A resolution of that question in the sense of respondent Judge affording petitioner his day in court is equally decisive of the other issue. to quote his words. The fiscal has the duty to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. 1981 NATURE Writ of Certiorari FACTS -Counsel for Reynaldo Rodil who was charged with murder.In July 1971. Cruz. and the fact that a certain power is granted does not necessarily mean that it should be indiscriminately exercised. Hence. Such a comment was submitted on behalf of respondents by the Solicitor General seeking the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the right to cross-examine in a preliminary investigation is not a right granted an accused and that the exercise of discretion by respondent Judge considering the evidence of record sufficed to justify denial of the application for bail. That he could very well do when they testify to prove evidence of guilt is strong. in whom that function is principally and more logically lodged. Reasoning: [a] Sec.A. 2 the Bill of Rights. this petition for certiorari and prohibition was presented by petitioner Fiscal. to file an information in court without conducting his own preliminary investigation HELD 1. May 13. Garcia of Sta. Marinduque. The findings of fiscal in the PI do not control or foreclose the exercise of the power conferred personally on the judge under Sec. on. It follows that the conclusions derived by a judge from his own investigation cannot be superior to and conclusively binding on the fiscal or public prosecutor. That power is his alone. 1989 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS . March 8. courts were to leave that job which is essentially executive to them. a petition to that effect having been denied with a subsequent motion for reconsideration still undecided. makes evident that the jurisdictional issue posed arises from the failure to accord petitioner a hearing on his application for bail. 5179. ISSUE WON counsel for petitioner could recall witnesses for the prosecution for the purpose of asking clarificatory questions (that he could very well do when they testify to prove evidence of guilt is strong) HELD 112 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure no longer authorizes RTC Judges to conduct PIs. on the sole basis of the Judge's conclusions. This task is executive. whether or not counsel for petitioner could recall witnesses for the prosecution for the purpose of asking clarificatory questions. The complaint charged the latter with estafa in the amount of P1K. .The fiscal prevails over the judge only in the determination of the existence of a prima facie case to justify the filing of a complaint or information. Under the present state of the law. [b] The assignment of PI function to judges of inferior courts and to a very limited extent to courts of first instance was dictated by necessity and practical considerations.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 171 SCRA 39 NARVASA. Wherever there are enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigations. a complaint and a Joint Affidavit were filed directly by Renato Montes and Jose de Silva against Manuel Laconico. -What is prayed for is not only that such order denying counsel's request to recall government witnesses be set aside and nullified. BALGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN [SUPRA. 37 of BP. Consequently. did not confer on said courts the power to conduct preliminary investigations 2. Preliminary investigation (now in question) was conducted by respondent Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court.Provincial Fiscal failed to file the information required within the time appointed. YES The power to conduct PI is lodged in the fiscal. "clarificatory and amplificatory matters" which was denied by Municipal Judge Segundo M. but also that bail be granted petitioner. 129 reiterated the removal from Judges of Metropolitan Trial Courts in the National Capital Region of the authority to conduct preliminary investigations and Sec 2 of Rule a2010 page 69 Prof. YES Ratio: The conduct of a preliminary investigation is not a judicial function but part of the fiscal’s job. it cannot be said that the right to cross-examine is guaranteed an accused at the stage of preliminary investigation. a function of the executive. he was directed by His Honor to explain within 10 days "why he should not be punished for contempt of court for delaying the speedy administration of justice for disobeying a lawful order of the Court. PAGE 34] RODIL v GARCIA 104 SCRA 362 .WON respondent judge had no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations.But the determination of probable cause to justify the issuance of a search warrant or a warrant of arrest is the constitutional prerogative of the judge and may not be withdrawn from him or even only limited by statute or ROC. 2. because the law creating Circuit Criminal Courts. It is grave abuse of discretion on a judge to seek to foreclose the fiscal's prerogative to conduct his own preliminary investigation to determine for himself the existence or non-existence of probable cause. and to require him to show cause for not filing the information within 24 hours. -Respondents were required to comment and the Court likewise issued a temporary restraining order. FERNANDO. and thereafter issued a warrant of arrest. but was denied. Challenged Orders annulled and set aside. or at any time thereafter. . was that wherever there were enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigations. This task is judicial. ISSUES 1. courts are counseled to leave this job which is essentially executive to them. -An examination of the record. SEPARATE OPINION CRUZ [concurring] . Dispositive: Petition GRANTED. seeking annulment of the aforesaid orders." Fiscal filed a MFR. and the consequent policy. and could not shirk or be made to evade it by an unreasoning and indiscriminate reliance on the judge's investigation.

is not to be a mere sham or pretense. The respondent Judge denied the motion for "lack of basis. Counsel could recall the witnesses. if so. the preliminary examination proper. Masiu. While the guilt or innocence of the accused is not to be determined. and this opinion. a matter mandated by the Constitution or the Rules of Court.On August 10. cannot be utilized as argument for the contention that the prosecution should not have been allowed to cross-examine the defense witnesses and that an accused is not entitled to crossexamine the witnesses presented against him in the preliminary investigation before his arrest." hence the present petition. Bernabe citing that “The regular trial is. respondent Judge examined personally the 3 witnesses. an ex-parte motion was filed by Atty. a shooting incident occurred in Pantao. however. they should likewise exercise their discretion in such a way that the purpose of a preliminary investigation. But these objections cannot avail against a positive constitutional command. armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao. The order of respondent Judge denying bail is set aside.'" This is so because the procedure to be followed in the hearing on an application for bail. the writ of certiorari is granted. April 14. Batuampar) of one of the widows filed a letter-complaint with the fiscal. the quantity and character of the proofs on this point are. who was not heard. Occasionally much time is thus consumed. San Diego. the explicit beneficiary of the constitutional right. . Above all. 1985. Ramilo. .The next day. Batuampar's letter and requesting that "all cases that may be filed relative .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales YES. whether there is probable cause that the accused committed it. Lanao del Sur. It thus appears clearly that in the exercise of his discretion respondent Judge could have granted the request and thus avoided the necessity of a petition of this character having to be filed. 1981. 1985. ISSUE WON the respondent Judge had the power to issue the warrant of arrest without completing the entire prescribed procedure for preliminary investigation HELD YES. asking for a “full blast preliminary investigation”. to a limited extent at least. Arellano.While it could be said that that the refusal of the Justice of the Peace to allow the defense to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses presented prior to petitioner's arrest. or preliminary investigation proper . for the special purpose in hand. Thereafter. 1985. Masiu. transmitting Atty. which "has first taken cognizance of said cases. a criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed. decided on March 17. 6 of Rule 112 clearly authorizes the MTC to issue a warrant even before opening the second phase. the Rules of Court. if the Constitution requires the court to determine for itself whether or not the proof is evident or presumption great in a given case. Marinduque. Clearly. a lawyer (Atty. Sec. Another version has it that a group that . whether a crime has been committed and. had been ambushed . Sola. Bustos v.On Aug 14. his is the great responsibility of safeguarding the accused from groundless or vindictive prosecution. or whoever is now the Municipal Judge of Santa Cruz. The letter adverted to the possibility of innocent persons being implicated by the parties involved on both sides none of whom was. PANGANDAMAN v CASAR 159 SCRA 599 NARVASA. must give way. 1985. it is the accused himself. and the court's attention is correspondingly diverted from other business. anticipated. Dispositive WHEREFORE. also in Masiu. Immediately the Provincial Fiscal addressed a "1st indorsement" to the respondent Judge. . . where the first phase of the investigation was expressly denominated "preliminary examination" to distinguish it from the second phase. which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded. The present case is much stronger.On July 27. If the justice of the peace is to ascertain. could be attained in as fair and objective manner as possible.The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the complaint and the affidavits sound discretion of the Judge or investigating officer concerned (People v. It must not be an exercise in futility. (to the incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 27. On the same day. as he must.. all considerations of expediency or convenience.The Judge issued the denial for bail on the basis of the motion of petitioner that he be granted such right and the opposition filed by the First Assistant Provincial Fiscal without conducting any hearing on such motion. In the latest case on the subject. The interest of a more speedy and a more efficient administration of justice would be best served if there is a greater awareness on the part of judges that in addition to safeguarding the express rights of an accused person.This was equally true under the former rules. necessarily considered. People v." be forwarded to his office. however potent they might be at the common law. with both attackers and defenders suffering casualties. . The accused is not to be denied his day in court. while summary in character. Batuampar seeking recall of the warrant of arrest and subsequent holding of a "thorough investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial investigation had been "hasty and manifestly haphazard" with "no searching questions" having been propounded. He. According to one version. 1988 FACTS . he acted on the mistaken belief that the presentation of evidence by the prosecution for the purpose of the issuance of the warrant of arrest.Sec 3 of rule 112 consists of 2 phases: . must set forthwith the hearing on the application for bail of petitioner. What in fact transpired is still unclear. identified and promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be filed. his authority cannot be confined as in a straight jacket to the stiffness of medieval and outmoded technicalities of practice.What the Rule provides is that no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court may be filed without completing that procedure. to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. was on its way to another place. Lalabuan. Lucero) it could still be argued that the judge is not a ministerial officer reduced to recording what takes place and what witnesses say in the examination. No costs. . \Dequito v. this being a matter that depends on the a2010 page 70 Prof.There was misapprehension on the part of respondent Judge of the import of the ruling in Ocampo v. the avoidance of groundless or vindictive prosecutions. suffices for the denial of the plea for bail. . the Judge approved the complaint and issued a warrant of arrest against the 14 petitioners (who were named by the witnesses) and 50 "John Does. nullified an order of a municipal judge named respondent in that case as he granted bail to the accused without hearing the prosecution. this Court relying on People v.

February 19. need to be clarified. The investigating judge must: (a) have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers. must be rejected that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest against petitioners without first completing the preliminary investigation in accordance with the prescribed procedure. however.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales and other documents offered in support thereof. to the provincial fiscal. . since the robbery charge was the offshoot of a boundary dispute between two property owners. SAMULDE v SALVANI 165 SCRA 734 GRIÑO-AQUINO: September 26. besides. namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes. which shall be transmitted. Congressman Moises Espinosa. from General Orders No. therefore.Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigation upon a complaint for robbery. Sr. as regards its unidentified subjects. ISSUE WON a judge may be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest upon a finding of probable cause HELD NO TANDOC v RESULTAN [SUPRA. 1988 NATURE Appeal from the decision of the RTC FACTS . and Artemio Fuentes were attacked and killed by a lone assassin.m. one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the subject. to the provincial fiscal for appropriate action. he did not believe that the accused should be immediately placed under custody. Dante Siblante. And it ends with the determination by the Judge either: (1) that there is no ground to continue with the inquiry. as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would Identify. or (2) that the complaint and the supporting documents show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry and this ushers in the second phase. warrants against John Does denied a2010 page 71 Prof. Hence. 1991 NATURE Review for certiorari. Ratio 3 conditions must concur for the issuance of the warrant of arrest. is left to his sound judgment or discretion. Rule 112. Nothing in the record before this Court belies or discredits those affirmations which have. the benefit of the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. either for dismissal of the complaint or holding the respondent for trial. 1989: at the vicinity of the airport road of the Masbate Domestic Airport (Masbate. The second phase concludes with the Judge rendering his resolution. but merely discretionary. and (c) that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. 58 down to Rule 112 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court. In this particular case. Judge Samulde sent back the records to Fiscal Salvani. it is of the nature of a general warrant. in which case he dismisses the complaint and transmits the order of dismissal. is absent in Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The RTC dismissed the petition but nevertheless ordered Judge Samulde to issue a warrant of arrest.This second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint. together with the records of the case. . he refused to issue a warrant of arrest. not the completion of the entire procedure of preliminary investigation . . After making a preliminary investigation based on the affidavits of the complainant and her witnesses and counter-affidavits of the respondent and his witnesses." Unconvinced. for the determination of whether a probable cause exists and whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. He further advised the Municipal Judge "that henceforth he adheres to the same rule in similar cases where he conducts a preliminary investigation with a finding of a prima facie or probable cause. survived the assassination plot. Dispositive The appealed decision is SET ASIDE. the warrant must. another security escort of Congressman Espinosa. " implying that. together with the record. It is not obligatory. Gaspar Amaro. in his view. he may issue a warrant of arrest if he is satisfied "that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. to 1:00 p. the Judge may conduct a hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses questions on matters that. and his security escorts. The fiscal returned the records on the ground that Judge Samulde failed to include the warrant of arrest against the accused as provided in Sec 5. .Insofar. The rule is and has always been that such issuance need only await a finding of probable cause. and to transmit the warrant to the Provincial Fiscal for appropriate action. hence.March 17. (b) be satisfied that a probable cause exists. access to the complainant's evidence and an opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting documents. Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. found in all previous rules of criminal procedure. At this stage also. he himself suffered a gunshot wound. FACTS . although. Judge Samulde transmitted the records of the case to Provincial Fiscal Salvani with his finding that "there is prima facie evidence of robbery as charge in the complaint". .The argument.A special civil action of mandamus was filed in the RTC by Provincial Fiscal Salvani against Judge Samulde to compel the latter to issue a warrant of arrest. the investigating judge did not believe there was any danger of the accused absconding before the filing of the information against him by the fiscal." Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized.Also without appreciable merit is petitioners' other argument that there was scarcely time to determine probable cause against sixty-four persons (the fourteen petitioners and fifty "Does") within a matter of hours on a Saturday when municipal trial courts are open only from 8:00 a. he found no need to place him under immediate custody. PAGE 43] LIM vFELIX 194 SCRA 292 GUTIERREZ. Reasoning The mandatory provision that the investigating judge "must issue a warrant of arrest" if he finds probable cause that the respondent committed the crime charged. Sr. He pointed out that under Sec 6. Masbate). Dispositive Warrants against petitioners upheld. Judge Samulde appealed to this Court. upon the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. be voided.m. although he found that a probable cause existed.

July 31. Mayor Susana Lim of Masbate. therefore. Florencio T. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. Sr..August 29. 2. 1989: records of the case were transmitted to Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate. houses. Mayor Nestor C. The case was raffled to Judge Nemesio Felix. . 1989. the Lims reiterated that the court conduct a hearing to determine if there really exists a prima facie case against them in the light of documents which are recantations of some witnesses in the preliminary investigation. If a Judge relies solely on the certification of the Prosecutor as in this case where all the records of the investigation are in Masbate. . In doing so. 1967 . . Reasoning . with serious physical injuries). four (4) separate informations of murder against the twelve (12) accused with a recommendation of no bail. (Constitution) The right of the people to be secure in their persons. He could not possibly have known what transpired in Masbate as he had nothing but a certification .Art. on the basis thereof. June 19. he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. .What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.For the purpose of preliminary investigation.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . among others. a2010 page 72 Prof. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. Fiscal Alfane filed with the Regional Trial Court of Masbate. Dispositive Petition is granted. 1990 without having before him any other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause. rigors and embarrassment of trial . Lim and Mayor Antonio Kho of the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder in connection with the airport incident. The constitutional requirement has not been satisfied. ISSUE WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the prosecution's certification and recommendation that a probable cause exists.In another manifestation. otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examinations and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts. the Judge abuses that discretion when having no evidence before him. III. he or she may have no more time for his or her more important judicial functions. Respondent Acting Fiscal Antonio C. he issues a warrant of arrest. There was no basis for the respondent Judge to make his own personal determination regarding the existence of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest as mandated by the Constitution. . and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. The determination is made by the Provincial Prosecutor. . The Judge commits a grave abuse of discretion. Nonilon A.The problem lies with warrants of arrest especially in metropolitan or highly urban areas. TSg (Legaspi) filed an amended complaint with the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate accusing. The preliminary investigation proper .The determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge.. he or she has not personally determined probable cause. Vicente Lim. However. HELD NO Ratio A Judge is not precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible officers. the designated investigator. thereby placing it beyond the competence of mere Court Rule or Statute to revoke. 2.The power to make a preliminary examination for the purpose of determining whether probable cause exists to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest (or search warrant) has been and remains vested in every judge by the provisions in the Bill of Rights in the 1935. . An order be issued requiring the transmittal of the initial records of the preliminary inquiry or investigation conducted by the Municipal Judge Barsaga of Masbate for the best enlightenment of this Honorable Court in its personal determination of the existence of a probable cause or prima facie evidence as well as its determination of the existence of guilt.Sound policy dictates this procedure. Sec. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.is the function of the Prosecutor. Fernandez. .Lims then prayed for the following: 1. issue a warrant of arrest. Fernandez. The respondent court issued an order denying for lack of merit. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Jolly T. the 1973 and the present [1987] Constitutions securing the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.Respondent Judge committed a grave error when he relied solely on the Prosecutor's certification and issued the questioned Order dated July 5. On September 22. Fiscal Alfane issued a Resolution which affirmed the finding of a prima facie case against the petitioners but differed in the designation of the crime (he said it should be MURDER for each case. The extent of the reliance depends on the circumstances of each case and is subject to the Judge's sound discretion.whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and. Bagalihog. Alfane was designated to review the case. pursuant to the mandatory mandate of the constitution that no warrant shall issue unless the issuing magistrate shall have himself been personally convinced of such probable cause. Movants be given ample opportunity to file their motion for preliminary investigation as a matter of right. Harry O. Court granted the petition. . Tantiado.Respondents Lims filed a verified petition for a change of venue. If a Judge has to personally question each complainant and witness or go over the records of the Prosecutor's investigation page by page and word for word before he acts on each of a big pile of applications for arrest warrants on his desk. Following established doctrine and procedures. Jr. 1989: after the preliminary investigation court released an order stating after that a probable cause has been established for the issuance of a warrant of arrest of named accused in the amended complaint. STONEHILL v DIOKNO 20 SCRA 383 CONCEPCION. .The records of the preliminary investigation conducted by the Municipal Court of Masbate and reviewed by the respondent Fiscal were still in Masbate when the respondent Fiscal issued the warrants of arrest against the petitioners. . or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. whether or not he should be subjected to the expense.

1. to search the persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices. specific offense had been alleged in said applications. papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations. documents and things seized from the offices of the corporations above mentioned are concerned. NO. FACTS -Upon application of the respondents-prosecutors. Jr. portfolios. accused in certain deportation cases -Respondents-prosecutors: DOJ Sec Jose W. balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers)” as "the subject of the offense. to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision. warehouses and/or residences. 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court by providing in the Revised Rules of Court that "no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense. NONE. Judge Hermogenes Caluag of CFI Rizal Quezon City Branch. issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had committed offenses as abstract as "violation of Central Bank Laws. ~marge~*) Procedure: -March 22. vouchers. (2) that the defects of said warrants. prohibition. Briones & Paras dissented from the majority opinion. injunction. -1935 Constitution (Art. but. Cenzon. Judge Eulogio Mencias of CFI Rizal. WON said documents. WON the search warrants in question. and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. -General search warrants are outlawed because they place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims. -June 29. People's Court. and (3) that. and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question into two (2) major groups: (a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations. -The non-exclusionary rule is contrary. typewriters. It was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause. But. are valid (and. -Search warrants. -Petitioners may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents. journals. papers. NOTE: The ponencia splits the documents. NBI Acting Director Jose Lukban." or "used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense" of "violation of Central Bank Laws. . Stonehill. then it is not possible for the Judge to find that there is probable cause. Sec. insofar as the papers. Pasig Branch. WON petitioners have a cause of action 2. Diokno.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales NATURE Original action in the SC. ledgers. SC amended Sec. then. as long as it is relevant. not only to the letter. Brooks and Karl Beck. were cured by petitioners' consent. Special Prosecutors Pedro D. hence. no justification for the issuance of the warrant. that the searches and seizures made in pursuance thereof are illegal. mandamus. respondents-judges issued a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners and/or the corporations of which they were officers. As regards the first group. stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense. and Manila City Asst. and (b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners. Judge Roman Cansino of the Municipal (now City) Court of Manila. a2010 page 73 Prof. Reyes -Repondents-judges: Judge Amado Roan of the Municipal (now City) Court of Manila. since the right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations. the effects seized are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners. 2. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code" do not satisfy the constitutional requirements because no -The exclusionary rule is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. which presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. financial records. and to seize and take possession of “books of accounts. Bengzon. The only possible explanation (not justification) for its issuance is the necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a crime. As regards the second group. as contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court. 3) provides (a) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. and the searches and seizures made under the authority thereof. Efren I. Plana and Manuel Villareal. and that evidences obtained therein are consequently inadmissible. Brooks. Respondents/prosecutors’ comments (1) that the contested search warrants are valid and have been issued in accordance with law. and. directed to the any peace officer. Tariff and Customs Laws. and (b) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. caprice or passion of peace officers. regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal contravene the explicit command of the Bill of Rights that the things to be seized should be particularly described and defeat its major objective of eliminating general warrants. If he has no such evidence. Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code. -To prevent the issuance of general search warrants. Tariff and Customs Laws. 1962: SC issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for in the petition. Certiorari. and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts. (*The latter case (citing Wigmore) held that illegally seized evidence is admissible. papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners) HELD 1. regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures. 80 Phil. in any event. 1962: the writ was partially lifted or dissolved. par. Robert P. credit journals. or committed specific omissions in violation of a given penal provision. but without prejudice to the criminal liability of the peace officers who made the seizure. if any. receipts. to whom the seized effects belong. -Petitioners: Harry S." -Search warrants authorizing the seizure of books of accounts and records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein. but also. correspondence. for violation of domicile or under any other provision of the Penal Code. this fishing expedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to establish a probable cause. and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity." Petitioners claim that the aforementioned search warrants are null and void. documents and things found and seized in the residences of petitioners. 1. -The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. to the spirit of the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. Justices Perfecto. then there is no reason why the applicant should not comply with the requirements of the fundamental law. the injunction was maintained as regards the papers. and Judge Damian Jimenez of the Municipal (now City) Court of Quezon City. Fiscal Maneses G. John J. -SC resolved to adopt the doctrine in Mapp v Ohio (1961) and to finally abandon the 1948 ruling in Moncado vs. ISSUES 1. If there is competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime by the party against whom the warrant is intended. III.

-He argues that assuming that the petitioners have no legal standing to ask for the suppression of the papers. in this case are admittedly general. and. a2010 page 74 Prof. and the searches and seizures were illegal and remain illegal. papers and effects seized in the places other than the three residences adverted to above. The three warrants excepted named three corporate defendants. SEPARATE OPINION . not in their petition or amended petition. -SC. chooses to suspend its enjoyment.” *The exclusion of the evidence which an accused had been forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure is the most important constitutional privilege. especially the Federal Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. doctrines and pertinent cases on standing to move for the suppression or return of documents. -SC disposed of them by saying that this new theory was advanced. 1968 FACTS . the petitioners have full standing to move for the quashing of all the warrants regardless whether these were directed against residences in the narrow sense of the word. -Thus.of premises searched gives "standing". Candido Patosa. In some of them. CASTRO [concurring and dissenting] -Reasoning that the petitioners have not in their pleadings satisfactorily demonstrated that they have legal standing to move for the suppression of the documents. Judge Learned Hand: “Only in case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials.by removing the incentive to disregard it. to be revocable at the whim of any police officer who. but in the MR. in the many years of judicial construction and interpretation of the said constitutional provision. Obiter -In their MFR.” 3. *The purpose of the exclusionary rule to "is to deter -. founded on reason and truth. At any rate. whether from their residences or corporate offices or any other place or places. at all events. alter or otherwise modify the intrinsic nullity of the search warrants and the intrinsic illegality of the searches and seizures made thereunder. gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled. and (b) purely corporate papers belonging to corporations. papers and effects which are the fruits of an unlawful search and seizure. this cannot in any manner affect." -An examination of the search warrants in this case will readily show that. -The U. and the searches and seizures made were therefore unlawful.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Foreign references cited to support this contention 1. and (c) the "aggrieved person" doctrine where the search warrant and the sworn application for search warrant are "primarily" directed solely and exclusively against the "aggrieved person. Whether or not the petitioners possess legal standing the said warrants are void and remain void. papers and effects that were seized from places other than their family residences. inadmissible in a State court. MR denied. But the "office/house/warehouse/premises" mentioned in the said three warrants were also the same as those declared to be owned by or under the control of the petitioners in all the other search warrants. -He says that All the search warrants. without exception.A criminal action was commenced by T-Sgt. I submit that the grouping should be: (a) personal or private papers of the petitioners. knows that it cannot profit by their wrong will that wrong be repressed. as long as the documents were personal papers of the petitioners or (to the extent that they were corporate papers) were held by them in a personal capacity or under their personal control. the opinion written by the Chief Justice refrains from expressly declaring as null and void the such warrants served at such other places and as illegal the searches and seizures made therein." gives "standing. and leaves "the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future. "the President and/or General Manager" of the particular corporation.” 2." *We can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise. things and effects seized from places other than their residences. excepting three. November 29.S. by that same authority. Dispositive Writs granted in part and denied in part. -He insists that. The uncontradicted sworn statements of the petitioners in their. that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice. our courts have invariably regarded as doctrinal the pronouncement made on the Fourth Amendment by federal courts." LUNA v PLAZA 26 SCRA 310 ZALDIVAR. blanket and roving warrants and are therefore admittedly and indisputably outlawed by the Constitution. papers and effects found in the offices of the corporation. various pleadings submitted to this Court indisputably show that amongst the things seized from the corporate offices and other places were personal and private papers and effects belonging to the petitioners. upon the pleadings submitted to SC." -It is with this position that Justice Castro is not in accord. -Since our constitutional provision on searches and seizures was derived almost verbatim from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. it is best to leave the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future. are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land. all were directed against the petitioners personally. no matter where these were seized. praiseworthy as they are. should order the return to the petitioners all personal and private papers and effects seized. Mapp v Ohio (1961): “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is. may be summarized as follows: (a) ownership of documents. PC investigator against Simon Luna. Our decision. to the courts. papers and things which where the objects of the unlawful searches and seizures. and the alleged "personal" nature thereof. Weeks v US (1914): “The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment. by filing with respondent Municipal Judge Lorenzo M. (b) ownership and/or control or possession – actual or constructive -. followed by the designation. papers and effects gives "standing. petitioners further alleged possession of and control over the records. *Without that rule the freedom from state invasions of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to permit this Court's high regard as a freedom “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. -If there should be any categorization of the documents.to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way -. the petitioners have the requisite legal standing to move for the suppression and return of the documents. the petitioners were named personally. in the name of law enforcement itself.

two specific duties. . his age. must to a great degree depend upon the Judge making the investigation. the subject. etc.. Candido Patosa. YES.Supporting the complaint were sworn statements of the witnesses for the prosecution. 3828 does not prohibit the municipal Judge from adopting the questions asked by a previous investigator. and the witnesses-affiants declared before said Judge that the questions were propounded by TSgt. .The questions. that of reducing to writing the said procedure of adoption. and that petitioner's application for bail constituted a waiver of the right to question the validity of the arrest." The record also shows there were documents to have been subscribed and sworn to before respondent Judge. a2010 page 75 Prof. together with the postmortem and autopsy report on the dead body of the victim Jaime Diaz Ng. and the issuance of the warrant of arrest was in violation of said Act and the Constitution and constituted denial of due process. and praying for the annulment of the order for his arrest and his discharge from confinement. ISSUES 1. . respondent Judge later revoked. granting bail. to which the witnesses answered in the affirmative. NO . The points that are the subject of inquiry may differ from case to case. to wit: (1) personally examine the complainant and witnesses with "searching questions and answers.The case was subsequently remanded to the CFI of Surigao del Sur." such questions as have tendency to show the commission of a crime and the perpetrator thereof. . What would be searching questions would depend on what is sought to be inquired into. 2.The second condition was also fulfilled. and petitioner was denied bail. WON the issuance of the warrant of arrest was a violation of the Constitution and of procedural due process. with the crime of murder.As provided in Republic Act No. and whether the same answers were true. social attitudes. and place of its commission.The third condition was likewise fulfilled. (3) the examination must be reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers. .The CFI of Surigao del Sur ruled that respondent Municipal Judge had substantially complied with Republic Act No. under the rules and precedents. in the form of searching questions and answers. and (2) said examination must be reduced to writing and form part of the records of the case. specifying therein that no bail should be accepted for the provisional release of the accused. the sketch showing the position of the victim and the accused. The term “searching questions and answers" means only. family responsibilities. The petitioner was detained in the provincial jail. characteristics.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Plaza. And assuming that the adoption of the questions made by T-Sgt. which he read over again to the witnesses together with the answers given therein. the victim. which order. 3828 Before a municipal judge may issue a warrant of arrest. that respondent judge adopted as his own personal examination the questions asked by T-Sgt. and consequently denied the application for the writ of habeas corpus. Republic Act No. 3828. financial and social circumstances. still the second requirement. who also signed after the usual procedure of administering the oath. (2) the examination must be under oath. asking the witnesses whether said answers were theirs.Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the CFI of Surigao del Sur. education. taking into consideration the purpose of the preliminary examination which is to determine "whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that an offense has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof so that a warrant of arrest may be issued and the accused held for trial. and not a petition for habeas corpus was the proper remedy.The first condition was fulfilled. . has not been compiled with. Patosa as appearing in the written statements. The trial court found as a fact that "the respondent judge personally examined the witnesses for the prosecution. The examination of the witnesses was written down. and the findings of facts of the trial . . after petitioner filed a waiver of his right to preliminary investigation. . Since petitioner appealed directly to this Court he must. . Petitioner’s Claim Republic Act No. status. in the form of questions and answers taken by T-Sgt. The trial court found that the complaint was "supported by statements of the witnesses under oath. on the ground that the imprisonment and detention was the result of a warrant of arrest issued by respondent Judge in violation of Republic Act No. that a motion to quash. time. .Respondent Provincial Fiscal filed an information charging petitioner with the crime of murder. Republic Act No. . the possible motives for its commission.As a general rule. such as: the nature of the offense.Hence the appeal.Respondent Judge issued the order and warrant of arrest. financial and social circumstances. . WON the requirements of Republic Act No. 3828 had been substantially complied with. 2. however. 3828 was satisfied. . the following conditions must first be fulfilled: (1) he must examine the witnesses personally. court.Upon motion of petitioner upon the ground that the evidence of guilt was not strong. therefore." which means that the judge must cross-examine them in case their affidavits are presented. Patosa. Patosa constituted substantial compliance with the requirement that the judge should examine the witnesses by asking searching questions. the respondent Judge opine that there was reasonable ground to believe that the crime of murder had been committed and the amused was probably guilty thereof. raise only questions of law and he has thereby waived the right to raise any question of fact. before he can issue a warrant of arrest. alleging that Republic Act Nor. . the certificate of death. WON the trial court erred in giving absolute credence to the testimony of respondent Municipal Judge. . 3828. his age.Respondents filed their answer. and that the answers were made by them. the date.Considering the answers of the affiants to the. and dismissed the case. The record of the instant case. HELD 1. must be deemed final and binding upon this Court. 3828 was still violated. claiming that he was being deprived of liberty without due process of law. his attitude toward the investigation. opportunities to commit the offense. questions contained in their sworn statements. 3828 imposes on a municipal judge. of the Municipal Court of Tandag. and subscribed and sworn to before the respondent Judge at the time of the filing of the complaint. 4.The affiants signed their respective affidavits in the presence of the respondent Judge. and so. charging the petitioner.The respondent Judge examined the prosecution witnesses by reading to them "all over again the questions and answers" in their statements in writing. as to the credibility of witnesses will not be interfered with by appellate courts. status. Patosa. WON the trial court erred in denying the writ of habeas corpus. 3. . the lower court's findings. At . respondent Judge issued an order. does not show that said examination was performed by respondent Judge notwithstanding his testimony to the effect that he adopted the questions propounded to each of the prosecution witnesses by T-Sgt.

They had conflicting versions of the accident. leaving short tire marks behind it.He switched on his headlights to signal the car to return to its own right lane as the way was not clear for it to overtake the truck..The constitutional requirement of examination of witnesses under oath was.May 2.The record shows that herein petitioner waived the preliminary investigation before respondent Municipal Judge. . 1965: Parties figured in a vehicular accident which caused injuries to their persons and damage to their respective vehicles. he noticed. But before doing so. .. Republic Act No. fulfilled.The remedy available to the petitioner herein. he first saw to it that the road was clear and as additional precautionary measure.1972: Petitioners filled a "Manifestation". although petitioner did question the a2010 page 76 Prof. and damage to property thru reckless imprudence.February 13. Article III.Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides in part. or make the order. . 3828 which was found to be untenable. Costs against petitionerappellant. 1989 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS . . 4 When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. as amended by Republic Act No. The jeep's rear left wheel was on the road. 4. This conduct of petitioner indicates that he had waived his objection to whatever defect. as shown above. 409.. even. the writ shall not be allowed . double less serious physical injuries. as stated in his order of arrest. to confine petitioner in the provincial jail." so the respondent Judge adopted them. a speeding oncoming car along the same lane he was driving. Respodents’ Version Juanito Rosario who was driving the car. admitting the allegations in the "Request for Admission" with some qualifications. both parties submitted their respective memoranda. NO .May 5.Rosario was prosecuted and convicted by the trial court in the criminal case. August 21. in Section 1 (3).Preliminary examination is not an essential part of due process of law.Petitioner is detained and is in the custody of the respondent Provincial Warden by virtue of the order of arrest and the order of respondent Judge. " . is not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus but a petition to quash the warrant of arrest or a petition for a reinvestigation of the case by the respondent Municipal Judge or by the Provincial Fiscal. ..September 29: While this case was pending. The signal was disregarded. while the car left long tire marks.That practice is precisely what is sought to be voided by the amendment of Section 87 (c) of Republic Act 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948) which requires that before a municipal judge issues a warrant of arrest he should first satisfy himself that there is a probable cause by examining the witnesses personally. the Provincial Fiscal filed an information against Rosario. the court a quo found that respondent Judge was "satisfied that the questions and answers contained in the sworn statements taken by T-Sgt. under the circumstances stated in this opinion. from a distance of 120 meters more or less.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales any rate. and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process .December 28. were along MacArthur Highway going southwards. Later.June 30: Petitioners instituted a civil case for the recovery of damages for the injuries sustained and for the damage to the vehicle in CFI Manila. in CFI Urdaneta. . . CASTILLO v CA (ROSARIO) 176 SCRA 591 FERNAN. CA acquitted him from the crime charged on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. of the accused.To evade the collision. Patosa partake of the nature of his searching questions and answers as required by law. dismissing the complaint of the petitioners against private respondents as well as the counterclaim of private respondents against the petitioners. . CFI Manila rendered a decision. Just past San Nicolas bridge. immediately after the impact. requesting petitioners to admit the truthfulness of the facts set forth as well as the correctness and genuineness of the documents attached. leaving his feet on it. prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest. It is not disputed by petitioner that respondent Judge had jurisdiction to issue the warrant of arrest and the order of commitment under the provisions of Section 47. . validity of the warrant of arrest for allegedly having been issued in violation of Republic Act No. . . The car rested on the shoulder of the right lane. and instead. 1201. their statements before a person or persons other than the judge before whom the criminal complaint is filed. Respondent Judge found that there was a probable cause. . . specially its left rear wheel. and that the examination must be under oath and reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers. in the preliminary examination conducted by respondent Judge prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest. 1972: On the basis of the testimonies and evidence submitted by the petitioners. as the car proceeded on its direction.All the conditions. .It is obvious that the purpose of this amendment is to prevent the issuance of a warrant of arrest against a person based simply upon affidavits of witnesses who made. with his wife and daughter. or in the absence.The Court stressed that what has been stated in the opinion was not intended to sanction the return to the former practice of municipal judges of simply relying upon affidavits or sworn statements that are made to accompany the complaints that are filed before them. was affirmed. he riled a petition for bail. . he swerved his jeep to the right towards the shoulder and applied on the brakes.The Constitution. to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Preliminary examination may be conducted by the municipal judge. 1978: CA affirmed Petitioners’ Version Bernabe Castillo was driving his jeep on the northbound lane of the McArthur Highway with his wife. The truck was moving very slowly because of its heavy load so that Rosario decided to overtake it. and child at the rate of 25 kph. . Dispositive The decision of the trial court appealed from.. for double physical injuries. father. They saw ahead of them a big heavily loaded cargo truck. set forth to deny the writ. If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge .April 3. in the afore-quoted Section 4. as follows: "Sec. The existence of probable cause depended to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. either in the presence. private respondent.. in determining whether there is a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. . and swore to. 3. 1972: Respondents filed a "Request for Admission" in the civil case. NO . as well as the records of the criminal case attached in the "Request for Admission" of the private respondents. overtaking a cargo truck ahead of it. are present in the instant case. provides that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. . if any.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
he blew his horn several times at the time he was overtaking the truck. - As the car was about to overtake the slow moving cargo truck, the car's front left tire suddenly burst due to pressure causing the car to swerve to the left and naturally making steering and control difficult. - Because of the tendency of the car to veer towards the left due to the blown out tire, the driver steered the car towards the direction where he could find a safe place to park and fix the tire. He finally brought the car to a halt at the left shoulder of the road. - Just as he was about to get off to fix the flat tire, the car was suddenly bumped by the jeep which came from the opposite direction ISSUE WON petitioners were deprived of due process because their civil action was decided on the basis of private respondent Juanita Rosario's acquittal in the criminal case for reckless imprudence HELD NO Ratio Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and on the Supreme Court, unless (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admission of both appellant and appellee; (6) the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (7) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (9) when the finding of facts of the Court of Appeals is premised on the absence of evidence and is contradicted by evidence on record. Reasoning - The subject action for damages, being civil in nature, is separate and distinct from the criminal aspect, necessitating only a preponderance of evidence. - A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code, with a substantively all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime. A distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-

a2010

page 77

Prof.
counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Dispositive Petition denied

contractual. The same negligence causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for quasidelictos or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case. - But this rule is not without exception. Thus, Section 2 (c) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides: Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration from a final judgment that the fact from which the civil action might arise did not exist. - In a previous case, CA-G.R. No. 07684-CR, People v. Rosario, the CA after a painstaking analysis of. (a) the testimonial evidence; (b) the relative positions of the two vehicles as depicted in the sketches; (c) the distance of each of the two vehicles from the cemented edge of the road; (d) the point of impact; (e) the visible tire marks, and (f) the extent of the damage caused upon each of the two vehicles, ruled that it was the driver of the jeep and not the accused driver of the car who was negligent and accordingly acquitted the latter. - Negligence, being the source and foundation of actions of quasi-delict, is the basis for the recovery of damages. In the case at bar, the CA found that collision was not due to the negligence of Rosario but rather it was Castillo's own act of driving the jeep to the shoulder of the road where the car was, which was actually the proximate cause of the collision. With this finding, the CA exonerated Rosario from civil liability on the ground that the alleged negligence did not exist. - During the trial of the case before the CFI, respondents were not present because they were abroad. Their counsel introduced as part of their evidence, the records in the criminal case, in accordance with Section 41, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. These records, mostly composed of transcripts of the hearing in the criminal case, were attached to their "Request for Admission" and were substantially admitted by petitioners. Petitioners raised, as one of their objections, the propriety and correctness of admitting and adopting these transcripts as part of the record in the civil case. According to them, this is a violation of Section 41, Rule 130, on the ground that petitioners were not given the opportunity to cross-examine. We disagree. A careful reading of the transcripts would reveal that counsel for petitioners actively participated during the proceedings of the criminal case. He raised various objections, in the course of the trial. Petitioners, therefore, thru

CALLANTA v VILLANUEVA 77 SCRA 377 FERNANDO; June 20, 1977
NATURE Original petitions in the Supreme Court, certiorari with preliminary injunction FACTS - Judge Villanueva of Dagupan refused to grant the motions to quash two complaints for oral defamation against Callanta. - Callanta’s counsel argued that there was an issue with regard to the validity of Villanueva’s issuance of the warrants of arrest on the ground that it should have been the City Fiscal who conducted the preliminary investigation. - After the warrants were issued (with bail pegged at P600), Callanta posted the required bail bonds and was granted her provisional liberty. - The City Fiscal had manifested his intent to prosecute the case. - February 25, 1965 – After the Court had conducted preliminary investigation and had acquired jurisdiction over the case, the Court referred the case to the Fiscal. - March 4, 1965 – The arraignment was postponed because the Fiscal was still doing his investigation. - In the proceedings of April 20, 1965, the Fiscal entered his appearance for the government and manifested that he was ready for trial. ISSUE WON Callanta can contest the validity of his arrest HELD NO Ratio Posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending the arrest of a person and estops him from discussing the validity of his arrest. Reasoning - In the case of Luna vs. Plaza, the Court held that where petitioner has filed an application for bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper, he waived his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary examination conducted, prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
- This doctrine has been upheld in a number of cases including People vs. Olandar, Zacarias vs. Cruz, Bermejo vs. Barrios, People vs. La Caste, Manzano vs Villa and People vs. Obngayan which stated that where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper, he has waived whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest. - The city fiscal had been quite active in the investigation and in the prosecution of the accused. It was he who manifested his readiness to appear in the trial. Obiter - With regard to the issue of whether or not the only person vested with authority to conduct a preliminary investigation is the city fiscal, the Charter of the City of Dagupan provides that “the City Court of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary investigation for for any offense, without regard to the limits of punishment and may release or commit any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court. Dispositive WHEREFORE, these petitions for certiorari are dismissed. The restraining order issued by this Court is lifted and set aside. Costs against petitioner.

a2010

page 78

Prof.
that the books (etc) relating to the activities of . . . as usurer, are being kept and concealed in the house. . . all of which is contrary to the statute of law." ISSUE WON the search warrant and the seizure were illegal HELD YES -Reason 1: it appears that the affidavits, which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrants, are insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oaths were made and, therefore, it is hereby held that the search warrants in question and the subsequent seizure of the documents and papers are illegal and do not in any way warrant the deprivation to which the petitioners were subjected. -The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. The true test of sufficiency of an 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. -Sec 1, par 3, of Art III, Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Sec 97 of General Orders No. 58: "A search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized." - Both provisions require that there be not only probable cause before the issuance of a search warrant but that the search warrant must be based upon an application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. In its broadest sense, an oath includes any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully.

SEPARATE OPINION AQUINO [concurring]
- Sec. 77 of the Dagupan City charter expressly empowers its city court (formerly municipal court) to conduct preliminary investigation for any offense, without regard to the limits of punishment. - Every justice of the peace, municipal judge (meaning city judge), city or provincial fiscal, shall have authority to conduct preliminary examination or investigation in accordance with these rules of all offenses alleged to have been committed within his municipality, city or province, cognizable by the Court of First Instance (Sec. 87 of the Judiciary Law and Sec. 2, Rule 112).

RODRIGUEZ v VILLAMIEL 65 Phil 230 IMPERIAL; DEC 23, 1937
FACTS -Victor Villamiel, special agent for the Anti-Usury Board, made two affidavits for the purpose of obtaining search warrants against Rodriguez and

Evangelista. The text of both affidavits reads as follows: "Victor D. Villamiel… having taken the oath prescribed by law, appears and states: that he has and there is just and probable cause to believe and he does believe that the books, lists, chits, receipts, documents, and other papers relating to the activities of Juan Evangelista, as usurer, are being kept and concealed in the house of said Juan Evangelista situated at Lucena, Tayabas, all of which is contrary to the statute of law." -The justice of the peace of the provincial capital issued the two search warrants against the petitioners (see original for the wording of the warrant) -Villamiel, with other agents and a constabulary soldier, executed the warrants, went to the residences of the petitioners, searched them and seized documents and papers belonging to petitioners. Villamiel issued a receipt to each of the petitioners, without specifying the documents and papers seized by him, which were taken to his office in Manila, keeping them there until he was ordered by the CFI to deposit them in the office of the clerk of court. -Petitioners filed a petition praying that the search warrants be declared null and void and illegal; that Villamiel be punished for contempt of court for having conducted the searches and for having seized the documents and papers without issuing detailed receipts and for not having turned them over to the court, and that said documents and papers be ordered returned to the petitioners. -the CFI found Villamiel guilty of contempt of court and fined him P10. The court declared the search warrants and the seizure of the documents and papers VALID, authorizing the agents of the AntiUsury Board to examine them and retain those that are necessary and material to whatever criminal action they may wish to bring against the petitioners. -Petitioners appealed. They contend that the search warrants issued by the court are illegal because they have been based on the affidavits of special agent Villamiel wherein he affirmed and stated that he had no personal knowledge of the facts that were to serve as basis for the issuance of the search warrants, but merely confined himself to asserting that he believed and there was probable cause to believe that the documents and papers were related to the activities of the petitioners as usurers. As has been seen, the special agent's affirmation in this respect consisted merely in the following: "that he has and there is just and probable cause to believe and he does believe

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
-Reason 2: At the hearing of the case, it was shown that the documents and papers had really been seized to enable the Anti-Usury Board to conduct an investigation and later use all or some of them as evidence against the petitioners in the criminal cases that may be brought against them. The seizure of books and documents by means of a search warrant, for the purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal case against the person in whose possession they were found, is unconstitutional because it makes the warrant unreasonable, and it is equivalent to a violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to testify against himself Therefore, it appearing that the documents and papers were seized for the purpose of fishing for evidence to be used against the petitioners in the criminal proceedings for violation of the Anti-Usury Law which might be instituted against them, this court holds that the search warrants issued are illegal and that the documents and papers should be returned to them. - Definition and rationale of search warrant: A search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the Philippine Islands, signed by a judge or a justice of the peace, and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before the court. Of all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves the exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.

a2010

page 79

Prof.
3, Project 6, Quezon City and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. Objection is interposed to the execution of Search Warrant No. 20-82[b] at the latter address on the ground that the two search warrants pinpointed only one place where petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was allegedly keeping and concealing the articles listed therein, i.e., No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City. > although the warrants were directed against Jose Burgos, Jr. alone, articles belonging to his copetitioners Jose Burgos, Sr., Bayani Soriano and the J. Burgos Media Services, Inc. were seized. > real properties were seized under the disputed warrants. > that documents relied on by respondents could not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a probable cause upon which a warrant may validly issue in accordance with Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution ISSUES WON the two search warrants are: 1. defective for stating only one and the same place to be searched 2. null and void for including properties not owned by the person named in the warrants 3. null and void for including real properties 4. null and void for being violative of the constitution, thus encroaching on petitioners' fundamental rights HELD 1. NO - The defect pointed out is a typographical error. Two search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search two distinct premises. The addresses of the places sought to be searched were specifically set forth in the application, and since it was Col. Abadilla himself who headed the team which executed the search warrants, the ambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the typographical error is more apparent than real. - In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity, it has been held "that the executing officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant. This would seem to be especially true where the executing officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued, and when he knows that the judge who issued the warrant intended the building described in the affidavit. And it has also been said that the executing

BURGOS SR v CHIEF OF STAFF 133 SCRA 800 ESCOLIN; December 26, 1984
NATURE Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction FACTS - December 7, 1982 Judge Ernani Cruz-Paño CFI Rizal [Quezon City], issued two search warrants under

which the premises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City, business address of Metropolitan Mail newspaper, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business address of the "We Forum" newspaper were searched. - office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, were seized. - The questioned search warrants were issued by respondent judge upon application of Col. Rolando N. Abadilla, Intelligence Officer of the P.C. Metrocom. The application was accompanied by the Joint Affidavit of Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U. Tango, members of the Metrocom Intelligence and Security Group under Col. Abadilla which conducted a surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the application for the search warrants on December 7, 1982. - Respondents aver that the case should be dismissed on the ground that petitioners had come to SC without having previously sought the quashal of the search warrants before the issuing judge. But this procedural flaw notwithstanding, SC took cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues raised, not to mention the public interest generated by the search. - Respondents likewise urge dismissal of the petition on ground of laches, since said search warrants were issued on December 7, 1982, but the instant petition impugning the same was filed only on June 16, 1983. However, SC found that the extrajudicial efforts exerted by petitioners quite evidently negate the presumption that they had abandoned their right to the possession of the seized property, thereby refuting the charge of laches against them. Petitioners' Claims > Petitioners fault respondent judge for his alleged failure to conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses, as mandated by the constitution as well as Sec. 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. However, SC found that as petitioners themselves conceded during the hearing on August 9, 1983, that an examination had indeed been conducted by respondent judge of Col. Abadilla and his witnesses, this issue is moot and academic. > Search Warrants No. 20-82[a] and No. 20-82[b] were used to search two distinct places: No. 19, Road

Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. the first speaker. were presented by the defense in support of the accused’s denial of the charge against him.” ISSUES 1. the premises were padlocked and sealed. therefore.6 of the Rules of Court. and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print. All articles seized thereunder are ordered released to petitioners.38 caliber S & W. receptables. PEOPLE v BURGOS 144 SCRA 1 GUTIERREZ. 1986 NATURE Appeal from RTC decision convicting Ruben Burgos of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion FACTS . under Rule 113 Sec. And when the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials. WON the arrest was lawful and WON the search of his house and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and documents conducted in a lawful manner. he was beaten. the police were able to locate and retrieve the said firearm. while in fact bolted to the ground remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant. the fact that “the authorities received an urgent report of accused's involvement in subversive activities from a reliable source (report of Cesar Masamlok) the circumstances of his arrest. 6(a) of Rule 113 and applicable jurisprudence on the matter. 1982 are null and void. 3. NO .” If the arrest is valid. is lawfully within the ambit of Sec.III Sec. It may or may not be owned by him. .In mandating that "no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge.To prove accused’s subversive activities. The rule does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. WON there is enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. enumerates the personal properties that may be seized under a search warrant. .2 of the Constitution safeguards against wanton and unreasonable invasion of the privacy thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. . were also able to retrieve alleged subversive documents (a notebook and a pamphlet) hidden underground a few meters away from the house.As a consequence of the search and seizure. HELD 1. CFI. . said very distinctly that he is an NPA together with his companions. Masamlok to join the NPA. Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law. who was plowing his field at the time. Ownership. ." 2. YES . the team was able to locate Ruben Burgos. but after questioning the accused’s wife.Prosecution version: Upon obtaining information from one Cesar Masamlok. The threat to his life and family forced . a team was dispatched the following day to arrest Burgos. Masamlok testified that accused came to his house and told him to join the NPA or his family will be killed along with him. 2. of the existence of probable cause.Section 2. a .Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code . 12. Mere generalization will not suffice." . To prove illegal possession. with the further result that the printing and publication of said newspapers were discontinued. It stated that even if there was no warrant for the arrest of Burgos. the machineries in question. NO Art.On the other hand. the consequent search and seizure of the firearm and the alleged subversive documents would become an incident to a lawful arrest as provided by Rule 126.Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. buried in the ground below their house. the brother of accused. The police. who personally and voluntarily surrendered to the Davao del Sur police HQ stating that accused Ruben Burgos forcibly recruited him to join the NPA with the use of a firearm against his life. Urbana claimed that it was Masamlok who left the firearm there. He later attended an NPA seminar where Burgos. tortured. SC ruled that "the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses. the accused denied possession of it.the search warrants are in the nature of general warrants. to assure the unity of the civilian. In Alvarez v.The RTC after considering the evidences presented by both prosecution and defense convicted accused Ruben Burgos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of subversion. the application and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification. NO . as in the case at bar. Sept. Dispositive Search Warrants Nos. instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works" are considered immovable property. . not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. even without judicial warrant. 20-82[a] and 2082[b] issued by respondent judge on December 7. The RTC justified the warrantless arrest as falling under one of the circumstances when arrests may be validly made without a warrant. Through the help of Pedro Burgos. is of no consequence. . Petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed. This being the case. That he encouraged the group to overthrow the government. "machinery. .4. 4. 2 witnesses as well as Ruben’s wife Urbana. after accused pointed them to the location. “A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. mauled and subjected to physical agony. Sec. a person in charge of firearms and explosives of the PC HQ in Davao testified that accused was not among the list of firearm holders . because the purpose a2010 page 80 Prof. accused-appellants claims that he was taken to the PC barracks and when he denied ownership of the gun.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales officer may look to the affidavit in the official court file to resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to the place to be searched. and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized. He was forced to admit possession or ownership of the gun. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce” the Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified.When asked about the firearm.

NO. We find no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. Masamlok’s testimony was totally uncorroborated. The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to make a search therein. that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. The location of the firearm was given by Burgos’ wife. resulting in a number of casualties. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. Neither was he committing any act which could be described as subversive. the SC is not necessarily bound by the credibility which the trial court attaches to a particular witness. or that consent was given by the accused to be searched simply because he failed to object. Alvarez street. secondly. Accused Burgos is ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt. surrendered to the military. Consequently. certainly his fate depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the authorities. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful. The SolGen submits that the info given by Masamlok was sufficient to induce a reasonable ground that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. and the alleged subversive documents are inadmissible in evidence. it must appear first that the right exists. arresting the persons fingered by a hooded informer. Neither can it be presumed that there was a waiver. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The arrest being unlawful. As stated in People v Cabrera (100 SCRA 424): When it comes to question of credibility the findings of the trial court are entitled to great respect upon appeal for the obvious reason that it was able to observe the demeanor. they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime. There is no such personal knowledge in this case. however. . is committing. 2. To constitute a waiver. In the instant case. 1984.6 (a) of Rule 113. it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. the prosecution never presented any other witness.16 male occupants were arrested. Dispositive Judgment of conviction is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Likewise. nine rifle grenades. it is unlawful and therefore. The military also inventoried and confiscated nine M16 rifles.The military operation was commonly known and dreaded as a "zona. the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies. a contingent of more than two hundred Philippine marines and elements of the home defense forces raided the compound occupied by the petitioners at Gov. in search of loose firearms. that the person involved had knowledge. there is no showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. In this case. The soldiers returned fire and a bloody shoot-out ensued. Masamlok may be considered as an interested witness. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.The initial reaction of the people inside the compound was to resist the invasion with a burst of gunfire. in fact. and several rounds of ammunition found in the premises. The arrest of the accused while he was plowing his field is illegal. Burgos was not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document. Moreover.6(b) using the test of reasonableness." which was like the feared practice of the kempeitai during the Japanese Occupation of rounding up the people in a locality. and executing them outright (although the last part is not included in the modern refinement). That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition.6(b).The basis for the action taken by the arresting officer was the verbal report made by Masamlok who was not required to subscribe his allegations under oath. it came in its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. papers and effects. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest. one M14 rifle. despite the fact that there were other persons present during the alleged NPA seminar who could have corroborated Masamlok's testimony that the accused used the gun in furtherance of subversive activities or actually engaged in subversive acts. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted. the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report.On November 25. . which is inadequate to convict Burgos beyond reasonable doubt. ammunition and other explosives. . There was no compulsion for him to state truthfully his charges under pain of criminal prosecution. At the time of arrest. Since the extra-judicial confession. the only remaining proof to sustain the charge is the testimony of Masamlok. the need to go through the process of securing a search warrant and a warrant of arrest becomes even more clear. His testimony cannot be said to be free from the opportunity and temptation to be exaggerated and even fabricated for it was intended to secure his freedom. if indeed a2010 page 81 Prof.The SolGen believes that the arrest may still be considered lawful under Sec.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales and liberty of a citizen as to his person. the firearm. . There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. . But We have also said that this rule is not absolute for otherwise there would be no reversals of convictions upon appeal. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. the arrest was made without warrant and since it does not fall within the exceptions of arrests that can be made without a warrant. actuations and deportment of the witnesses during the trial. He was. 1987 NATURE Petition for prohibition and mandamus preliminary injunction and restraining order with FACTS . Otherwise. In arrests without a warrant under Sec. generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. of the existence of such a right. If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made. paraffin-tested and photographed over their objection. June 23. later to be fingerprinted. he would also be charged with subversion. the officer arresting a person who has just committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. plowing his field at the time. We must reject the findings of the trial court where the record discloses circumstances of weight and substance which were not properly appreciated by the trial court. More important. actual or constructive. or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact. Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers. Zamboanga City. Considering that Masamlok ALIH v CASTRO 151 SCRA 279 CRUZ. the search and seizure which transpired afterwards could not likewise be deemed legal as being mere incidents to a valid arrest. In this case. and lastly. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. Reasoning Although it is true that the trial court found Masamlok’s testimony credible and convincing. Reasoning Under Sec. .

ranged against the rest of the people who would condemn him outright. to protect them. assuming it could. they could have surrounded the premises in the meantime. papers. August 2. If they were worried that the weapons inside the compound would be spirited away. it may be observed that under the Revised Rule 113. the repressions committed therein against the petitioners. or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law.The petitioners demand the return of the arms and ammunition on the ground that they were taken without a search warrant as required by the Bill of Rights. Reasoning Article IV. both members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task Force. . and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge. which covers both the innocent and the guilty. the said articles shall remain in custodia legis pending the outcome of the criminal cases that have been or may later be filed against the petitioners. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Dispositive WHEREFORE. of course. searches and seizures. Davao City on October 16. Umbra Umpar. the search of the petitioners' premises on November 25. par. of the 1973 Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons. . (It appearing that the accused was below eighteen (18) years old at the time of the commission of the offense (Art. photographing and paraffin-testing as violative of their right against self-incrimination. However. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. to prevent these from being used as evidence against them. It is no exaggeration that the basest criminal. At the time of the "zona.lacking the shield of innocence. The fact that the petitioners were suspected of the Climaco killing did not excuse the constitutional short-cuts the respondents took.If the arrest was made under Rule 113. and the persons or things to be seized. while admitting the absence of the required such warrant.On December 21. is still. Every person is entitled to due process. 1984. all the firearms and ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in any of the proceedings against the petitioners.38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No.38 caliber gun a smoke (tear gas) grenade.The respondents cannot even plead the urgency of the raid because it was in fact not urgent. a majority of one. . . might not the search and seizure be nonetheless considered valid because it was incidental to a legal arrest? Surely not. the petitioner was asked to show the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his possession but he failed to do so. were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes Street.Zamboanga City at the time in question certainly did not excuse the non-observance of the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable a2010 page 82 Prof.The record does not disclose that the petitioners were wanted criminals or fugitives from justice. sought to justify their act on the ground that they were acting under superior orders. . Section 5(b). Section 5.Superior orders" cannot. Their purpose was to recover the articles seized from them. "but with avoidance. the officer making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the ground therefor. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber . Section 4(2): Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. the guilty need the armor of the Constitution.He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. . In the course of the same.Conceding that the search was truly warrantless. This is confirmed by the said report and in fact admitted by the respondents. Ratio Even if were assumed for the sake of argument that they were guilty. and two (2) live ammunitions for a . They brought the petitioner to the police station for further investigation. as a preventive measure.It follows that as the search of the petitioners' premises was violative of the Constitution. They spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously while they were within the premises of the Rizal Memorial Colleges They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP. 1987 finding petitioner guilty of the offense. countermand the Constitution.22 caliber gun. -The respondents. There was also the suggestion that the measure was necessary because of the aggravation of the peace and order problem generated by the assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco. under the Bill of Rights. and particularly describing the place to be searched. they would not have been any less entitled to the protection of the Constitution. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance. 1990 NATURE Petition for review FACTS . and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated. They had every opportunity to get a search warrant before making the raid. ." they were merely suspected of the mayor's slaying and had not in fact even been investigated for it. is POSADAS v CA (PEOPLE) 188 SCRA 288 GANCAYCO. 1986 at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning. hereby declared ILLEGAL and all the articles seized as a result thereof are inadmissible in evidence against the petitioners in any proceedings. Article IV. or just committed. not from a deserved sentence. he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) . 68.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . HELD YES. the petitioners came to this Court. of the Rules of Court in connection with a crime about to be committed. 2). 770196 two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a . and to challenge their finger-printing. . houses. ISSUE WON the search of petitioners’ premises was illegal. Didoy the officer then on duty. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City wherein after a plea of not guilty and trial on the merits a decision was rendered on October 8. . then we might as well delete the Bill of Rights as a fussy redundancy. There was no state of hostilities in the area to justify. Section 3. what was that crime? There is no allegation in the record of such a justification. 1984. These articles are "fruits of the poisonous tree. they were presumed innocent and not guilty as summarily pronounced by the military. but from arbitrary punishment. .Pat. If all the law enforcement authorities have to do is force their way into any house and then pick up anything they see there on the ground that the occupants are resisting arrest. As mere suspects. Parenthetically. being committed. They knew where the petitioners were.

.) . They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. Such an exercise may prove to be useless. when conducted within reasonable limits. FACTS . Where. explosive materials and subversive documents. the Court held as follows: . the warrantless search and seizure is more reasonable considering that unlike in the former. foremost of which is the "stop and search" without a search warrant at military or police checkpoints. However. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions) perpetrated at No. Thus in the extraordinary events where warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure. 95-90. and hence. at the very least. at the cost of occasional inconvenience. discomfort and even irritation to the citizen. there are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest.. ISSUE WON the warrantless petitioner is valid search imposed on the a2010 page 83 Prof. 1990. It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag in the possession of the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the purpose. or when the latter cannot be performed except without warrant. this petition for review. with the exception of the herein petitioners.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales DAY of prision mayor to TWELVE (12) Years. the items which were confiscated from the possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence against him. he was actually committing or had just committed the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the presence of the police officers and consequently the search and seizure of the contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in accordance with Section 12. respondent RTC Judge of KALOOKAN CITY issued Search Warrant No. it was effected on the basis of a probable cause. At the time the peace officers in this case identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee they did not know that he had committed. as abnormal times. Fairview. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. True. presided over by respondent Judge Tirso D. Clearly.m. the checkpoints during these abnormal times. among others. But. petitioners presented a 'Motion for Consolidation. Quashal of Search Warrant and For the Suppression of All Illegally Acquired Evidence' .The petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals wherein in due course a decision was rendered on February 23. de Villa (to quote: Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. the main thrust of which is that there being no lawful arrest or search and seizure. Davao City. armed with subject search warrant. page 48] MALALOAN v CA (FINEZA) 232 SCRA 249 REGALADO. the constitutionality or validity of which has been upheld by this Court in Valmonte vs. 25 Newport St. futile and much too late. most likely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions ? which all sum up to what one can rightly consider. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant. the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse.D. .In this case. QUEZON CITY. According to CAPCOM's 'Inventory of Property Seized. Dispositive The petition is denied HELD NO Ratio . the place or thing searched and the character of the articles procured. determinable from the uniqueness of the ALLADO v DIOKNO [supra. or simply looks into a vehicle or flashes a light therein. The firearm. ammunitions and smoke grenade are forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to turn over said items to the Chief. . Q-90-11757 before Branch 88 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. corner Marlboro St. are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. so clearly reflected in the increased killings in cities of police and military men by NPA "sparrow units. proceeded to the situs of the offense alluded to. for example. the presence or absence of probable cause. Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure is untenable.On the same day. and to pay the costs. where a labor seminar of the Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research (EILER) was then taking place.' firearms. CFI of Rizal. what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure becomes purely a judicial question. On March 23. the manner in which the search and seizure was made. Absalon V. But We need not argue that there are exceptions. And all the sixty-one (61) persons found within the premises searched were brought to Camp Karingal.C. the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the exceptions heretofore discussed. at around 2:30 p.On July 10.The argument of the Solicitor General that when the two policemen approached the petitioner. EILER Instructors.) . Salboro of the CAPCOM Northern Sector (now Central Sector) filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City an application for search warrant. . the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures has not been violated. were seized and taken during the search. Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the government in the interest of public security. these do not constitute unreasonable search. In the ordinary cases where warrant is indispensably necessary. the mechanics prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court must be followed and satisfied..In People vs. Quezon City but most of them were later released. not all of which are reported in media.. 1866 in Criminal Case No. May 6. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. They did now know what its contents were. the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement. 1989 affirming the appealed decision with costs against the petitioner. or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. . FIVE (5) months and Eleven (11) days of Reclusion Temporal. Davao Metrodiscom. including the purpose of the search or seizure. In this connection. 1990. the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds.D.1st Lt. Velasco. 1994 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA. Hence. members of the CAPCOM. The search warrant was sought for in connection with an alleged violation of P. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same." not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such urban centers. who were indicted for violation of P. circumstances involved.

otherwise they shall be deemed waived. HELD YES . under the Interim or a2010 page 84 Prof. Also. The jurisdictional rule heretofore was that writs and process of the so-called inferior courts could be enforced outside the province only with the approval of the former court of first instance. the interested party may move in the court where the criminal case is pending for the suppression as evidence of the personal property seized under the Transitional Rules and Guidelines.A bit of legal history on his contestation will be helpful. 3. formerly. and can be serve not only within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court but anywhere in the judicial region of the issuing court (National Capital Judicial Region). This judgment of respondent court is now impugned in and sought to be reversed through the present recourse before us. danger and expense. . An application for a search warrant may be filed with another court only under extreme and compelling circumstances that the applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the latter court which may or may not give due course to the application depending on the validity of the justification offered for not filing the same in the court with primary jurisdiction thereover. consolidating subject cases but denying the prayer for the quashal of the search warrant under attack. within the contemplation of paragraphs 3(b) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines. The Court is accordingly convinced that it should not make the requisites for the apprehension of the culprits and the confiscation of such illicit items. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act. . . where the place to be searched is located. once detected. Nor are we swayed by the professed apprehension that the law enforcement authorities may resort to what could be a permutation of forum shopping. It need merely be recalled that a search warrant is only a process. it is a matter of judicial knowledge that the authorities have to contend now and then with local and national criminal syndicates of considerable power and influence. Nor should we overlook the fact that to do so will necessitate the transportation of applicant's . TO PUT DOUBTS TO REST. The arguments of petitioners are not inferable by necessary implication from the statutory provisions which are presumed to be complete and expressive of the intendment of the framers. to detect or elicit information regarding the existence and location of illegally possessed or prohibited articles.No law or rule imposes such a limitation on search warrants.NONETHELESS. by filing an application for the warrant with a "friendly" court. . .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales before the Quezon City court. ISSUE WON a court may take cognizance of an application for a search warrant in connection with an offense committed outside its territorial jurisdiction and to issue a warrant to conduct a search on a place likewise outside its territorial jurisdiction." . a justice of the peace in one district of the county may issue a search warrant to be served in another district of the county and made returnable before the justice of still another district or another court having jurisdiction to deal with the matters involved. without prejudice to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. it does seem odd that such constitutional protests have not been made against warrants of arrest which are enforceable indefinitely and anywhere although they involve. Furthermore. Besides. 1990. In the present state of our law on the matter. is articulated by the court a quo. the respondent Quezon City Judge issued the challenged order. not only because of the distance but also the contingencies of travel and the danger involved.We do not believe that the enforcement of a search warrant issued by a court outside the territorial jurisdiction wherein the place to be searched is located would create a constitutional question. For that matter. we are unaware of any instance wherein a search warrant was struck down on objections based on territorial jurisdiction. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by the issuing court. the constitutional mandate is translated into specifically enumerated safeguards in Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a search warrant. Quashal of Search Warrant and Exclusion of evidence Illegally Obtained'. the validity of which warrant was upheld. the enforcement of such writs and processes no longer needs the approval of the regional trial court.On the other hand. unless there are really compelling reasons for the authorities to do so. All grounds and objections then available. 1990 in connection therewith. by denying due course to the petition for certiorari and lifting the temporary restraining order it had issued on November 29. obviously born of experience and verifiable data. On the other hand.Respondent Court of Appeals rendered judgment. writs and processes of the then courts of first instance were enforceable throughout the Philippines.On September 21. opining that the same falls under the category of Writs and Processes. within the region. while. in the same manner that no such restriction is provided for warrants of arrest.The foregoing situations may also have obtained and were taken into account in the foreign judicial pronouncement that. certain specified writs issued by a regional trial court are now enforceable only within its judicial region. as quoted by respondent court: "This court is of the further belief that the possible leakage of information which is of utmost importance in the issuance of a search warrant is secured (against) where the issuing magistrate within the region does not hold court sessions in the city or municipality. The Court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case. not an action. together with the ten-day lifetime of the warrant would discourage resort to a court in another judicial region. A contrary interpretation on whatever pretext should not be countenanced. political or financial in nature. and all these have to be observed regardless of whatever court in whichever region is importuned for or actually issues a search warrant. Said requirements. When the latter court issues the search warrant. with the attendant risk. 1. existent or known shall be raised in the original or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant.PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS The Court cannot be blind to the fact that it is extremely difficult. more onerous if not impossible by imposing further niceties of procedure or substantive rules of jurisdiction through decisional dicta. we find no such statutory restrictions both with respect to the court which can issue the search warrant and the enforcement thereof anywhere in the Philippines. . and a 'Supplemental Motion to the Motion for Consolidation. THE SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING POLICY GUIDELINES. witnesses to and their examination in said places. as it undeniably is. but persons and liberty. a further well-founded precaution. a motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall be resolved by said court. . in the absence of statutory restrictions. in effect affirming that of the trial court. not only property and privacy. and so pervasive as to render foolhardy any attempt to obtain a search warrant in the very locale under their sphere of control. 2.

To illustrate this exception. Batanes. page 387) ---. In order to prevent forum shopping.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales warrant if the same is offered therein for said purpose. however. jurisdiction over the entire archipelago. has to file a motion to quash a search warrant issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in connection with an offense he allegedly committed in Itbayat. While it may be true that the forty-two search warrants involved therein were issued by several Judges ---. wreak judicial havoc and procedural complexities which effective law enforcement apparently cannot justify. may validly issue a warrant for the search of a house in Davao City and the seizure of any property therein that may have been used in committing an offense in Manila already the subject of an information filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. provided. the majority view may legitimize abuses that would result in the violation the civil rights of an accused or the infliction upon him of undue and unwarranted burdens and inconvenience as when.In the light of the foregoing. 13 of 1 October 1985. Fernando. the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed judgment of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G. 23533 is hereby AFFIRMED. (d) Eulogio Mencias of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig Branch). it is with more reason that a court which does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the first which had taken cognizance of the case does not also have the authority to issue writs or processes. and after re-examining my original view in this case. After the criminal complaint or information is filed with the appropriate court. an accused who is a resident of Basco. The resolution of the court on the motion to suppress shall likewise be subject to any proper remedy in the appropriate higher court. existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress. with the necessary safeguards and documentation therefor. . in the first place.there is no definite showing that the forty-two search warrants were for the searches and seizures of properties outside the territorial jurisdiction of their respective courts. including the municipal trial courts. 4. such court shall be considered as vested with primary jurisdiction to act on applications for search warrants incident to the criminal case. In the second place.R. a2010 page 85 Prof. . 19 of 4 August 1987 must be observed. (b) Roman Cansino of the City Court of Manila. Furthermore. 23 SCRA 867. However. in connection with the pending case. I cannot conceive of any extreme and compelling circumstance which the court that first acquired jurisdiction over the case cannot adequately meet within its broad powers and authority. SP No. the authority to issue it must necessarily be co-extensive with the court's territorial jurisdiction. Simply put. favor of the unlimited power of a court to issue search warrants. all courts in the Philippines. the exception may provide room for unwarranted abuse of the judicial process. 388-89). 870 [1968]). The majority view suggests or implies that a municipal trial court in Tawi-Tawi. Moreover. the Municipal Trial Court of Argao. on the foregoing premises. The territorial jurisdiction of the courts is determined by law.specifically Judges (a) Amado Roan of the City Court of Manila. SEPARATE OPINION DAVIDE [concurring and dissenting] . When the issue of which court will try the case shall have been resolved. Cebu. Dispositive WHEREFORE. This being so. 5. for instance. (pp.The absence of any express statutory provision prohibiting a court from issuing a search warrant in connection with a crime committed outside its territorial jurisdiction should not be construed as a grant of blanket authority to any court of justice in the country to issue a search warrant in connection with a crime committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. The warrants were issued against the petitioners and corporations of which they were officers and some of the corporations enumerated in Footnote 7 have addressed in Manila and Makati. the first court which acquires jurisdiction over the case acquires it to the exclusion of the other. for purposes of issuing a search warrant. Batanes. and No. instead of serving the ends of justice. Where the court which issued the search warrant denies the motion to quash the same and is not otherwise prevented from further proceeding thereon. issue a search warrant in connection with a criminal case pending in an appropriate court. all personal property seized under the warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the court wherein the criminal case is pending. Rizal (which includes Makati) and Quezon City both belonged to the Seventh Judicial District. a motion to quash shall consequently be governed by the omnibus motion rule. Since two separate courts with different participations are involved in this situation. a motion to quash a search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are alternative and not cumulative remedies. and a reading of Batas Pambansa Blg. (People vs. I respectfully submit that: 1. municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts are confined to specific territories. 129 discloses that the territorial jurisdiction of regional trial courts. the court where the main case is filed has exclusive jurisdiction over all incidents thereto and in the issuance of all writs and processes in connection therewith. 2. . a search warrant is but an incident to a main case and involves the exercise of an ancillary jurisdiction therefore. To hold otherwise would be to add an exception to the statutory provisions defining the territorial jurisdiction of the various courts of the country. can validly issue a search warrant in connection with a crime committed anywhere in the Philippines.Nor can Stonehill vs. I submit that the exception violates the settled principle that even in cases of concurrent jurisdiction. because of extreme and compelling circumstances.I cannot subscribe to this view since. since the issuance of a search warrants is an incident to a main case or is an exercise of the ancillary jurisdiction of a court. . including search warrants. That nobody challenged on jurisdictional ground the issuance of these search warrants is no argument in . Basilan.I have serious misgivings on the majority decision on the matter where another court may. Elsewise stated. Administrative Circulars No. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where the same criminal offense is charged in different informations or complaints and filed in two or more courts with concurrent original jurisdiction over the criminal action. in the National Capital Judicial Region. and (e) Damian Jimenez of the City Court of Quezon City (Footnote 2. which would amount to judicial legislation. or Batanes can validly entertain an application for a search warrant and issue one in connection with a crime committed in Manila. that objections not available. Diokno (20 SCRA 383) be an authoritative confirmation of the unlimited or unrestricted power of any court to issue search warrants in connection with crimes committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. (c) Hermogenes Caluag of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch). metropolitan trial courts. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed may validly entertain an application for and issue a search warrant in connection with said crime. all courts of justice in the Philippines have. search warrants in connection with the crime charged may only be issued by said court.

indeed. 1999 NATURE Petition for Review under Rule 45. by law. after a preliminary investigation. It is not for instance permitted for an accused.The 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of NabunturanMawab. Sr." .Elsa B. the correctness of the exercise of which is matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.If the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of manifest error. which is a judicial function. . Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the ISSUE WON the Trial Court had the authority to reverse the public prosecutor's finding of probable cause to prosecute accused and thus dismiss the case filed by the latter on the basis of a motion to quash warrant of arrest HELD NO Ratio The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor. or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.The Court of Appeals held that Judge Eugenio Valles did not commit grave abuse of discretion in recalling the warrant of arrest issued against Private Respondent Billy Cerbo and subsequently dismissing the Information for murder filed against the private respondent. exclusively pertains. Court of Appeals : xxxthe Court is being asked to examine and assess such evidence as has thus far been submitted by the parties and. courts should not dismiss it for 'want of evidence. in his opinion. the public prosecutor has broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he or she believes to have committed the crime as defined by law. such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case list be filed in court.Private respondent Billy Cerbo then filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest arguing that the same was issued without probable cause. Whether . Diokno. The proceedings before a public prosecutor. Respondent Judge issued the first assailed order dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo for lack of probable cause and recalling the warrant for his arrest and ordered the withdrawal of the amended information and the filing of a new one charging Jonathan Cerbo only. Narvasa in Roberts v. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor. it may well be stressed. a2010 page 86 Prof. . definite and authoritative adjudgment of the guilt or innocence of the persons charged with a felony or crime. . . .' because evidentiary matters should be presented and heard during the trial. Inting and Lim. one that.The rulings in Soliven. supported by a supplemental affidavit of Elsa B. to preempt trial by filing a motion with the Trial Court praying for the quash or dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the evidence upon which the same is based is inadequate. FACTS . Nor is it permitted. The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecutions by private persons.The determination of probable cause to hold a person for trial must be distinguished from the determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. prefatory and cannot lead to a final. on the basis thereof. make a conclusion as to whether or not it suffices "to engender a well founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. executed an affidavit-complaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of conspiracy in the killing . He may or may not file the complaint or information. found "sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief" that the crime of murder has been committed by private respondent Jonathan Cerbo and resolved to forward the entire records of the case to the provincial prosecutor at Tagum. It is an executive function. Gumban. It is moreover a function that in the established scheme of things. prefatorily to. where we explained again what probable cause means. because the evidence presented thus far did not substantiate such charge. upon the filing of the information against him by the public prosecutor.It is a function that this Court should not be called upon to perform. The judicial determination of probable cause in the issuance of arrest warrants has been emphasized in numerous cases. on the antipodal theory that the evidence is in truth inadequate. and notwithstanding that it involves an adjudicative process of a sort.. Billy Cerbo . were iterated in Allado v. grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor. is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. alleging that the shooting was done in the office and in the presence of Billy Cerbo who after the shooting did nothing (did not apply first aid nor bring the victim to the hospital) After a reinvestigation the prosecution filed an amended information including Billy Cerbo in the murder case. according to whether the evidence. are essentially preliminary. Gumban (eyewitness) identified Jonathan Cerbo as the assailant. follow or not follow that presented by the offended party.The Separate (Concurring) Opinion of former Chief Justice Andres R. .Private Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the respondent judge. January 21. The functions and duties of both the trial court and the public prosecutor in "the proper scheme of things" in our criminal justice system should be clearly understood. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. as far as crimes cognizable by a Regional Trial Court are concerned. A warrant for his arrest was later issued. is supposed to be performed at the very genesis of. Judicial Determination of Probable Cause .After an information for murder was filed against Jonathan Cerbo. Otherwise stated.Crespo v.Rosalinda Dy was shot at pointblank range by Jonathan Cerbo in the presence and at the office of his father.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales PEOPLE v CA (CERBO) 301 SCRA 475 PANGANIBAN.Indeed. Mogul: It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. Reasoning: Executive Determination of Probable Cause . xxx xxx xxx . . for the complaining party to present a petition before the Court praying that the public prosecutor be compelled to file the corresponding information against the accused. the formal commencement of a criminal action. petitioner Alynn Plezette Dy. Davao. the public prosecutor. to said executive officer. Davao. . daughter of the victim Rosalinda Dy.

Inapplicabilty of Allado and Salonga . Escaño readily agreed and opened the trunk himself using his key. It is sufficient that he personally evaluates such evidence in determining probable cause. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed.An information for violation of RA 6425 thereafter was filed against them. whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Upon reaching the precinct. Gil Puyat Ave.Not all checkpoints are illegal. they stopped a Kia Pride car with Plate No. there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof..The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban enforced by the COMELEC. Second. NO . WON the check point was illegal 2. We see no need for checkpoints to be announced.On the 5th of April 1995 and during a COMELEC gun ban. It would also defeat the purpose for which such ban was instituted. the judge. the Court noted in Allado the "undue haste in the filing of the Information and in the inordinate interest of the government" in pursuing the case. and in Salonga. the failure of the prosecution to show that the petitioner was probably guilty of conspiring to commit the crime. before issuing a warrant of arrest. stopping those they found suspicious. the initial disregard of petitioner's constitutioner rights and the massive and a2010 page 87 Prof. and no precipitate haste or bias during the investigation of the case can be imputed to the public prosecutor. . whose testimonies the court deemed 'tainted'. . the judge should not override the public prosecutor's determination of probable cause to hold an accused for trial on the ground that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest warrant was insufficient. when conducted in a fixed area. They noticed a blue bag inside it." At this stage of the criminal proceeding. without opening the car’s doors or subjecting its passengers to a body search. They were checking the cars going to Pasay City.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales person sought to be arrested. the main witnesses were the confessed perpetrators of the crimes." but it cannot be denied that. In Allado and Salonga. PO3 Suba seized the long firearm. admittedly.A. They asked the driver.. and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search. The COMELEC would be hard put to implement the ban if its deputized agents were limited to a visual search of pedestrians." The rulings in the two aforementioned cases cannot apply to it. For. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. Not only would it be impractical. In fact. he requested Escaño to open the trunk. on the other hand. was found positive for hashish.As held in Inting. There is nothing discriminatory in this as this is what the situation demands. When Escaño. On the other hand. At about past midnight. upon order of the police. such as those whose windows are heavily tinted just to see if the passengers thereof were carrying guns. as the accused have invoked. routine checkpoints do intrude. damaging publicity against him.The facts adduced do not constitute a ground for a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused against illegal search and seizure. as in the present case.45 caliber firearm which they seized from Escaño. The judge. Their search yielded a . the judge is not yet tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation. PEOPLE v USANA and LOPEZ 323 SCRA 754 DAVIDE. WON the accused are guilty of violation of RA 6425 HELD 1. Hence. . parked along Sen. determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. was not a participation or conspirator in the commission of the said crime. they question the validity of the search. PO3 Suba admitted that they were merely stopping cars they deemed suspicious. upon examination by National Bureau of Investigation. a judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is no probable cause for doing so. TBH 493. it would also forewarn those who intend .The three passengers were thereafter brought to the police station Block 5 in the Kia Pride driven by PO3 Nonato. Also. however. identified as Escaño. The bag contained a parcel wrapped in tape. Elsa Gumban. the present case is not on all fours with Allado and Salonga. and imposing merely a running stop on the others. from Usana. these routine checks. . as a rule. 2000 NATURE Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting the two accused together with Julian D.Accused-appellants assail the manner by which the checkpoint in question was conducted. are even less intrusive. . as amended FACTS . For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search. First. said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable search. 6425. the principal eyewitness to the killing of Rosalinda Dy. in the case at bar. "must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted. . on motorists’ right to "free passage without interruption. At best they would merely direct their flashlights inside the cars they would stop. ISSUES 1. Escano for the violation of R. the private respondent was accorded due process. which they asked Escaño to open.Verily. it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicle’s occupants are required to answer a brief question or two.Allado and Salonga constitute exceptions to the general rule and may be invoked only if similar circumstances are clearly shown to exist. to open the door. They also complain of its having been conducted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. One of the policemen saw a long firearm on the lap of the person seated at the passenger seat. and the South Luzon Expressway. " . an M-1 US Carbine. Ratio This Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. . Nonato turned over the key to the desk officer. who was later identified as Virgilio Usana. Whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon. However. WON the search was valid 3. i. Since SPO4 de los Santos was suspicious of the vehicle.e. . January 28. The trial court found the three accused guilty of the said crime. . to a certain extent. Those who intend to bring a gun during said period would know that they only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate their malicious designs. which. the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which is to be made by the judge. Corollary to this principle. some law enforcers of the Makati Police were manning a checkpoint at the corner of Senator Gil Puyat Ave. They contend that the checkpoint manned by elements of the Makati Police should have been announced. the other passengers were search for more weapons.

" 114 In fact. 2. YES . Standing by the door. there was no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that they saw the same before it was seized. committing." In case. distributing. (3) the car was driven by a policeman from the place where it was stopped until the police station. there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit. They also found the marked bills. search and seizure of Gaddao is invalid .Even though there was ample opportunity to obtain a search warrant. without a warrant. WON the warrantless arrest of Doria and Gaddao. Jun returned an hour later bringing marijuana where he and his associates subsequently arrested Jun but did not find the marked bills on him.Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule 113. (5) consented warrantless search. the search of the latter’s person and house. PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. as amended. or transporting the prohibited drug. She was not committing any crime. The plastic wrapper and its contents appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to him by "Jun. Dispositive Accused – appellants are hereby acquitted. WON the marijuana was seized validly for being in plain view of the police officers HELD 1. Ratio Despite the validity of the search. Jun said he left the bills to his associate “Neneth”. YES . or is attempting to commit an offense. NO .Doria did not point to appellant Gaddao as his associate in the drug business. Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. as above-quoted.No fact was adduced to link Usana and Lopez to the hashish found in the trunk of the car and there was no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that they saw the same before it was seized. (2) search of moving vehicles. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buybust operation. Their having been with Escaño in the latter’s car before the "finding" of the hashish sometime after the lapse of an appreciable time and without their presence left much to be desired to implicate them to the offense of selling. Even so. "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.Under Section 5 (a).The marijuana was not in plain view of the police officers and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution as the contents of the box where the marijuana was partially hidden was not readily apparent to PO Manlangit. is actually committing. the Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. the search and seizure is not incidental to the arrest 2.We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accusedappellant Doria is not unlawful. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that appellant Gaddao conspired with her co-accused in pushing drugs as Doria may have left the money in her house. arrest a person: (a) When. . but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. we cannot affirm the conviction of Usana and Lopez for violation of R. PO3 Manlangit entered "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box. They arrested Jun and Neneth and brought them to headquarters. with the permission of Escaño.As the arrest was illegal. They decided to entrap him via a buy-bust operation. (4) the car’s trunk was opened. there was no reasonable suspicion especially as she was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by her coaccused . and the admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained therefrom is valid 2. 3. a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed. which was then handed to Jun upon transaction." . Jun led the police to Neneth’s house. and (5) after arrival at the police station and until the opening of the car’s trunk. FACTS .In the case. -The poseur-buyer. Save for accused-appellant Doria 's word. No. The following facts militate against a finding of conviction: (1) the car belonged to Escaño. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. He saw that one of the box's flaps was open and inside the box was something wrapped in plastic. in his presence. without the presence of Usana and Lopez. Contrary to the finding of the trial court. Arrest without warrant. the car was in the possession and control of the police authorities. . we cannot invalidate the search of the vehicle. . Ratio Jurisprudence recognizes six generally accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement: (1) search incidental to an arrest." His suspicion aroused.However. a2010 PUNO. 5.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales to violate the ban. for there are indications that the search done on the car of Escaño was consented to by him. the person to be arrested has committed. when lawful. In fact. one of the arresting officers. (4) customs searches. (2) the trunk of the car was not opened soon after it was stopped and after the accused were searched for firearms. ISSUES 1. she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her. January 22. the warrantless arrest. and (6) stop-and-frisk situations. the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught redhanded during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. is actually PEOPLE v DORIA 301 SCRA 668 .The trial court found them guilty. received information from two (2) civilian informants (CI) that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. . 1999 page 88 Prof.The police went to Neneth’s house.A. or is attempting to commit an offense. PO2 Manlangit set aside 1600 pesos as marked money for the entrapment operation. . . No fact was adduced to link Usana and Lopez to the hashish found in the trunk of the car. . with or without her knowledge.Escano consented to the search and consented warrantless search is one of the exceptions from the warrant requirement. badges of legitimacy of checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed location and the regularized manner in which they are operated. 6425.Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command (Narcom). He peeked inside the box and found that it contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. with or without any conspiracy. NO . to wit: Sec. It was only then that the police learned that "Jun" is Florencio Doria y Bolado while "Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. — A peace officer or a private person may. (3) evidence in plain view.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
- As a general rule, objects in plain view of arresting officers may be seized without a search warrant but must follow these requisites: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. - However, if it is not plain view of the police officers, it may not be seized without a warrant except if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. - The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos of marijuana 137 was found in the house of accusedappellant Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged. Dispositive the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City acting as a Special Court in Criminal Case No. 3307-D is reversed and modified as follows: 1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). 2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao y Catama is acquitted.

a2010

page 89

Prof.
are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary. -in many cases, drug pushers did sell their prohibited articles to prospective customers, be they strangers or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, some drug pushers appear to have become exceedingly daring, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well as the act constituting sale and delivery of prohibited drugs 2. YES Ratio: The arrest was within the purview of Sec5 (a), Rule 113, Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit: Arrest without warrant, when lawful. – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; Reasoning: -Elamparo assails the legality of his arrest for failure of the apprehending officers to secure a search warrant. - for warrantless arrests, 2 elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating the he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Thus, when he was seen repacking the marijuana, the police officers were not only authorized but also duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. Re: warrantless seizures: -However, not being absolute, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is subject to exceptions. Thus, for example, Sec.12, Rule 126, Rules on CrimPro, provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for “dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.” -5 generally accepted exceptions to the right against warrantless searches and seizures have also been judicially formulated, viz: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. - this case falls squarely under the plain view doctrine People v Doria: “Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have

happened on the same day (12 Feb 1995), while the information for illegal possession of drugs was filed on 15 Feb 1995. - Arraignment: plea of not guilty. - Trial: prosecution presented the ff witnesses: police officer who was also poseur-buyer, another officer who took part in buy-bust, and NBI chemist who examined and confirmed the confiscated drugs to be marijuana. Defense presented as witnesses boarders of Elamparo’s house, saying that Elamparo “was at their house when somebody knocked at their door. His father opened the same and was informed that somebody was looking for him. He went out and saw Spencer with handcuffs and being held by an arresting officer. When Elamparo persistently questioned Spencer as to why he was arrested, the arresting officers got mad at him prompting them to likewise bring him to the police station where he was detained. The officers demanded P15,000.00 for his release which he did not give. On the other hand, Spencer gave the sum and was released.” - RTC: Guilty, under RA 6425. penalty of reclusion perpetua and fine of P9million. Elamparo appealed. ISSUE: 1. WON RTC was correct in the assessment of credibility of witnesses 2. WON the arrest of Elamparo was valid 3. WON the penalty imposed was correct HELD: 1. YES Ratio: Unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts which would affect the outcome of the case, we accord the utmost respect to their findings of facts. Reasoning: -Elamparo contends that it is highly unusual for arresting officers to act on an ‘information’ of an unknown source without confirming the veracity of the report, and that it is incredible that a peddler of marijuana would be so brazen as to approach total strangers and offer to sell them marijuana. He insists that he was charged with illegal possession of marijuana because he failed to pay the police officers P15,000.00 for his release. - it is well-settled that the assessment of credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court which had an opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during their testimonies. As compared to the baseless claims of Elamparo, the version of the prosecution witnesses appears worthy of belief, coming as it does from law enforcers who

PEOPLE v ELAMPARO 329 SCRA 404 QUISUMBING; March 31, 2000
NATURE Appeal from judgment of RTC. FACTS - Acting on a report by an informant, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation (of marijuana) in Caloocan. They arrested the person who sold them the marijuana (Spencer), but the same was able to escape. Then: “the ‘buy-bust’ team pursued Spencer, who ran inside a bungalow-type house. Having trapped Spencer inside the house, the police officers frisked him and recovered the marked money. The officers also found Elamparo repacking 5 bricks of marijuana inside the house’s sala Elamparo was then arrested and … were taken to a precinct … and delivered to an inquest fiscal for further investigation.” The buy-bust operation and arrest

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.” - members of the buy-bust team were justified in running after Spencer (when he escaped) and entering the house without a search warrant for they were hot in the heels of a fleeing criminal. Once inside the house, the police officers cornered Spencer and recovered the buy-bust money from him. They also caught Elamparo in flagrante delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which were in full view 3. YES Ratio: Minority serves as a privileged mitigating circumstance to a crime, thus entitling the accused to a reduction of penalty one degree lower than that imposable (by virtue of art.13 (2) RPC) Reasoning: - contends that if found guilty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should be appreciated in his favor. - In drug cases, the quantity of prohibited drugs involved is determinative of the imposable penalty. Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that when the quantity of indian hemp or marijuana is 750 grams or more, as in this case, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00). - Appellant having been born on January 9, 1978, was only 17 years, 1 month, and 3 days old, at the time of the commission of the crime on February 12, 1995. - being a minor over 15 and under 18 at the time of the commission, he is entitled to a reduced penalty due to the privileged mitigating circumstance - Thus, penalty should be reduced to reclusion temporal. No fine is imposable in this case, for it is

a2010

page 90

Prof.
- January 13, 1995 - TC convicted the accused of murder - February 10, 1995 - both accused appealed to SC where accused questioned TC’s failure (a) to hear the petition for bail (b) to consider defense of relative in favor of Ramil Manes and (c) to take note that Sergon Manes was a mere victim of Tamorite's unlawful aggression According to the prosecution > June 23, 1991 – 5 in the afternoon, ALAN Catequista with NICANOR Tamorite and JOSE Cubita, went to see a basketball game at the barangay plaza. When the game was over, Alan approached and invited Nicanor to go home; at that time, he was still seated. Accused RAMIL Manes approached Nicanor and pointed a 38 caliber revolver at him, saying "It is a bad luck you did not kill me during the fiesta in Barangay Cabayugan. Now I will be the one to kill you." Nicanor ran to Alan and used him as a shield from Ramil. At that point, Alan heard a thud and as he looked back, he saw accused SERGON Manes with a gory knife and he also saw Nicanor running away, with blood on his back. Ramil Manes pursued Nicanor and shot him hitting him at the back, just above the waistline. Both accused continued to chase Nicanor who ran towards the premises of the house of ADING Ablado. Ramil Manes fired two more shots. It could not be determined whether those shots hit Nicanor as he and the accused were already inside the premises of the fence of Ading. Jose who was near Nicanor when the two accused chased him did not render assistance to him. After Alan heard the two shots, he and Jose ran home. Alan told his father and uncle that Sergon stabbed Nicanor and that Ramil shot him. Alan, his father, uncle, Jose and the mother of Nicanor then went to where the body of Nicanor was in the downhill portion of the premises of the house of Ading. Nicanor was lying on his back, with 2 wounds on the breast, 1 gunshot wound and 1 stab wound. According to the accused(Ramil) > June 23, 1991 – in the afternoon, he was at home cooking. At around 5:00 to 5:30, he heard shouts coming from the direction of the barangay basketball court, which was about ten (10) meters away from his house. He went to the window to check what it was. He saw his younger brother Sergon lying on the concrete pavement and several persons were ganging up on him, three of whom he identified as Nicanor, Alan and Jose. They kept on boxing and kicking his brother prompting him to come to the latter's aid. On his way out, he saw a gun on top of

imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Dispositive Petition AFFIRMED with modification.

PEOPLE v MANES 303 SCRA 231 PARDO; February 17, 1999
NATURE An appeal taken by accused Sergon Manes and Ramil Manes from the judgment of RTC Iloilo City, convicting them of murder and sentencing them to each "suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties as provided in Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code" and "to indemnify the family of their victim in the amount of P50,000.00 plus P21,250.00 as expenses for the burial, wake and other related matter and to pay the costs.” FACTS - July 12, 1991, Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo Province filed with RTC Iloilo City, an INFORMATION charging the accused with MURDER: "That on or about the 23rd of June, 1991, in the Municipality of Badiangan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another to better realize their purpose armed with a knife and a .38 caliber revolver respectively, with treachery and/or evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assault, attack, stab and shot Nicanor Tamorite with the knife and .38 caliber revolver with which they were then provided, inflicting upon the said Nicanor Tamorite stab wounds and gun shot wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death immediately thereafter." - prosecution recommended NO BAIL for the provisional liberty of the accused. - July 22, 1991 - TC issued a WARRANT OF ARREST against the accused - October 18, 1991 – TC ordered the case ARCHIVED for failure to locate the two accused - June 24, 1992 - Sergon and Ramil Manes were ARRESTED in Romblon, Romblon - September 17, 1992 - Upon ARRAIGNMENT, both accused pleaded NOT GUILTY to the information - August 25, 1992 - accused filed a PETITION FOR BAIL which was opposed by the prosecution. TC did not hear the petition for bail. Neither did the accused invoke the right to bail at any stage of the trial.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
the table and brought it with him to the basketball court. > While on his way to the basketball court, Ramil fired a warning shot to prevent Nicanor from stabbing his brother Sergon. Nicanor persisted in the pursuit of Sergon, with a knife in his hand. Sergon was about three meters ahead of Nicanor who was about ten meters ahead of the pursuing Ramil. Ramil fired another shot that hit Nicanor who,, fell to the ground. Meanwhile, Sergon managed to flee. Ramil also fled to the direction of the sugarcane field as soon as he fired the second shot because he saw the group of Alan approaching,, armed with guns .12 Ramil and his brother Sergon went into hiding and only surfaced a year later when they were arrested in Romblon. - prosecution’s set of facts was favored by the court ISSUE WON petitioner has a right to bail HELD NO Ratio When an accused is charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment or death, and evidence of guilt is strong, bail must be denied, as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion Reasoning - In offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death, the accused has no right to bail when evidence of guilt is strong. The court must hear a petition for bail to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong before deciding to grant or deny bail to the accused. While the accused can apply for bail and have the court hear his application summarily and promptly, such right may be waived expressly or impliedly. In this case, the trial court proceeded to try the case without resolving the petition for bail that appellants filed. However, the latter did not call the attention of the trial court to their unresolved application for bail. It was only in the appeal that they raised this issue. Thus, for failure to bring to the attention of the trial Court at the earliest opportune time, appellants are deemed to have waived their right to bail. - defense of relative: FAILED TO PROSPER because 1) unlawful aggression, the essential element to defense of relative is absent because if it were true that Sergon was being attacked, he would have suffered injuries. 2) if indeed he acted in defense of his younger brother Sergon who was then under attack, he would

a2010

page 91

Prof.
ISSUE - WON the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse despite a showing by the prosecutor that there is strong evidence proving respondent’s guilt for the crime charged. HELD YES - The SC held that the CA and the lower court failed to mention and include some facts which are significant factors and circumstances which are strong, clear, and convincing. Consideration of the said factors and circumstances would have resulted in the denial of bail. Reasoning - Article III, Section 13 of the Bill of Rights provides: “All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. the right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.” - Section 7 Rule 4 of the Rules of court provides: “No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of criminal prosecution.” - In the case at bar, bail is discretionary and not a matter of right considering that the punishment for the offense is reclusion perpetua. the grant of the bail is dependent on the evidence of the guilt which should which should be strong to justify denial. this determination is a matter of judicial discretion. - By judicial discretion, the law mandates the determination of whether proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong. Proof evident or evident proof is this connection, has been held to mean clear, strong evidence which leads a well guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that an offense has been committed as charged, that the accused is the guilty agent, and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered. Presumption great exists when the circumstances testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of any other conclusion. In other words, the test is not whether

not harbor any fear in presenting himself to the proper authorities. - even though prosecution failed to show evident premeditation, trial court correctly considered treachery as qualifying the killing of the victim to murder. Dispositive we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court convicting accused-appellants Sergon Manes and Ramil Manes of murder and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of the law and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Nicanor Tamorite in the amount of P50,000.00, plus P21,250.00, as actual damages.

PEOPLE v CABRAL 303 SCRA 361 ROMERO; February 18, 1999
NATURE Special Civil Action FACTS - Roderick Odiamar was charged with the rape of 15 year old Cecille Buenafe. In a bid to secure temporary liberty, the accused filed a motion for bail which was opposed by the petitioner. - The lower court grated the motion on the ground that despite the crime alleged to have been committed is punishable by reclusion perpetua, the evidence thus far presented is not strong enough to warrant denial of the bail. The judge in concluding thus cited the fact that the girl went with the offender voluntarily and did not resist during the commission of the rape. In addition, the judge quoted the medico legal report as not conclusion that rape was in fact committed consideration that the lacerations on the victim may have been weeks or months old when the medical examination was performed six days after the offense occurred. - The CA affirmed the decision saying that there was no abuse of discretion in this case. “There is grave abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of the law.” The People filed the appeal on the ground that while the judge had discretion on the grant of bail, he had abused this discretion.

and Annalyn Talingting. HENCE. and by three other minor children.Lavides was arrested for child abuse under R. §5(b) of R.Parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police that their daughter. . b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so. 1997 order were contrary to Art.Petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause.00 for all the cases under the following conditions: a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these cases. his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited. Lorelie San Miguel. on various dates mentioned in the informations. the same will be considered defective in form and substance which cannot be sustained or be given a semblance of validity. 2000 FACTS . warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia. Nonetheless. His arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the police. CA held that petitioner could not question the same in a petition SEPARATE OPINION VITUG [dissenting] . The court should issue a warrant of arrest of Odiamar if his bail bond has been approved.A. . Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its discretion 3. had been contacted by petitioner for an assignation that night at petitioner’s room at the Metropolitan Hotel. If the guilt of the accused is not strong. The pretrial conference was set. . whereupon they arrested him. his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited. (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest. discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond. III. which were submitted at the inquest. Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged.000.CA invalidated the first two conditions imposed in the May 16. represented by lawyers.Petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations against him.In the case of an application for bail. . Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution 4. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation. bringing the total number of cases against him to 12. 2. then 16 years old." . two more informations were filed against petitioner. . petitioner filed separate applications for bail in the nine cases. and (3) In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above Incident.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt. LAVIDES v CA (PISON and PEOPLE) 324 SCRA 321 MENDOZA. . He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases. he pleaded not guilty to each offense.000.Based on the duties.Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in CA. the duties of the judge are as follows: 1. and to suspend arraignment.00 for each case and that the same be done prior to his arraignment. who was wearing only a shirt and an underwear.000. 1997 stands. that when arraigned. trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. .A.The extraordinary remedies under Rule 65 of the rules of Court are not open when the question is whether the trial judge has erred in the exercise of sound discretion. to quash the informations. d) Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment to enable this Court to immediately acquire jurisdiction over the accused.Trial court granted the right to post bail in the amount of P80.With respect to the denial of petitioner’s motion to quash the informations against him.Petitioner was arraigned during which he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and then ordered him released upon posting bail bonds in the total amount of P800.While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals. Otherwise the petition should be denied. Pending resolution of his motion. THE SUMMARY SHOULD NECESSARILY BE A COMPLETE COMPILATION OR RESTATEMENT OF ALL THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING PROPER. §14(2) of the Constitution which provides that "[a]fter arraignment. It noted "that petitioner has posted the cash bonds. He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases." . given money [by petitioner] as payment for the said [acts of] sexual intercourse. c) The hold-departure Order of this Court dated April 10.] . petitioner had sexual intercourse with complainants who had been "exploited in prostitution and . he asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment scheduled. Jennifer Catarman. III. . assailing the trial court’s orders.CA: a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these cases. Mary Ann Tardesilla. These special reliefs are available only when the judge has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in his decision or order such as by arbitrarily ignoring the evidence or completely acting on bias and whim." . He then filed a motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to P40.00. . .Nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner by the same complainant. . subject to the conditions and the "hold-departure" order. February 1. A summary is defined as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or digest of a test or statement. This was not the first time the police received reports of petitioner’s activities.000. . warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia. 7610 was filed. The Lower court cannot exercise judicial discretion as to what pieces of evidence should be included in the summary. which were all consolidated. and that he has already been released from detention." CA thought that the aforesaid conditions in the May 16. and .No bail was recommended. Otherwise. an information for violation of Art.Trial court denied petitioner’s motions to reduce bail bonds. Based on the sworn statement of complainant and the affidavits of the arresting officers. . a2010 page 92 Prof. it was alleged that. 7610.00 for each case or a total of P800. Dispositive Grant of bail is declared void. the court’s order granting or denying bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. An entrapment operation was therefore set in motion. 1997 order for the grant of bail to petitioner but ruled that the issue concerning the validity of the condition making arraignment a prerequisite for the approval of petitioner’s bail bonds to be moot and academic. In all the cases. The police saw him with Lorelie. b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so.

the court a accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial but that he must be present at the hearings of the case is valid and is in accordance with Rule 114. In that hearing. .Bail should be granted before arraignment. §1(b)] (b) during trial whenever necessary for identification purposes. (2) tax evasion. with the exception of condition (d) in the second paragraph of the order of May 16. [Under Art. one of the conditions of bail is that "the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules. there would then be no need for the arraignment of the accused. 1999. and (c) at the promulgation of sentence. ISSUE WON CA erred in not determining the validity of the conditions imposed in the trial court’s order of May 16. §2(c) is that "The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due notice to him or his bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be present on the date specified in the notice.Art.11 [Rule 120. ." Even without such a condition. his arraignment and the subsequent proceedings against him are valid. However. 148571 PANGANIBAN.Before the RTC could act on the Petition. also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. III. although the condition for the grant of bail to petitioner is invalid. the arraignment did not emanate from the invalid condition that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment. in which case the accused may appear by counsel or representative.R. . §1(b) the presence of the accused at the arraignment is required. represented by the Philippine DOJ." while under Rule 116. 2002 NATURE Petition for certiorari praying for the lifting of the bail Order. §6. but what he must do was to go to trial and to reiterate the grounds of his motion to quash on appeal should the decision be adverse to him.Petitioner concedes that the rule is that the remedy of an accused whose motion to quash is denied is not to file a petition for certiorari but to proceed to trial without prejudice to his right to reiterate the grounds invoked in his motion to quash during trial on the merits or on appeal if an adverse judgment is rendered against him. RTC grantes the motion of Jimenez. No.Finding no more legal obstacle. trial shall proceed in absentia. §2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. it does not follow that the arraignment of petitioner on May 23. . unless it is for a light offense. He contends that the Court of Appeals should not have evaded the issue of whether he should be charged under several informations corresponding to the number of acts of child abuse allegedly committed by him against each of the complainants. the offenses with which petitioner is charged are punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. . HELD YES . it reversed its earlier decision. For if the information is quashed and the case is dismissed. Dispositive The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and another one is RENDERED declaring the orders dated May 16. Under Rule 114. he argues that this case should be treated as an exception. In such case."which prayed that application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. 1997 that the a2010 page 93 Prof.Although this condition is invalid. The condition imposed in the trial court’s order of May 16. . pursuant to Section 5 of the Extradition Law. Jimenez. gov’t a note requesting the extradition of Mark B. III.9 [Rule 116. 1997 of the Regional Trial Court. 1997 for the grant of bail. It held that Jimenez was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez.] . In sum. September 24. In the second place. to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea. For another condition of bail under Rule 114.On the other hand. which is hereby declared void.. The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit certain offenses. . PEOPLE v MARK JIMENEZ G. Initially. such as arraignment. and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail." which CA should instead have declared void. 7610. his arraignment cannot be held. . 1069 . the trial court could ensure the presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings. (3) wire fraud (4) false statements.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales for certiorari before it. 1997 order of the trial court that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after arraignment.The US gov’t through diplomatic channels sent to the Phil. 1997 (making arraignment a prerequisite to the grant of bail to petitioner). otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of Manila. 1997 and May 23. he manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. of Justice. §5 of R.CA should have determined the validity of the conditions imposed in the trial court’s order of May 16. the cancellation of the bond. to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved.A. filed with the RTC the appropriate Petition for Extradition. Branch 107. the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action. Contrary to petitioner’s contention. and (5) illegal campaign contributions.] At such stages of the proceedings. the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his "immediate arrest" pursuant to Section 6 of PD No." . his presence is required and cannot be waived. After the hearing.It is the condition in the May 16. Quezon City to be valid. 1997 was also invalid. 1997 for the grant of bail because petitioner’s contention is that his arraignment was held in pursuance of these conditions for bail. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents. The Petition alleged that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15. the US gov’t. the court dismissed the petition but after acting upon the motion for reconsideration. and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody FACTS . Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion. which prohibited the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. §14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials in absentia allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings. the arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted.Upon learning of the request for his extradition. The TRO was assailed byt the Sec. These scenarios certainly undermine the accused’s constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail. whether of innocence or of guilt.

2001 Order. a minor. Hence. Likewise. The Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it. The maximum penalty imposable in accordance with RA 7610 is reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong. adopting the practice of not granting them bail. the court considered the view that the the circumstances of the accused indicate a probability of flight and that there is undue risk that the accused may commit a similar offense. The motion to transfer the respondent to the National Penitentiary was denied. Upon completion of his sentence. par (a). cowards and weaklings who. . while Fitzgerald filed a Motion to fix bail with Manifestation. Since the applicants have a history of absconding. before conviction.RTC rendered a decision finding respondent Guilty of Sec 5. It was dismissed which became final and executory. . which was also directed to receive new evidence. modifying the penalty to imprisonment of prision temporal (14Y 8M 1D) to reclusion perpetua (20Y 1D) . and (b) there exist special. it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case. 13. persons sought to be extradited are able to evade arrest or escape from our custody. be bailable by sufficient sureties.The people filed a petition fro review on certiorari. “…said Fitzgerald. shall. their detention pending the resolution of extradition proceedings would fall into place with the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary nature of extradition cases and the need for their speedy disposition. CA granted the motion for new trial. 2006 NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the resolution of CA which granted the Motion for bail of accused-appellant and herein respondent Victor Keith Fitzgerald.Also. with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as well as our Extradition Law." . choose to run and hide. potential extraditees may apply for bail. Thereafter. Fitzgerald is of old age and not in the best of health. Article III.in the Constitution. if released on bail pending appeal. 8 distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. Both motions were denied by CA. humanitarian or compelling circumstances. clothes and food and thereafter having carnal knowledge of her in violation of the aforesaid law and to her damage and prejudice. Bail was granted premised not on the grounds stated in the motion for bail. . The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing. October 27. III.7 Rule 114 ROC. and by the use of drugs willfully.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales quo required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. they have the burden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger to the community. where the presumption of innocence is not at issue. ISSUE WON he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending HELD NO Ratio. unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt.On appeal. . The original records of the case were remanded to the RTC. Dispositive the Petition is GRANTED. All persons." It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition. but on substantial justice and considering new trial was granted in the case. He was acquitted on the case of rape.the constitutional right to bail "flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal. He should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him. The bail application was denied pursuant to Sec. In the absence of any provision -. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. par (a). In his Memorandum. Art. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. PEOPLE v FITZGERALD 505 SCRA 573 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. It stated that although the evidence of guilt is strong. Sec. Jimenez was granted provisional liberty. extradition proceedings are separate and a2010 page 94 Prof. subpar (5) of RA 7610 8 stating that.An information was filed in the RTC charging Fitzgerald. directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash.The people file a MFR. not before the extradition court. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. through overprotection or excessively liberal treatment. it would not be good policy to increase the risk of violating our treaty obligations if. since this practice would encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the requesting state to cut short their detention here. he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100. CA issued the assailed resolution granting bail. would be a step towards deterring fugitives from coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their prosecutors.” .That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is not an argument to grant him one in the present case. bail is not a matter of right. subpar (5) of RA 7610 and sentenced to an indeterminate term of prision mayor min (8Y 1D) to prision temporal max (17Y 4M 1D). CA affirmed the conviction. as a general rule.The denial of bail as a matter of course in extradition cases falls into place with and gives life to Article 14 of the Treaty. is worded as follows: Art. the law or the treaty -. to engage in prostitution by then and there showering said “AAA” with gifts. Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue. this Petition. he shall be deported immediately and forever barred from entry to the Philippines. . > . After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond. 13 years of age. we cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives. To stress. unlawfully and feloniously induced complainant “AAA”.Fitzgerald filed with CA a Motion for Early Transmittal of the Records and for the ReExamination of the Penalty Imposed and a Motion for Bail. . Excessive bail shall not be required. After being taken into custody. the court below issued its questioned July 3. On the basis of the evidence adduced. actuated by lust. under the principle of reciprocity as a special circumstance.III Sec 5. an Australian citizen.000. with the violation of Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse. In extradition cases. FACTS . The bail bond posted by private respondent is CANCELLED. The grounds used by the highest court in the requesting state for the grant of bail therein may be considered. Section 13 of the Constitution.expressly guaranteeing the right to bail in extradition proceedings. Exploitation and Discrimination Act . Hence. instead of facing the consequences of their actions.Fitzgerald filed for a Motion for a New Trial and a supplemental appeal to the motion on the ground that new material of evidence not previously available has surfaced.

Dispositive The judgment of the court with reference to Rufino Lavarias is reversed. but maintains evidence already presented or on record. Plaintiff’s Claim > the grant for new trail negated the previous findings of the existence of strong evidence of guilt.RTC ordered Fitzgerald’s temporary release upon filing a cash bond of P100 000. but a matter of discretion on the part of the court. witnesses for the prosecution.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . the grant of a new trial allows for reception of newly discovered evidence.” The appellant without Sec 4 and 5 Rule 114 ROC. as required under specific conditions. No. Under Sec 6(b) Rule 121. Upon discovering this fact the court ordered the said defendant Rufino Lavarias to appear in the court room. The bail bond posted is cancelled. ISSUE WON the court did not comply with the provisions of sections 16.Cariaga alleges that the court erred in having found him guilty of the crime based of the fact that the appealed judgment states: “Upon arraignment. . It retains sufficient authority to resolve the incidents in the case and decide its merits. death. and Sec 13 Art III 1987 Consti . 58. Paulino Palisoc. and 18 of General Order No. From this sentence Fabiano Diadib. In the present case.Moreover. citing his deteriorating health and old age. (the ruling on this matter is limited to this specific case) When the SC grants new trial. 17. and the cause is remanded to the CFI Pangasinan for the purpose of a new trial. Dispositive petition is granted and the CA resolution annulled and set aside. concerning one facing an accusation for an offense punishable by a2010 page 95 Prof. . CA may decide questions of fact and of law. It is accorded to a person in the custody of law who may by reason of the presumption of innocence he enjoys. reading to him the complaint. WON CA erred in allowing bail HELD 1. WON CA had jurisdiction over the motion to post bail after issuing the resolution granting new trial 2. it vacates the judgment of the TC convicting the accused and remands the case to the TC for reception of newlydiscovered evidence and promulgation of a new judgment. Inocencio Valerio. Rufino Lavarias was not arraigned. and then and there recalled one of the witnesses for the prosecution. there is finding on the record on the potential risk of respondent committing a similar offense.Even when CA remanded the case to the TC. notwithstanding Sec1 Rule 125 ROC providing for the uniformity of the procedure between the SC and CA. 1905 FACTS The defendants were charged with the crime of robbery for entering the house of one Regino Maminta. . in either case. was sentenced to a period of six years of presidio correccional.RTC and CA were unanimous in their findings of the existence of strong evidence of guilt. and were represented by a lawyer. be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a security to guarantee his appearance before any court. were duly arraigned. The record shows that at the beginning of the trial Rufino Lavarias was not present and did not appear in court until after the fiscal had presented all of the 9 PEOPLE v AMBROSIO 56 Phil 801 PEOPLE v CARIAGA 64 Phil 1057 CONCEPCION. 17. it does not relinquish to the TC jurisdiction over the case. or informing him that he had the right to be represented by an attorney during the trial. Mexican. The court is affirmed as to the sentence of Fabiano Diadib and Inocencio Valerio on the ground of sufficiency of evidence. However. and various pieces of jewelry. CA retained its authority to act on the respondent’s bail application. that after the prosecution had closed its case against all of the said defendants except Rufino Lavarias. and Rufino Lavarias appealed to this court. in accordance with the provisions of sections 16. February 13.However. . and Domingo Torres. without arraigning the said Rufino Lavarias. all of the other defendants were present. pleaded not guilty. he entered a plea of guilty. was sentenced to be imprisoned for the period of five years of presidio correccional.CA made no specific findings that the respondent suffered from an ailment of such gravity that his continued confinement during trial will permanently impair his health or put his life in danger. because the court found that he was the leader of the said band of robbers. all of the value of 120 pesos. When it grants a new trial pursuant to Sec14 Rule 124 ROC. . 1937 NATURE Appeal from the judgment of the CFI of Manila FACTS . The said defendants were tried and each of the defendants. the court discovered that Rufino Lavarias was outside the court room. Petitioner’s Claim > People filed this petition to annul the CA Resolution arguing that the CA erred in granting the Motion for Bail despite the crime charged was punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong. Regino Maminta. 58 HELD YES. The right to bail emanates from the right to be presumed innocent. Let an order of arrest issue against the person of the accused. it may either a) receive the new evidence under Sec 12 or b) refer the case to the court of origin for reception of such evidence under Sec 15. and proceeded to examine him with reference to the part Rufino Lavarias took in the said robbery charged in the complaint.Bail is a matter of right to an accused person in custody for an offense not punishable by death.50. US v PALISOC 4 Phil 207 JOHNSON. The justification for provisional release is on humanitarian grounds.Appellant Deogracias Cariaga was convicted of the crime of theft and sentenced to 1 month and 1 day of arresto mayor and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P1. Inocencio Valerio. and 18 of General Orders. ISSUES 1. when CA grants new trial. the CA admitted that the bail was based on health reasons disregarding the substantive and procedural requirements on bail. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when evidence of guilt is strong. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. . 2. all being armed with talibones took and carried carried away the sum of 20 pesos. Bail was not a matter of right but a mere privilege subject to the discretion of CA.00. CA retained appellate jurisdiction. and Rufino Lavarias. June 29. no new evidence had been introduced negating the earlier findings of the RTC and CA. Fabiano Diadib. Mexican. 9 .

(2) use of motorized banca not aggravating. comprehended the meaning. Ratio. WHEREFORE. SO ORDERED. where they were detained under the charge of Attempted Homicide. nocturnity. and aggravated by the circumstances of evident premeditation. ISSUE WON the statement in the judgment that the accused has been arraigned and pleaded guilty is sufficient HELD YES . full significance and consequences of his plea. after which. The trial court did not render judgment outright. All this is not a mere conclusion as appellant contends. inasmuch as it may be presumed from said statement that the law has been obeyed by causing the accused to appear before the court.The statement is in compliance with the provisions of section 16&25 of Gen. 1970. where or how he was arraigned. Considering that the appellant was charged with an offense punishable by death. pleaded guilty to both informations. however. the said accused. or the averment or denial of a point of view of law derived from a law or a principle of law. but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and SEPARATE OPINION AQUINO [dissenting] -Serna should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua because: (1) recidivism not aggravating. The taking of such testimony is the prudent and proper course to follow for the purpose of establishing not only the guilt but also the precise culpability of the defendant. 58. with the aggravating circumstances of use of motorized banca as a means for flight or concealment. July 25. assisted by counsel de oficio.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales denying the fact in itself. Order No. therefore sent to SC for automatic review. in cases where the capital penalty may be imposed. Cipriano was sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua (MC offset AC) while Serna was sentenced to death (1MC to 2AC). After the plea. considering the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and the aggravating circumstance cited above. the court should make certain that defendant fully understands the nature of the charge preferred against him and the character of the punishment provided by law before it is imposed. alleging that the commission of the offense was qualified by the circumstance of treachery.By reason thereof. ISSUE WON the trial court erred in automatically rendering the penalty of death to Serna HELD NO. not enumerated under Art14. both pleaded guilty. the Fiscal asked the plea of guilty to be considered mitigating then asked the court to consider the 2 aggravating circumstance against Serna. and was sentenced to an imprisonment from 10 to 17 years in 1958. What is important is that the accused be arraigned and that he enters his plea. is not a deduction or consequence of an evidence. -the information was read to the appellants in English and translated in Samar dialect. For legal purposes. (3) treachery generic aggravating but offset by plea of guilt. Where a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant. committed in an uninhabited place and with abuse of superior strength. Rafael Serna and Antonio Cipriano took away P80 from Romualdo Villones and Leonardo Carlos. the information not alleging the prior crime for which Serna was convicted.It does not make a difference if the court. RPC. a2010 page 96 Prof. in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities. CFI of Samar found the 2 guilty. -Serna understood his plea because there was no improvident plea -don’t need to remand. a fisherman when the former stole their P80 and on the occasion killed the 2 victims. in two separate informations. It is immaterial how or in what manner such facts are stated. not only to satisfy the trial judge. The trial court should therefore call witnesses for the purposes of establishing the guilt and degree of culpability of the defendant. Oriental Mindoro. in open court and in the presence of the accused.Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao. Tiongson killed a member of the police force who was guarding them and a PC Constable who went in pursuit. stated such facts in the judgment rendered immediately. but ordered the prosecution to present its evidence. Dispositive. In this case. legal provision or principle of law. it makes no difference whether they appear in the minutes or in the judgment itself. but a positive statement of facts. -the 2 were charged with Robbery with Double Homicide. . 14 years already passed PEOPLE v TIONGSON 130 SCRA 614 CONCEPCION. and it is shown thereby that he has really been arraigned. 1984 NATURE Automatic review to the Supreme Court FACTS -In Samar during the night of November 28. because the court is of the opinion that generally a conclusion is the averment or denial of a fact deduced from some evidence. Immediately.Upon arraignment. his plea entered personally being that of guilty. contends that the record does not show when. the 2 pleaded guilty. it was a means of flight and not for the commission of the crime. Tiongson was then charged with Murder. thereafter. -upon arraignment. July 25. the trial court should have required the prosecution to present its evidence to prove the extent of his culpability. together with de la Cruz and Santiago. 1984 NATURE Mandatory review for imposition of death penalty FACTS . plus recidivism as regards Serna since he was previously convicted by final judgment in CFI of Manila. While in the act of escaping. did not even bother to ask if they understood their plea. the judgment under automatic review is hereby SET ASIDE and the case REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. The latter were paying for the fish that they bought from . after hearing the accused plead guilty upon arraignment. invoking the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt. The court did not explain the import of the plea to the 2 accused. and just imposed on Serna the death penalty. (4) fact of more than 1 homicide not aggravating. or caused said arraignment and plea to be stated in the minutes. it sentenced the said accused PEOPLE v SERNA 130 SCRA 550 CONCEPCION. the court’s averment that the accused was arraigned and that he pleaded guilty. . .

Reasoning (a) Evident premeditation must be ruled out in view of the absence of sufficient proof that a plan to kill the victims existed. the trial judge required the taking of testimony as to the circumstances under which the crime was committed before passing judgment so that the resulting verdict cannot in any way be branded as deficient. Oleby and Maricris. the Court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise . reception of evidence. assisted by a neighbor. WON the conviction must be set aside HELD 1. 1997.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales to suffer the death penalty in each case. where the penalty may be death. YES . . pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against him. especially in cases where the capital penalty may be imposed. the trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of four counts of rape against his daughters. . . as minimum. Lita Macalalad.00 in each case. Ratio It may be true that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the information. . but merely agents of a person in authority. on June 6. or where the houses are a great distance apart. PEOPLE v NADERA 324 SCRA 490 . or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. -On August 27. Gelera and PC Constable Canela to Murder. NO. herein accusedappellant. Oriental Mindoro. February 2. told their mother that they had been raped by their father. it is necessary that the place of occurrence be where there are no houses at all. ISSUES 1. for each homicide committed by him. (c) In order that commission of a crime in an uninhabited place may be considered. as stated by the trial judge. 1997. NO. Gelera was already dead when the other witness saw him. Calapan. Reasoning The circumstances qualifying or aggravating the act of killing a human being must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner. accusedappellant pleaded guilty to the crime charged in all the informations. WON the trial court erred when it accepted his plea of guilty to a capital offense without making a searching inquiry to determine whether he understood the consequences of his plea 2. (d) Abuse of superior strength must also be ruled out since there is no direct evidence that the accused employed it. the trial court should call witnesses for the purpose of establishing the guilt and degree of culpability of the defendant and not only to satisfy the trial judge but to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether accuse understood and comprehended the meaning. four informations charging accused-appellant with rape on various dates were filed in the Regional TrialCourt.Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: Sec. Plea of guilty to capital offense. 1996. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victims is hereby increased to P30.According to the RPC. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. 3. yet where there has been a hearing and such circumstances are disproven by the evidence. Cynthia S. -The record shows that at his arraignment on July 23. -However. WON the killing was qualified by treachery 3. Thereupon. Gelera. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office. (b) That the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities cannot be appreciated since they are not persons in authority. Dispositive Petition is affirmed with the modification that the accused Rudy Tiongson should be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor. methods. 2000 NATURE Automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro FACTS -On April 28. NO. Reasoning The norm that should be followed where a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant. as maximum. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Fesalbon.Pat. the prosecution formally offered its documentary evidence and rested its case thereafter. 3. 2. Pat. to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal. after the prosecution had presented Dr. the crimes may only be punished as Homicide. is that the court should be sure that defendant fully understands the nature of the charges preferred against him and the character of the punishment provided by law before it is imposed. but that the said deceased disregarded the warning.It does not appear how and in what position the victim was when he was killed so that it cannot be said for certain that the accused had adopted a mode or means of attack tending directly to insure or facilitate the commission of the offense without risk to himself arising from the defense or retaliation which the victim might put up. and to indemnify the heirs of the victims. 1996. about 15 meters away from the municipal building when the accused Rudy Tiongson and his companions escaped from prison. the execution of which was preceded by deliberate thought and reflection. mere presumptions or deductions from hypothetical facts not being sufficient to consider them justified. full significance and consequences of his plea. a considerable distance from the village or town. on August 5.000. employing means. -On August 12. WON a plea of guilt is always binding upon the accused for all the contents of the information 2. accused-appellant.Since treachery. For this reason. Garcia of the Bulalacao police force merely declared that he was in his house. "there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person.Treachery is also not present in the killing of PC Constable since the deceased was actually warned by another PC not to remain standing but seek cover because of the known presence of the accused in the vicinity. they went to the police authorities of Naujan and filed a complaint against accused-appellant -After preliminary examination. assisted by Atty. 1996. -Accused-appellant did not present any evidence in his defense." a2010 page 97 Prof. they should be disallowed in the judgment. MENDOZA. and he did not see the accused shoot Pat. 1997. WON there were aggravating circumstances present HELD 1. -Nadera appealed ISSUES 1. which would qualify the killing of Pat. Manolo A. In the instant case. the Court requires that in every case under a plea of guilty. was not present. including the aggravating circumstances listed therein.

which the latter answered." . the conviction must be sustained. 1996 [against Maricris Nadera. there is nothing else to indicate the reason for the decision. thus: Upon arraignment. 7659. Alicando. Acting Provincial Governor and Provincial Warden. counsel for the accused manifested that the accused. Province of Mindoro. After having been informed of this. and the testimonies of PEOPLE v NAVARRO 75 Phil 516 BENGZON. -Clearly. 1945. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused. Except for the narration of the prosecution's evidence and a bare recital of R. in the municipality of Calapan. 1992 against his daughter. Oleby Nadera. -Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of judgment. As has been said. assisted by Atty. Beloncio II had been detained for several days after January 27. Cynthia Fesalbon. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office. a searching inquiry must focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea. absent any showing that these questions were put to accused-appellant. (3) the court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. Daisy. both being public officials to whom the custody and responsibility of prisoners were entrusted for proper action. Beloncio and Juan G." and whether he fully understood the consequences of his guilty plea. a mere a2010 page 98 Prof. -Under this Rule. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. he insisted that he is willing to enter a plea of guilty to the crimes charged and is ready to face the consequences thereof. and. Yes. accused. The judge must ask the accused the manner the latter was arrested or detained. however. full significance and consequences of his plea. Dispositive The appealed decision is set aside. especially where he is an ignorant person with a little or no education. realizing the futility of entering into trial and considering that he actually committed the acts complained of. without any lawful or justifiable cause and without legal grounds therefor. Sevillano. -In the case at bar. Atty.Information for arbitrary detention: "That from January 27. three things are enjoined upon the trial court when a plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered: (1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the consequences thereof. with the result that admissions were made to the effect that Esteban P. he would be sentenced to death by lethal injection.A pre-trial was held. the trial court described the manner in which the accused pleaded guilty. if he desires. unlawfully and feloniously detain Esteban P. persuade us that a remand of this case is necessary.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales degree of culpability. their mother. The accused may also present evidence on his behalf. educational attainment and socio-economic status of the accused may reveal insights for a proper verdict in the case. intimated his intention to enter a plea of guilty to the above-mentioned charges. (b) the manner in which he conducted Maricris Nadera's cross examination.A. who was 9 years old at the time. amending Art. warning that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is insufficient. pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. in the provincial jail of Mindoro by . The trial judge must erase such mistaken impressions. including the aggravating circumstances therein enumerated. Certain circumstances present in this case. For more often than not. and the physician who conducted the medical examination of the two girls. He must be completely convinced that the guilty plea made by the accused was not made under duress or promise of reward. -The prosecution evidence consisted of the testimonies of Oleby and Maricris Nadera. In addition. (c) his failure not only to present evidence for the accused but also to inform the accused of his right to do so. -In this case. 1945 FACTS . this Court held that: …In every case where the accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense. when these cases were called for pre-trial and trial. the defense counsel should also be asked whether he conferred with the accused and completely explained to him the meaning and the consequences of a plea of guilt. Dr. the Judge asking the parties or their attorneys some questions. Manolo A. -Second. -In People v. Furthermore. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. -As explained in People v. the plea of guilty of accused-appellant in this case was made improvidently. However. since the age. Beloncio in the Provincial Jail of Mindoro which continued for more than fifteen days but less than six months. did then and there wilfully. an accused pleads guilty upon bad advice or because he hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter penalty. he would be sentenced to reclusion perpetua and for the three other counts of rape committed on April 17 and 24. the record does not show what exactly transpired at the re-arraignment of accusedappellant. Manolo A. the proper and prudent course to follow is to take such evidence as are available and necessary in support of the material allegations of the information. -First. a perusal of the decision of the court reveals that the trial judge failed to state the factual and legal reasons on which he based accused-appellant's conviction. -In its decision. the cavalier attitude of accused-appellant's counsel. not only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning. a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been undertaken by the trial court. respectively. Commonwealth of the Philippines. 1945. The accused was then asked by this Court if he was aware of the consequences of a plea of guilty to a capital offense: that for the rape he committed on May 17. cannot go unnoticed. 2. -The warnings given by the trial court in this case fall short of the requirement that it must make a searching inquiry to determine whether accused-appellant understood fully the import of his guilty plea. and. It is discernible in (a) his refusal to cross examine Oleby Nadera. 1995 [both against Oleby Nadera] and on March 3. and whether he was assisted by counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations. (2) the court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability. said defendants Juan Navarro and Anacleto Atienza. There is no evaluation of the evidence and no reason given why the court found the testimonies of the witnesses credible. the results of their medical examinations. and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. and for several days thereafter. 11 years old at the time]. for what reason he changed his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty. No. December 4. the trial court must ask questions concerning them. because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.

the said accused. then an employee of the Local Civil Registrar's Office of Manila." Other sections of the same rule would imply that the issue is restricted to those alleged in the information.The Beloncios were thus deprived of their liberty by order of the military authorities. in the following manner. in the interest of a speedy administration of justice.00. do not. United States Army. being then members of the Manila Police Department.00 bill together with the money taken from said Marcial Apolonio y Santos. . Dispositive Appealed decision affirmed. or the confusion usually resulting from the situation. upon the ground that the facts charged did not constitute a criminal offense. 5 and the crime of incriminatory machinations is punishable with arresto mayor.Prima facie. but they may be amplified or qualified by others appearing to be additional circumstances. which was to expedite the issuance of a birth LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE [supra.But the Court sees no reason to prohibit the fiscal from making. While the infringement of constitutional precepts and privileges is not to be tolerated. but that the guilty are justly punished. in connection with the performance of his (Marcial Apolonio y Santos) duties. nor is the latter to be inveigled into a premature and risky revelation of his evidence. upon admissions made by the people's representative. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact. simply because they were not described in the complaint. as follows: "That on or about the 28th day of February. . thereby directly incriminating or imputing to said Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of the crime of bribery. and it was during that investigation that they plated incriminatory evidence against him. not that all accused are convicted. should be visited upon defendants-appellees. in all candor. because the principle can never be sufficiently reiterated that such official's role is to see that justice is done. 1988 NATURE .It is very apparent that by the use of the phrase "thru unlawful arrest" in the information an idea is conveyed that the unlawful arrest was resorted to as a necessary means to plant evidence in the person of the offended party. without reasonable ground therefor and for the purpose of delivering said Marcial Apolonio y Santos to the proper authorities. in the City of Manila. From a reading of the info the SC finds a close connection between the act of the accused in first unlawfully arresting the offended party and then investigating him. committed by others. it may be added that upon similar motions the court and the fiscal are not required to go beyond the averments of the information. June 27. unlawfully and feloniously arrest said Marcial Apolonio y Santos. that upon military occupation and before the establishment of the normal processes of civil government the liberties and rights of citizens are likely to suffer temporary restrictions. so that he (Marcial Apolonio y Santos). ISSUE WON the motion to quash on the ground that “the facts charged do not constitute and offense” must be restricted to the facts charged in the informations HELD NO . what with the a2010 page 99 Prof.It would seem to be pure technicality to hold that in the consideration of the motion. that after the said Marcial Apolonio y Santos had been arrested in the manner aforestated. war necessities and consequences cannot be overlooked. . Also the court a quo has jurisdiction to try the accused of the offense charged in the information. on the aforesaid date. At any rate. The acts imputed to them. Of course. thereby incriminating him. April 30. SC agrees with the Solicitor General in his contention that the accused first had to resort to unlawful arrest in order to be able to plant the P1. certificate. 1961. no reasons are shown why the irregularity. . the "facts charged" are those described in the complaint. The crime of unlawful arrest is punishable with arresto mayor or imprisonment of from one month and one day to six months. the said accused did then and there place on commingle a marked P1. defendants' counsel lost no time in filing a motion to quash. and deciding accordingly. if any.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales order of the Commanding General. Whereupon.00 bill among the money taken from the offended party." -defendants filed a motion to quash saying that (1) the facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense (because the two crimes cannot be complexed). or imprisonment of from one month and one day to six months. and a fine not exceeding P500. and while the latter was supposedly being investigated by the said accused. and (2) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged -CFI granted motion to dismiss agreeing with defendants -MFR was denied -appeal by fiscal before SC ISSUE WON the CFI erred in granting motion to quash HELD YES . unlawfully and feloniously incriminate or impute to one Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of the crime by bribery thru unlawful arrest. Western Visayan Task Force. constitute a punishable offense.The section of the rule permitting a motion to quash on the ground that "the facts charged do not constitute an offense" omits reference to the facts detailed "in the information. Dispositive The order appealed from is reversed and set aside exigencies of military strategy.The judge dismissed the cases. which admissions could anyway be submitted by him as amendments to the same information. 1966 NATURE This is an appeal by the City Fiscal of Manila from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila sustaining the motion to quash the information FACTS -City Fiscal of Manila filed an information against the defendants-appellees charging them of the complex crime of incriminatory machinations thru unlawful arrest. . to wit: the said accused. Less reason can there be to prohibit the court from considering those admissions. conspiring and confederating together and helping one another. of themselves. page 41] GAMBOA v CRUZ 162 SCRA 642 PADILLA. Philippines. the parties and the judge were precluded from considering facts which the fiscal admitted to be true. a few days after the liberations of Mindoro. did then and there willfully. admissions of undeniable facts. did then and there willfully. would appear to have agreed to perform an act not constituting a crime. PEOPLE v ALAGAO 16 SCRA 879 ZALDIVAR. supposedly given to the latter by one Emerita Calupas de Aresa.

committed no reversible error or grave abuse of discretion. But the Court cannot be swayed by appellations for it has a duty. 107 and 222 2. NO. 29 FACTS Petitioner alleges that he was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant of arrest. ISSUES 1. is fatally defective.. While the complainant was being interrogated by the police investigator. or proving an offense which does not legally exist. Besides. Asuncion erred in holding that the possession of loose firearms and explosives is not illegal per se during the period covered by EO Nos. page 100 Prof. applying statutes similar to the executive orders in question. extended to 31 December 1987 by EO No. The respondent court issued an order denying the Motion to Acquit. ISSUE WON the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order HELD NO If a defendant does not move to quash the complaint or information before pleading. May 24. pistons. is similar to RA Nos. Consequently. a former colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. petitioner was told to sit down in front of her. The information. the lower court did not err in denying petitioner's Motion to Acquit. 1866 which was not repealed by said EO NO. manifested in open court that he was filing a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer to Evidence.” -Upon motion of the accused. in dismissing the information. five detainees. 222. to accord to every man who comes before it in appropriate proceedings the right to due process and the equal protection of the laws. Manila where he was booked for vagrancy and then detained therein together with several others. in view of Executive Order No. -that said EOs merely authorized holders or possessors of unlicensed firearms and ammunition to surrender the same within a specified filing period without incurring criminal liability. Br. Austria) the presentation of evidence "cannot have the effect of validating a void information. ammunitions and magazines (see orig case for the list) “without first securing the necessary license and/or permit from the lawful authority. 2. 1988 NATURE Certiorari FACTS: -Rolando Abadilla. the other detainees were brought back to their cell but petitioner was ordered to stay on. the present recourse by the prosecution. the grounds relied upon by petitioner in his Motion to Acquit are not among the grounds provided in Sec. Technically speaking. He was arraigned and thereafter hearings were held. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court for quashing a complaint or information. SC did NOT give it a different meaning because there is no basis for such a difference. his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. Petitioner’s Claims -nothing is contained in said EOs which legalizes the possession of firearms and ammunition without a permit. The next day. and there is no allegation in said information that the firearms and ammunition enumerated therein were carried outside the accused's residence or used in the commission of some other crime. Petitioner filed said motion on the ground that the conduct of the line-up without notice to. an information for robbery was filed against petitioner. Lopez. The prosecution formally offered its evidence and then rested its case. defendant is deemed to have waived all objections which are grounds for a motion to quash. WON J. 4 and 482. “that one is a companion. 222. J. 2. NO. and which also provided for a period within which a holder or possessor of PEOPLE v ASUNCION 161 SCRA 490 PADILLA. 79 Phil 658.” After the identification. IT IS NECESSARY TO ALLEGE IT IN THE INFO. Asuncion dismissed the Information on the ground that it did not allege sufficient facts to constitute an offense. except if the unlicensed firearm or ammunition is carried outside of one's residence. WON it was not necessary for the prosecution to allege in the information that the firearms and ammunition. -that illegal possession of firearms and ammunition is still penalized under PD No. and in the absence of. Reasoning 1. a2010 Dispositive Petition dismissed. the instant petition. Asunction. in this particular charge against Abadilla. complainant Bernal pointed to petitioner and said. -The prosecution filed a MR of said Resolution. Petitioner. are not applicable. 107 and 222. or used in the commission of any other offense. petitioner is deemed to have waived objections which are grounds for a motion to quash. were brought out of the residence of the accused or were used by him in the commission or another offense. including petitioner. but this Court. as amended by EO No. WON under the allegation in the information. by counsel. not for the purpose of surrendering the same. EO NO. petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit only after the the prosecution presented its evidence and rested its case. .. 107 and 222 that expressly legalizes the unlicensed possession of firearms and ammunition. It may be true that there is nothing in EO Nos. prosecution may prove that the accused earned the firearms and ammunition outside of his residence HELD 1. within which to surrender the same to the proper authorities. 3. instead of presenting his defense. or the court is without jurisdiction of the same. Since the exceptions above-stated. . Here. . that information does not exist in contemplation of law. 107 which gives holders or possessors of unlicensed firearms and ammunition a period of six months from its effectivity. but the motion was denied -Hence. was charged before the QC RTC with the offense of Violation of PD No. Hence. Thereafter. he was brought to Precinct 2. since the possession of loose firearms and explosives is not illegal per se. 1866 [ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION) --The Information read that he “willfully. subject matter of this case. as a temple of justice. without incurring any criminal liability therefor. 107. the respondent judge cited the decision in People vs. Ratio (citing People vs.In support thereof. unlawfully and feloniously had in his possession and under his custody and control” rifles." -Abadilla is regarded with unusual ease and facility as the "hit man" of the Marcos regime. The information was not merely defective but it does not charge any offense at all. Subsquently. except where the complaint or information does not charge an offense. since these circumstances are not essential ingredients of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition 3.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Peition for certiorari and prohibition to review the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila. It would be fatally defective against any other accused charged with the same offense.

Gravamen is that he demanded and received from M/V Lady Angelita I 2 to 3 cases of beer & soft drinks as consideration for giving preferential berthing facilities.October 18. Information was based on complaint filed by assistant director of District AntiSmuggling Action Center. in effect legalized mere unlicensed on within one year from said date. It was one of 5 cases filed against Layosa. One who desires to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person must appear in court for that purpose only.Layosa filed instant petition for certiorari. Tabunares: RA No. Respondent fiscal alleged that petitioner had abandoned contention as to lack of jurisdiction. 3019. Lopez~ It will be seen that sec 2 (of RA NO 4) excluded from the operation of sec 1 up to August 31. the objection that it has no jurisdiction of the person of the accused may be waived. defendant's voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons. filed motion for Layosa's suspension. Judge pointed out that his action was sanctioned by Administrative Order No. under RA No. that the Chief State Prosecutor in a telegram to the fiscal directed that the record of the case be elevated for review. The Court said: -Feliciano ruling was reiterated in People vs. . . . Austria~ the Court also ruled that in order that an information charging illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. under RA No.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales unlicensed firearms and ammunition may surrender the same to the proper authorities without incurring criminal liability. it must allege that the accused was using the unlicensed firearm or carrying it in his person at the time he was apprehended by the authorities with said firearm. His counsel participated. Branch XI FACTS . except to surrender them." Layosa waived the objection based on lack of jurisdiction over his person when. Layosa appealed to CA. . Respondent Judge granted motion. since it is rested solely on unlicensed possession on or about November 6. -People vs. . and punished only (1) the use of a or ammunition or (2) the carriage thereof on the person except for purpose of surrender. he waives the objection. of the offense.This is about suspension of Layosa. although such person is not exempt from criminal liability filing within the period provided. and that respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion. He prayed that suspension be set aside. Dispositive Petition is DENIED. that is the only construction compatible with the spirit and purposes of the enactment as revealed by its context. as already noted.Layosa did not submit memorandum. He contended that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person because no warrant of arrest had as yet been issued when hearing on his suspension was held and the case was not raffled to respondent Judge. 3019). 482 legalized mere unlicensed possession of firearms and ammunition for the limited period specified in said law.Lower court acquired jurisdiction upon filing of information. However. collector of customs. 1946. ISSUE WON trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering suspension HELD NO . who was charged by city fiscal in CFI w/ having violated AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Law (Republic Act No. if not the sole ingredient. a2010 page 101 Prof. He was scheduled to hold sessions and the other Judge was to begin one-month vacation. Requirements of due process were observed.e. Appellant's conviction cannot stand. lower court adjudged him in contempt of court and penalized him by imprisonment for 3 mos and fine of P500. Public interest demands a speedy determination of that question. aside from malversation case. and punished only (1) the use of unlicensed firearm or ammunition. LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE [supra. -People vs. . he appeared at the presuspension hearing and his counsel cross-examined the prosecution witness. Feliciano~ SC ruled that RA No. the use or the carrying of firearms and/or ammunition was an ingredient. possession of firearms and ammunition so long as they were not used for any purpose other than self-defense or carried for any purpose other than of surrendering them to the proper authorities. He found that a valid information had been filed against Layosa. the very acts which were punished. pursuant to sec 13 of RA No. 1950. 1971: An information for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed . (Note that in civil cases. had ruled that a criminal liability was temporarily LIFTED for mere possession' of unlicensed firearms and ammunition during the period covered. .October 17. November 10. voluntary appearance through counsel was submission to lower court's jurisdiction. Fiscal stressed that case had been scheduled for trial at instance of petitioner and that latter manifested his willingness to proceed.) . Lopez~ the Court already ruled that. i. should be alleged and proved. Although the law does not categorically state that criminal liability was temporarily lifted for mere possession of filing firegems and ammunition. Case was eventually raffled to sala of respondent Judge. 1978 NATURE Certiorari from order of CA FACTS . may be deemed suffident. Office of State Prosecutors sustained filing of information against Layosa.Because Layosa defied suspension. He was arraigned PEOPLE v CITY COURT OF MANILA 121 SCRA 637 RELOVA. April 27. page 41] LAYOSA v RODRIGUEZ 86 SCRA 300 AQUINO. and hence. he acted on motion for suspension because case was filed after raffling between 2 branches of court had been terminated.Fiscal. People vs. 2. 1983 NATURE Petition to review the order of the City Court of Manila. and replaced as collector of customs. The Government does not dispute this interpretation. .It is true that petitioner was not yet arrested or taken into custody when pre-suspension hearing was held. 6 of SC which empowers Executive Judge to act on interlocutory matters prior to raffling. Layosa posted bail bond. Petitioner was notified of presuspension hearing. or (2) the carrying of such firearm or ammunition on the person.Respondent Judge explained that. 482. 4."Where a court has jurisdiction of the offense or subject matter. 482. -People vs. subject to certain conditions. 1971: The incident occurred. to avoid delay. he carries the firearm and ammunition (unless it is for the purpose of surrendering the same) or he commits any other offense with the use of such unlicensed firearm and ammunition. and if he raises other questions.

that Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy. 1986 FACTS . . The only sensible conclusion is that the accused was hastily made to plead guilty to serious physical injuries to foreclose a charge for homicide even before it could be filed. Diolito dela Cruz died.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales against Francisco Gapay y Mallares. the City Fiscal filed an Urgent Motion asking that the "hearing and arraignment of this case be held in abeyance for there is information that the victim.Marcos was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board to investigate.In his memorandum. the victim Diolito de la Cruz died. the accused was arraigned. that Rolando Galman was the NPA-hired assassin." in short. The only difference between the two reports is that the majority report found all the 26 private respondents headed by then AFP Chief General Fabian Ver involved in the military conspiracy while the chairman's minority report would exclude 19 of them and limit as plotters "the 6 persons who were on the service stairs while Senator Aquino was descending" and "General Luther Custodio because the criminal plot could not have been planned and implemented without his intervention. Arturo Custodio who picked him up from his house on August 17. collusion. Marcos through all his recorded public acts and statements from the beginning disdained and rejected his own Board's findings and insisted on the military version of Galman being Ninoy's assassin. outstanding members of the Philippine Bar and solid after the accident and the arrest of the respondent Gapay" and that on October 20.However. issued an order dismissing the homicide thru reckless imprudence case on the ground of double jeopardy. It based its decision on the ruling in People v Buan. and the information would have to be amended. and that the military escorts gunned him down in turn. Aquino down the service stairs.At any rate. 1972: Gapay was arraigned on the charge of serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. the military's "fall guy" was "not the assassin of Sen. was sentenced to 1 month and 1 day of arresto mayor. Dispositive Order of dismissal of lower court affirmed. 1983) was a communist-hired gunman. in turn.Ninoy Aquino was cold-bloodedly killed while under escort from his plane that had just landed at the Manila International Airport on August 21." The military investigators reported within a span of three hours that the man who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be unknown and was revealed only days later as Rolando Galman.Saturnina Galman and Reynaldo Galman. ." They were in agreement that "only the soldiers in the staircase with Sen. deliberately and in conspiracy with one another. 1972: An information for homicide thru reckless imprudence was filed against Gapay . Both majority and minority reports were one in rejecting the military version as propounded by the chief investigator.October 24. 1983. it is most surprising that the accused could have been arraigned for the charge of serious physical injuries only 3 days after the incident. was tainted by fraud. records are inadequate to show that the arraignment. However. while hasty and surrounded by seemingly suspicious circumstances. 1972: the City Court of Manila. and 29 other petitioners. On the same day. of Galman himself. stating that "the evidence shows [to the contrary] that Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations. 1972. there would be a trifling with the processes of justice and a collusive effort amounting to fraud or deceit to deprive the State of its authority to prosecute an accused for the correct offense.October 20. I concur in the affirmance of the order of dismissal in line with the many protections that the Constitution and the laws give to the accused in criminal prosecutions. pleaded guilty and sentenced accordingly. a former AFP Chief of Staff. of the late Rolando Galman.Respondent court held that above rule does not apply in this case. GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN 144 SCRA 43 TEEHANKEE. five incumbent and former university presidents. 1972. it was technically impossible to get inside such a cordon." . mother and son. . SEPARATE OPINION GUTIERREZ [concurring] . driver of the truck. Reasoning . constitutes a new and distinct offense. September 12. In such a case.Be that as it may. .Knowing the volume of the caseload in the City Court of Manila and the inevitably slow pace of work. where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible. composed of three former Justices of this Court. together with the facts existing at the time. His brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into the back of his head by a murderous assassin. the fact remains that the victim Diolito dela Cruz died on October 18 "one (1) day a2010 page 102 Prof. Aquino and the mowing down. and commenced serving sentence. a military viewpoint. gave a perjured story to us regarding the alleged shooting by Galman of Sen. He pleaded guilty. not a communist plot. Thus.000 soldiers and "from . . jeopardy had attached and no new fact supervened after the arraignment and conviction of the accused.] . upon motion of private respondent. which changes the character of the offense and. The trial court concluded that once prosecuted for and convicted of negligence. the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense." . The accused does not appear to have been a detention prisoner necessitating his immediate arraignment right after the filing of the information. or other form of chicanery sufficient to sustain a finding that the State was denied due process . the Solicitor General made mention of the fact that on October 21. respondent Gen.November 17.As the accused were tried in the Sandiganbayan. Aquino could have shot him. the accused cannot again be prosecuted for the same negligence although for a different resulting injury. Olivas. 2 days after the filing of the information and the death of the victim. Aquino" and that "the SWAT troopers who gunned down Galman and the soldiers who escorted Sen. although he was the personal friend of accused Col. which held that Article 365 of the Penal Code punishes the negligent state of mind and not the resulting injury." that Galman. [Note: His private acts in trying to control the outcome of the case were to be known much later after he was already deposed. ISSUES WON a person who has been prosecuted for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and convicted thereof may be prosecuted subsequently for homicide thru reckless imprudence if the offended party dies as a result of the same injuries he had suffered HELD NO Ratio One who has been charged with an offense cannot be charged again with the same or identical offense though the latter be lesser or greater than the former. notwithstanding that the airport was ringed by airtight security of close to 2. respectively.

if only to allow justice to take its course." ISSUES 1. 1985. Answering Respondents would not interpose any objection to the reopening of those cases.' be granted." Petitioners prayed for the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order restraining the respondent Sandiganbayan from rendering a decision on the merits in the pending criminal cases which it had scheduled on November 20. but manifested that "if it is true that the former Tanodbayan and the Deputy Tanodbayan. If the State is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and convict because certain material evidence is suppressed by the prosecution and the tribunal is not impartial. and which not only prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its position and to offer all the evidences which it could have otherwise presented. the same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. were pressured into suppressing vital evidence which would probably alter the result of the trial. and invoked that the issues had become moot and academic because of the rendition of the Sandiganbayan's judgment of acquittal of all respondents-accused on December 2. 1985 and that judgment be rendered declaring a mistrial and nullifying the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan and ordering a re-trial before an impartial tribunal by an unbiased prosecutor. Chief of the Prosecution Panel. resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the temporary restraining order issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. and hereby respectfully recommends that the prayer in the petition for a declaration of a mistrial in Sandiganbayan Cases Nos. 1985. The courts of the land under its aegis are courts of law and justice and equity. instead of repositories of judicial power whose judges are sworn and committed to render impartial justice to all alike who seek the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. further arguing that assuming that the judgment of acquittal is void for any reason. Thus. the instant case had become moot and academic. remedy is a direct action to annul the judgment where the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff to establish by clear. and that their acts "clouded with the gravest doubts the sincerity of government to find out the truth about the Aquino assassination. WON the petition for a declaration of a mistrial in Sandiganbayan Cases Nos. 1985. and to submit their findings to this Court for proper disposition. The Commission submitted the following recommendation: “Considering the existence of adequate credible evidence showing that the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to resist.. competent and convincing evidence the cause of the nullity. having instead successfully resisted perceived attempts to exert pressure to drop the case after preliminary investigation and actually ordered the filing and prosecution of the two murder cases against privateparty respondents.The Supreme Court appointed a three-member commission composed of retired SC Justice Conrado Vasquez. deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth.On March 20. Respondents Justices of the Sandiganbayan First Division in their collective comment of April 9. They would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice. 10010 and 10011 entitled 'People vs. respondent a2010 page 103 Prof. upon prior notice to all parties. .The Supreme Court resolved by nine-to-two votes to issue the restraining order prayed for. that the proceedings in the said case have been vitiated by lack of due process. but also predetermined the final outcome of the case. testimonial and documentary. The accused-respondents raised the issue of double jeopardy.] . et al. [Note that EDSA I happened before the month ended. 10010 and 10011 entitled 'People vs. subject to the better opinion and judgment of this Honorable Court..Respondents-accused opposed the second motion for reconsideration and prayed for its denial. WON a retrial would constitute double jeopardy HELD 1. the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse. and retired IAC Justices Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa as members.The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and travesty of justice to stand unrectified. on December 2. as well as Olivas.Tanodbayan Fernandez claimed he never succumbed to any alleged attempts to influence his actuations in the premises. as scheduled. alleging that the dismissal did not indicate the legal ground for such action and urging that the case be set for a full hearing on the merits because if the charge of partiality and bias against the respondents and suppression of vital evidence by the prosecution are proven. But ten days later on November 28. the Court required the respondents to comment on the motion for reconsideration but issued no restraining order. declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil liability. to hear and receive evidence.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales citizens of the community. . [Hmmm… tsk] . They asserted that the Tanodbayan did not represent the interest of the people when he failed to exert genuine and earnest efforts to present vital and important testimonial and documentary evidence for the prosecution and that the Sandiganbayan Justices were biased." that the then President had ordered the respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez and the prosecution panel headed by Herrera to whitewash the criminal cases against the 26 respondents accused and produce a verdict of acquittal. Luther Custodio. 1986.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. YES Reasoning . the . the Commission is of the considered thinking and belief. petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for reconsideration. ." . filed the present action alleging that respondents Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the sovereign people of the Philippines to due process of law. 1986 issue of the Manila Times entitled "Aquino Trial a Sham. [Note: the word used by the Sandiganbayan was “innocent” instead of “not guilty”!] Respondents submitted that with the Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal. chairman. . The thrust of the second motion for reconsideration was the startling and therefore unknown revelations of Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera as reported in the March 6.' be granted 2. On February 4. without fear or favor and removed from the pressures of Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the accused of the crime charged. prejudiced and partial in favor of the accused. 1986. 1986 stated that the trial of the criminal cases by them was valid and regular and decided on the basis of evidence presented and the law applicable. the petitioners would be entitled to the relief demanded: The People are entitled to due process which requires an impartial tribunal and an unbiased prosecutor. then the entire proceedings would be null and void. Petitioners prayed that the Sandiganbayan be restrained from promulgating their decision as scheduled anew on December 2.On December 5. 1985. Luther Custodio. with counsels for respondents Ver and Tigas. of the charges of collusion and pressures and relevant matters. et al. 1985.

the prosecution and the sovereign people were denied due process of law with a partial court and biased Tanodbayan under the constant and pervasive monitoring and pressure exerted by the authoritarian President to assure the carrying out of his instructions. its right to due process is thereby violated. he breeds contempt for the law.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales politics and prejudice. The Court is constrained to declare the sham trial a mock trial . it is no judgment at all. The prosecution complained of "the Presiding Justice's seemingly hostile attitude towards (it)" and their being the subject of warnings. Fully aware of the prosecution's difficulties in locating witnesses and overcoming their natural fear and reluctance to appear and testify. 10010 and 10011 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. March 6. and "architecturally concealed inside the walls of the building" owned by the private respondent. The resolutions of November 28. the first jeopardy was never terminated. (c) after arraignment. Dispositive Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration is granted. (d) a valid plea having been entered. without the necessary authority from the city government. in the case at bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake. intimidate and threaten its witnesses. and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy. devices and contraptions had been installed. as an accused before the military tribunal Ninoy had pleaded in vain that as a civilian he was entitled to due process of law and trial in the regular civil courts before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. respondent Sandiganbayan maintained a "dizzying tempo" of the proceedings and announced its intention to terminate the proceedings in about 6 months time or less than a year. To paraphrase Brandeis: If the authoritarian head of the government becomes the lawbreaker. Notwithstanding the laudable efforts of Justice Herrera which saw him near the end "deactivating" himself from the case." and ordering a re-trial of the said cases which should be conducted with deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for the requirements of due process. It is a terrible and unspeakable affront to the society and the people. The lower court was not competent as it was ousted of its jurisdiction when it violated the right of the prosecution to due process. In effect. an information against Manuel Opulencia for violation of Ordinance No. to suppress its evidence. More so. Series of 1974. he filed a motion to dismiss the information upon the grounds that the crime there charged had already prescribed and that the civil indemnity there sought to be recovered was beyond the jurisdiction of the Batangas City Court to award. secure their recantation or prevent them from testifying. 1986 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside and in lieu PEOPLE V." Herrera pleaded for "a reasonable period of preparation of its evidence" and cited other pending cases before respondent court that were pending trial for a much longer time where the "dizzying tempo" and "fast pace" were not maintained by the court. . the sham trial was but a mock trial where the authoritarian president ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure the predetermined final outcome of acquittal and a2010 page 104 Prof.More so does the rule against the invoking of double jeopardy hold in the cases at bar where as we have held. as it was his belief that its eventual resolution was already a foregone conclusion. These electric devices and contraptions were. Ninoy is the victim of the "treacherous and vicious assassination" and the relatives and sovereign people as the aggrieved parties plead once more for due process of law and a retrial before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. On 2 February 1976. Thus.the non-trial of the century and that the predetermined judgment of acquittal was unlawful and void ab initio. In life. A dictated. Batangas City. Such a judgment is "a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw". they could not cope with the misuse and abuse of the overwhelming powers of the authoritarian President to weaken the case of the prosecution. the People seek to set aside the orders of the respondent Judge of the CFI of Batangas in a criminal case. he invites anarchy. Batangas City . courts are ousted of their jurisdiction. in the allegation of the petitioner "designed purposely to lower or decrease the readings of electric current consumption in the electric meter of the said electric [ice and cold storage] plant. In death. Manuel Opulencia pleaded not guilty. Manifestly. . RELOVA 148 SCRA 292 FELICIANO. In legal contemplation. equipped with a search warrant issued by a city judge of Batangas City. searched and examined the premises of the Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold Storage owned and operated by the private respondent Manuel Opulencia. FACTS . (b) before a competent court. harass. a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction. 2. 1985 dismissing the petition and of February 4. and the remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy. The police discovered that electric wiring. and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused." During the subsequent investigation. total absolution as innocent of all the respondentsaccused. the violation of the State's right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Reasoning . Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case. 1987 NATURE Petition for certiorari and mandamus. they will be able to produce their witnesses. reprimand and contempt proceedings as compared to the nil situation for the defense. 1. Gen.CASE: On 24 November 1975. It neither binds nor bars anyone. Herrera likewise complained of being "cajoled into producing witnesses and pressed on making assurances that if given a certain period. members of the Batangas City Police together with personnel of the Batangas Electric Light System. Luther Custodio. NO Ratio Double jeopardy cannot be invoked against this Court's setting aside of the trial courts' judgment of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process. he invites every man to become a law unto himself.Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment. judgment is hereby rendered nullifying the proceedings in respondent Sandiganbayan and its judgment of acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. et al. The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights. pursuant to the scripted scenario. so that the truth may be finally known and justice done to all. Manuel Opulencia admitted in a written statement that he had caused the installation of the electrical devices "in order to lower or decrease the readings of his electric meter. quashing an information for theft filed against private respondent Manuel Opulencia on the ground of double jeopardy and denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. thereof.CIRCUMSTANCES: On 1 February 1975. Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent. coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal such as that in the case at bar is a void judgment.

where the offenses charged are penalized either by different sections of the same statute or by different statutes. Manuel Opulencia filed a Motion to Quash. . the important inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charged: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available only where an Identity is shown to exist between the earlier and the subsequent offenses charged. by examining the location of such acts in time and space. but rather under the second sentence of the same section. paragraph (1). When the acts of the accused as set out in the two informations are so related to each other in time and space as to be reasonably regarded as having taken place on the same occasion and where those acts have been moved by one and the same. WON the filing of the second Information has placed the accused in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense a second time HELD 1. Petition for certiorari and mandamus is DENIED. An MOR was denied. another information against Manuel Opulencia. 5.trial court granted Motion to Quash. Put a little differently. -Respondent Judge granted the accused's Motion to Quash and ordered the case dismissed. the present Petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed in this Court by the Acting City Fiscal of Batangas City on behalf of the People. . 1974: Caniza filed Motion to Quash saying that allegations in the information did not constitute an offense. where one offense is charged under a municipal ordinance while the other is penalized by a statute. (Yes) HELD RATIO: Where one offense is charged under a municipal ordinance while the other is penalized by a statute. provided that both offenses spring from the same act or set of acts. if true.May 24. The question of Identity of the acts which are claimed to have generated liability both under a municipal ordinance and a national statute must be addressed. In contrast. would constitute a legal excuse or justification . of the Revised Penal Code. .Fiscal’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Order was denied . 1979 issued by Branch 23 of CFI of Manila in Criminal Case 46768 and 2) said court’s Order of March 20.Caniza moved to quash this second information on the grounds that 1) the offense charged had already prescribed. 27. the critical inquiry is to the identity of the acts which the accused is said to have committed and which are alleged to have given rise to the two offenses: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available so long as the acts which constitute or have given rise to the first offense under a municipal ordinance are the same acts which constitute or have given rise to the offense charged under a statute. 2)quashal of the first Information had been on the merits. or a continuing.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription. not under the terms of the first sentence of Article IV (22) of the 1973 Constitution. this time for theft of electric power under Article 308 in relation to Article 309.He also denied Caniza’s motion for reconsideration ISSUES 1.On 1 December 1976. and it appearing further that the information was filed by the fiscal more than nine months after discovery of the offense charged in February 1975. 3)the allegations of the second Information did not constitute and offense . DISPOSITION PEOPLE v GROSPE [supra. Before he could be arraigned thereon. page 43] CANIZA v PEOPLE (AGLORO) 159 SCRA 16 FELICIANO. The second sentence of Article IV (22) embodies an exception to the general proposition: the constitutional protection. (Article IV (22). it appearing that the offense charged was a light felony which prescribes two months from the time of discovery thereof. 1968 by Caniza. and that the information contained averments which.March 20.Fourteen (14) days later.Respondent judge issued an order denying the motion to quash . the critical inquiry is to the identity of the acts which the accused is said to have committed and which are alleged to have given rise to the two offenses: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available so long as the acts which constitute or have given rise to the first offense under a municipal ordinance are the same acts which constitute or have given rise to the offense charged under a statute. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance. WON the offense charged had already prescribed 2. The first sentence of Article IV (22) sets forth the general rule: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is not available a2010 page 105 Prof. 1988 NATURE Petition for Prohibition and certiorari directed at 1) the CFI Order of Nov. Let the civil action for related civil liability be remanded to the CFI of Batangas City for further proceedings. as such elements are set out in the respective legislative definitions of the offenses involved. 1980 in the same case denying Caniza’s Motion for Reconsideration FACTS . March 18. in the first instance. alleging that he had been previously acquitted of the offense charged in the second information and that the filing thereof was violative of his constitutional right against double jeopardy. although both the first and second offenses may be based upon the same act or set of acts. REASONING: Constitutional provision on double jeopardy reads: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. such acts may be appropriately characterized as an integral whole capable of giving rise to penal liability simultaneously under different legal enactments (a municipal ordinance and a national statute). against double jeopardy is available although the prior offense charged under an ordinance be different from the offense charged subsequently under a national statute such as the Revised Penal Code.June 13. where the second prosecution is for an offense that is different from the offense charged in the first or prior prosecution. 1974: Assistant City Fiscal of Manila filed an Information for falsification of public documents allegedly committed on Nov. intent or voluntary design or negligence. 1979: a second Information (docketed as Criminal Case 46768) was filed charging Caniza with substantially the same offense as that charged under the previous information . dismissed case against Caniza . The question of Identity or lack of Identity of offenses is addressed by examining the essential elements of each of the two offenses charged. 1973 Constitution) This case must be examined. conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. ISSUE WON the defense of double jeopardy applies in this case. NO .

prescribes in ten (10) years. . former private prosecutor.On November 21. who both invoked the constitutional right of their clients to a speedy trial. Roberto Barrios. The subsequent motion for reconsideration flied by the defense was denied in an order dated November 27. ruled Attys. and 16 days had elapsed between November 5. This was opposed by the defense. or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. 1987. As a result. and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information.Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court 6 lists the following requisites in order that the defense of double jeopardy may be successfully invoked by an accused person: a. 1986. upon Motion to Quash filed by petitioner Cañiza. Rodriguez Dadivas.In the meantime. . Atty. counsel for the accused Devera and Machado. 2. are clearly directed at the sufficiency of said information to sustain the conviction of petitioner Caniza and. QUE v COSICO 177 SCRA 410 GUTIERREZ.During the trial for the estafa case. the City Fiscal manifested that he was authorizing the private prosecutor to actively handle the prosecution of the case. counsel for the accused Paz L. September 8. 1968 (the date of commission of the alleged offense) and March 20 1974 (date of filing the first information). 16879 was ordered dismissed by the trial court with the express consent of the accused � i. Dadivas and Barrios out of order and asked the City Fiscal to present the evidence for the prosecution. petitioner Cañizas plea of second jeopardy cannot be sustained: he effectively waived his right to assert that plea when he moved to quash the first Information filed against him. or present its evidence. Coloso. 16879) on grounds that the allegations made therein did not constitute an offense and/or that the first Information contained allegations which. JR. however. the presiding judge asked the comments of Atty. Judge Cosico in an order dated May 22. 1986 dismissing this case. the defendant. Dadivas.Petitioners in G. c. is subject to two (2) sine qua non conditions: first. d.5 years. 1975 (date of denial by the trial court of the Fiscal’s motion for reconsideration) and June 13. the record shows that petitioner Cañiza moved to quash the first Information (Criminal Case No. 2 months and 12 days had elapsed between April 3. or an attempt to commit the same or a petition thereof. that the accused had pleaded to the charge against him. b. or that the second offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first offense charged. . 83114 all stand as the accused in Criminal Case No. and the Minister of Justice. and e. Lorenzo E. .e. the crime of falsification of public document committed by a private individual the offense with which petitioner Cañiza is presently charged . .Computation of prescription of offenses. .. Atty. In this respect. however. 1989 FACTS . The 8 December 1980 Resolution of this Court giving due course to the Petition is withdrawn and the disputed Orders dated 27 November 1979 and 20 March 1980 issued by respondent judge in Criminal Case No. and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted. Martelino. A total of 9 years. indicate the absence of the first requisite in double-jeopardy. if true.R. Roberto Barrios. granted the prosecution's motion for reconsideration and caused the case to be reopened. NO Reasoning . Consequently. 1987. the presiding judge issued the order dated November 10. that the second offense charged is the same as the first. No.. the authorities. No. In this respect. that the accused had been convicted. Dispositive Petition for Prohibition and certiorari is DISMISSED. These grounds. 1979 (date of filing of the second information). No. constituted a legal excuse or justification. 46768 are hereby AFFIRMED. orally moved for the inhibition of the presiding Judge Suplico on the ground that he had some doubts as to the impartiality of the judge against whom he and some nineteen (19) other practicing lawyers had filed serious administrative charges with the President of the Philippines. a valid Complaint or Information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. a Court of competent jurisdiction. upon which the trial court anchored its 27 November 1974 Order of dismissal. 83114 .Criminal Case No. dismissal of a criminal action on this basis is not properly considered as amounting to an acquittal on the merits. the defendant is deemed as not having been charged with the commission of any offense whatsoever under the deficient information." The decision of the appellate court is based on precedents which discuss the failure of the prosecution to appear for trial. Atty.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Reasoning . in having the case against him dismissed. 4 years. such dismissal must not have been on the merits and must not necessarily amount to an acquittal. or are justifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. from a legal standpoint. .Under Article 90. CA found merit in the petition and set aside Judge Cosico's order as "it amounts to double jeopardy on the part of the petitioner. counsel for the accused Bernabe Que and Amelia Que. a dismissal under such circumstance win not bar another prosecution for the same offense. either personally or through counsel. the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration from the order of dismissal.R. and Atty. Alberto Villarruz. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Thereupon. Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code states further: . however. thereby waives his a2010 page 106 Prof. Instead of resolving the motion for inhibition. also moved for the inhibition of the judge for the same reason alleged by Atty. 81861 and private respondent in G. Generally. Following Atty.R.Application of the aforestated doctrine of waiver. or their agents. and more importantly. Dadivas. 4 months. The presiding judge. C-2152 for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents which case was dismissed but subsequently reinstated. insisted that the presiding judge should first rule on their previous motion for inhibition. dismissal must have been sought or induced by the defendant. 6 months and 28 days had been consumed by the time the second Information was filed in court. � The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party. the case was re-raffled to Judge Rodrigo Cosico. and second. constitutional right against double jeopardy for the reason that he effectively prevents the trial court from proceeding to trial on the merits and rendering a judgment of conviction against him . produce its witnesses. This case is remanded to the court a quo for trial on the merits.accused Martelino filed before the CA a petition for certiorari praying that the order of Judge Cosico reinstating the case be declared null and void on the ground of double jeopardy.G. The presiding judge asked again the prosecution to present its evidence but the private prosecutor insisted that a ruling be made by the presiding judge with regard to the pending motion for inhibition. hence. in relation with Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. or acquitted. Furthermore.

11 in each of the two cases ..R. 1987 and November 27. YES . The prosecution's insistence that Judge Suplico rule on the motion to inhibit before further proceedings in the case was not dilatory. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 22.counsel contends that: Samson cannot be convicted of the crime of estafa through falsification by imprudence for the reason that the information filed against him charges only a willful act of falsification and contains no reference to any act of imprudence on his part. there would be no reason to exculpate him from liability 2. WON he was correctly found guilty of the offense estafa through (falsification by) negligence HELD 1. Samson accompanied by Cruz and the supposed claimants went to talk to Lt. Coloso. . ISSUES 1. ISSUE WON the reinstatement of the criminal case placed the accused in double jeopardy. A closed scrutiny of the foregoing chronology of facts that transpired at the Regional Trial Court does not show that the prosecution deliberately delayed the prosecution of this case nor does it appear that the prosecution was unprepared to present its evidence. There is no reason apparent from the records why Suplico should vacillate or show anger on a matter that affects the subsequent course of the trial. with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of two checks of the Philippine National Bank and were found guilty. The accused Bernabe Que.417. It was on their oral motion that the lower court ordered the case to be dismissed. 2) a court of competent jurisdiction. 81861 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.Appellant was.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . 1978 are AFFIRMED. 1988 is SET ASIDE. principal witness for the prosecution. Samson was informed of the possibility that the people who claimed the checks weren’t the real people who they claimed to be. 1948 Amado L. The case was dismissed upon motion and with the express consent of the accused. as found by the Court of Appeals constitute gross imprudence 2. since they we personally unknown to him. to pay a fine of P2.On October 2. in the sum of P5. totalling over twelve thousand pesos. Sentence for each of the three defendants to suffer in each case a penalty of not less than 6 years and 1 day and not more than 9 years. 1987: .two days after. the petition docketed as G. It bears the earmarks of bias and prejudice. or must have been aware that the claim was for a sizeable amount. After being assured twice of the identity of the supposed claimants and after examining their residence certificates attached to the claim papers. 1987 as null and void and to prohibit respondent from further proceeding with the criminal case.the accused Bernabe Que and Amelia Que filed a petition for certiorari directly with this court seeking to declare Judge Cosico's orders dated May 22. they were sentenced to indemnify the Philip-pine Ryukyus Command. to wit: 1) a valid complaint or information. No. Smason was only found guilty of committing the crime through gross imprudence and was accordingly sentenced to 4 months of arresto mayor in each of the two cases. Angel Yu. Atty. Valencia helped them secure checks in the name of Rosalinda Perez and Espiridion Lascano.R.acting on the assurance of Samson. Upon knowing of this. MARCH 31. it appears that on November 10. the alleged imprudent act does not include or is not necessarily included in the offense charged in the information because a deliberate appears that Atty.500 and the costs. In invoking the right of the accused to speedy trial. In addition. HELD Ratio the requisites that must concur for legal jeopardy to attach are. the accused in effect waived their right to speedy trial. and ordinary prudence required that he should satisfy himself by all proper and adequate means of the identity of the persons claiming said amounts. Amelia Que and Paz Martelino invoked their constitutional right to a speedy trial when the prosecution refused to present evidence until the court had ruled on the motion for inhibition. 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor.appellant as a Lieutenant of the Army is sufficiently intelligent and educated to foresee the possibility that the certificates could be forged or stolen . 1958 NATURE Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS . giving sound reasons for his ruling. R. 83114 is GRANTED and the questioned orders of Judge Cosico dated May 22.Samson. 3) the accused has pleaded to the charge and 4) the accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused. He could have required that the motion be submitted formally. The mere assurance of a former class. . SAMSON v CA 103 PHIL 277 BAUTISTA ANGELO. the payee of the checks. The two (2) postponements requested by the prosecution appear to be reasonable. Here Samson received P300 supposedly to pay the officers who helped them and P10 for taxi money. As noted by Judge Cosico in his order dated November 27. Mr.. it a2010 page 107 Prof. No.On appeal before the CA. On the other hand. Cruz and Vergara were given reduced penalties. . There were no oppressive delays on the part of the prosecution. Cruz asked the help of his former classmate Rufino T. . Samson in getting the checks of the two claimants who were with him at Camp Murphy. Reasoning The fourth requisite is lacking in the instant case. . Considering the two (2) postponements requested by Atty. YES . 81861 . This he was able to verify." Dispositive WHEREFORE. 1987 and November 27. mate would certainly not be a satisfactory identification to justify disbursement of such a large amount . Cruz and Vergara and two others whose names are unknown in two separate informations . especially his precipitate dismissal of the case shows that his reaction was not mere impetuousness or pique.appellant cooperated in the commission of the complex offense of estafa through falsification by reckless imprudence by acts without which it could not have been accomplished. Lascano placed his signature while Samson signed as last endorser. WON the acts done by him. Manuel Valencia and requested him to act as guarantor to secure the claimants check. Moreover. Coloso is not therefore coming to this court with clean hands. and this being a fact. Hese were encashed by Mallari again believing Samson. Samson reported the incident to an officer. was then present and ready to testify.Paras didn’t know how to write so she instead placed her thumbmark at the back of the check while Samson signed as witness. The subsequent behavior of the former Judge. Lorenzo Coloso also asked for at least two (2) postponements. The petition docketed as G.they then proceeded to Aristocrat to eat lunch. 1986.G. He could have easily granted or denied the motion.

is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved. the failure to take the precautions that society has a right to expect will be taken under the circumstances of each case .appellant did not act with criminal intent but merely failed to take proper and adequate means to assure himself of the identity of the real claimants as an ordinary prudent man would do. Armando Capili. . is not involved in the elements of the crime charged.” pending before Branch 81 of the RTC of Quezon City.conviction for a criminal negligent act can be had under an information exclusively charging the commission of a willful offense.On May 26. expresses the following rule: An offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved. We also pointed out in . Rule 116 now rule 120. a reporter of Remate. et al. 1955. because the essential element of the latter offense. 1995. upon which the majority relies as justifying the conviction. executed an affidavit stating that he was present when the KBG members were arrested in Superville Subdivision . because malice or intent cannot co-exist with negligence . executed an affidavit corroborating the material allegations of delos Reyes . it being sufficient that some of said essential elements or ingredients thereof be established to constitute the crime proved. headed by Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. Mayo. . or of the offense charged included in that which is proved" (Section 4.R. .Quizon vs. falsification but which turned out to be not willful but negligent.Moreover. constitute the latter. that allowed the continuation of the reinvestigation of the Kuratong Baleleng cases. of the Rules of Court does not require that all the essential elements of the offense charged in the information be proved. Central Police District Command. Chief Superintendent Job A. This is a case covered by the rule when there is a variance between the allegation and proof . morning papers carried the news that SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes had claimed that the killing of the eleven (11) gang members was a “rubout” or summary execution and not a shootout. is: "When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information. 1995. Justice of the Peace of Bacolor (97 Phil. that the elements of the crime for which an accused is convicted should be proved. delos Reyes stated that he was part of a composite police team called the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Force Group (ABRITFG) composed of elements of the National Capital Region Commandand headed by Chief Superintendent Jewel Canson. to wit. the defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged. their hands tied behind their backs. the gang members were made to board two vans. the objections to appellant's conviction of estafa by falsification through negligence are much more serious. by their nature. that criminal negligence is not a mere variant of the intentional misdeed. then PNP Director-General Recaredo Sarmiento II announced. when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter" (Section 5.. the information alleges acts which charge willful. Lacson. the criminal negligence or carelessness. . Jr. 149453 RESOLUTION: May 28. 1995 at the gang’s safe house in Superville Subdivision.Delos Reyes claimed that the police team arrested the eleven (11) gang members in early morning of May 18. constitute the latter. SPO2 Corazon dela Cruz. No. -"An offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved. therefore. as this is alleged in the complaint or information. in a press conference. Presidential AntiCrime Commission (PACC). and the offense as charged. when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former. headed by Senior Superintendent Francisco Subia. headed by Chief Superintendent Ricardo de Leon. . headed by Chief Superintendent Romeo Acop . Section 5. Parañaque.On May 31. The next-of-kin of the slain KBG members also filed murder charges against the same officers and personnel.. Ruled 113. what the law punishes is the carelessness itself. filed murder charges with the Office of the Ombudsman against ninetyseven (97) officers and personnel of ABRITFG. that day. Rules of Court). Branch 40. an offender who is accused of intentional falsification cannot be held to answer for falsification by negligence. Wherefore. and later to Commonwealth Avenue where they were shot to death by elements of the Anti-Bank Roberry Intelligence Task Force Group .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales intent to do an unlawful act is inconsistent with the idea of negligence.In an affidavit he executed the following day. Rule 116. (I think sec 7 rule 117 na) of the Rules of Court under which appellant could no longer be prosecuted for estafa through falsification of commercial documents by reckless negligence were we to acquit him in the cases at bar on the obviously technical theory of the dissenters a2010 page 108 Prof. now rule 120) .M. Section 5. and brought initially to Camp Crame where a decision to summarily execute them was made.On May 22. the ingredient that characterizes it and separates it from all other offenses. In other words. they are. another CIC investigator. Traffic Management Command. And the offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proves. but then must also be charged or alleged PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON G. that after their arrest. and that proved or established by the evidence. “People of the Philippines v. upon the theory that the greater includes the lesser offense . but in essence. 1995. 2002 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS The assailed Decision of the appellate court granted respondent Lacson’s Second Amended Petition for Prohibition with application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. This conclusion is strengthened by the provisions of Section 9.On the procedural side. that it is a distinct and separate in itself. July 28.On June 1.On May 18. the killing of eleven (11) members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) in a shootout with police elements near the fly-over along Commonwealth Avenue.The rule regarding variance between allegation and proof in a criminal case. Rule 116 (now 120). (Italic mine) It is not enough. as this alleged in the complaint or information.that intentional falsification and falsification by negligence not only differ in seriousness. 342). Not only is it not included: it is excluded by incompatibility.Ombudsman Aniano Desierto then created a panel of investigators to conduct a preliminary that case that while willful crimes are punished according to their result in crimes of negligence. when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former. 1995. Rule 116 now 120. PNP Director for Investigation. Quezon City at about 4:00 A. two different offenses altogether. (1) assailing the Order issued by Judge Herminia Pasamba of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. 1995. and (2) praying for the dismissal of Criminal Cases entitled SEPARATE OPINION REYES JBL [dissent] . and Criminal Investigation Command (CIC). Panfilo Lacson.

Arraignment then followed and respondent entered a plea of not guilty. 2001 seeking the suspension of the proceedings before the trial court. Ysmael S. while dismissing the constitutional challenge. prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes.The Criminal Cases were raffled off to Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. State Prosecutors Ong and Zacarias. . This Court. the official functions of the respondent. 7975. citing Section 2 of R. respondent Lacson.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales investigation of the murder charges. thereby expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to include all cases where at least one of the accused. among others. Wenceslao Agnir. respondent Lacson filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari against Judge Pasamba. The amendment is made applicable to all cases pending in any court in which trial has not yet begun as of the date of its approval. Atty.In the meantime. 1995. the criminal cases were remanded to the Ombudsman for reinvestigation. the Sandiganbayan ordered the cases transferred to the Regional Trial Court . respondent Lacson also filed with the RTC-QC Branch 81 (presided by Judge Ma. . . No.The plea for temporary restraining order was denied . No.Ombudsman Desierto referred the resolution for review. A.Due to these developments. accomplice or accessory. 2001. . R. On the strength of this indorsement. On March 1. docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. Abelardo Ramos regarding the Kuratong Baleleng incident for preliminary investigation.On May 28. amending R. 2001. . Branch 81 . the amendatory law deleted the word “principal” in Section 2 of R. Pending resolution of the motion. A. 2001. a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and in the absence thereof. nonetheless ordered the transfer of the criminal cases to the Regional Trial Court on the ground that the Amended Informations for murder failed to indicate that the offenses charged therein were a2010 page 109 Prof. Executive Secretary. their constitutional right against double jeopardy. No.Before the accused could be arraigned. Q-99-81679 to Q99-81689 as “provisional dismissal. and the People of the Philippines.During the said hearing. Aurora Bautista of the Philippine Lawyer’s League presented the affidavits of recantation of prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes.In Lacson v. Only prosecution witness Corazon de la Cruz testified to affirm her affidavit. Atty. A. the PNP Chief. A. . on June 8.On June 6.The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration of the transfer. 1999. Armando Capili and Jane Gomez. Yu and P/S Insp. On October 20. as required by R.The new Informations charged as principals thirtyfour (34) people.. or in discharge of. invoking. the twenty-six (26) accused. . 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Jamolin. On November 20. 8249 took effect on February 23.The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Judge Yadao from issuing a warrant of arrest or conducting any proceeding or hearing in Criminal Cases Nos.On March 29. . filed a petition for prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Corazon de la Cruz. .On the same day. et al. the private offended parties who desisted do not appear to have been presented on the witness stand. 2001. A. is a government official of Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher. Jr. filed a Manifestation and Motion dated June 13. Theresa L. respondent Lacson challenged the constitutionality of the amendment and contended that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the criminal cases.On August 24.Upon motion of the respondent. Lacson and twenty-five (25) other accused. PNP Director Leandro R.On the other hand. No. . Godwin Valdez testified that he assisted them in preparing their affidavits of desistance and that he signed said affidavits as witness. the panel issued a resolution recommending the dismissal of the charges for lack of probable cause. whether principal. Applying Section 8. 7975 then prevailing. against respondent Panfilo M. No. The criminal cases were assigned to Judge Ma. Rule 117 bars the filing of the eleven (11) informations against the respondent Lacson committed in relation to. Armando Capili and Jane Gomez recanted their affidavits which implicated respondent Lacson in the murder of the KBG members. it dismissed the criminal cases against the respondent ISSUE WON Section 8.On April 17.The records of the case before us are not clear whether the private offended parties were notified of the hearing on March 22. then presided by Judge. the Court of Appeals rendered the now assailed Decision. the respondent was subpoenaed . the review panel reversed the resolution and found probable cause for the prosecution of multiple murder charges against twenty-six (26) officers and personnel of ABRITFG. 2001. 01-101102 to 01-101112 as mere revivals of the same. now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. . 7975. Perez formed a panel to investigate the matter. It characterized the termination of Criminal Cases Nos. primarily to enjoin the State prosecutors from conducting the preliminary investigation. Theresa Yadao). Quezon City. private complainants also executed their respective affidavits of desistance declaring that they were no longer interested to prosecute these cases. On the other hand. 1997. including respondent Lacson and his twenty-five (25) other co-accused in the original informations. . In particular. Mendoza indorsed to the Department of Justice the new affidavits of P/Insp.On March 27. Yadao. Secretary of Justice Hernando B. Respondent Lacson. . the Secretary of Justice. filed five separate but identical motions to: (1) make a judicial determination of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest (2) hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants (3) dismiss the cases should the trial court find lack of probable cause. Accordingly. however.” and considered Criminal Cases Nos. . Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. including respondent Lacson.With the downgrading of charges against him. 1996. respondent Lacson questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to hear the criminal cases as none of the “principal” accused in the Amended Informations was a government official with a Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher. 8249. to dismiss the cases outright. The said petition was amended to implead as additional party-respondents State Prosecutor Claro Arellano and the RTC. 23047 to 23057. to attend the investigation of said Criminal Cases . . In their stead. 1995. Amended Informations were filed against the same twenty-six (26) suspects but the participation of respondent Lacson was downgraded from principal to accessory. . the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan eleven (11) Informations for MURDER. All twenty-six (26) of them were charged as principals. 1995. 1999 held by Judge Agnir to resolve the motions filed by respondent Lacson and the other accused. 2001. eleven (11) Informations for murder involving the killing of the same members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City . 01-101102 to 01-101112. . Judge Agnir issued a Resolution dismissing the Criminal Cases .On November 2.

the issue of whether or not the reinvestigation is barred by Section 8. Godwin Valdez who testified that he assisted the private complainants in preparing their affidavits and he signed them as a witness. .In light of the lack of or the conflicting evidence on the various requirements to determine the applicability of Section 8. 2003 NATURE Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 28. there is need of proof of the following facts: (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the accused.This rule which took effect on December 1. There was hardly any proceeding conducted in the case for respondent Lacson immediately filed a petition for certiorari in the appellate court challenging. (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the accused. to enjoin the prosecutors from reinvestigating the said cases against him. and (4) whether there is any justification for the filing of the cases beyond the 2-year period. hence. (3) whether the 2-year period to revive it has already lapsed. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount.The applicability of Section 8. 2000 provides: “SEC. Rule 117 bars the revival of the multiple murder cases against him. it cannot be determined whether there were affidavits of a2010 page 110 Prof. the appellate court did not require the parties to elucidate the crucial issue of whether notices were given to the offended parties before Judge Agnir ordered the dismissal of the cases against respondent Lacson and company. do not reveal with equal clarity and conclusiveness whether notices to the offended parties were given before the cases against the respondent Lacson were dismissed by then Judge Agnir.” . (3) whether the 2year period to revive has already lapsed. From the records of the case before us.. . Rule 117 was yet inexistent at that time. this new rule can be given retroactive effect. . or both.Indeed. The only question raised in said petition is whether the reinvestigation will violate the right of respondent Lacson against double jeopardy.whether it is from the date of the Order of then Judge Agnir dismissing the cases or from the dates the Order were received by the various offended parties or from the date of the effectivity of the new rule. Thus. however.The Court ruled in the Resolution sought to be reconsidered that the provisional dismissal of Criminal Cases against the accused were with the express consent of the respondent as he himself moved for said provisional dismissal when he filed his motion for judicial determination of probable cause and for examination of witnesses. The reckoning date of the 2-year bar has to be first determined .Respondent and his co-accused were charged with multiple murder for the shooting and killing of eleven male persons identified as members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang. the Court cannot rule on this issue due to the lack of sufficient factual bases.R. it is beyond argument that their dismissal bears his express consent.The fact of notice to the offended parties was not raised either in the petition for prohibition with application for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction filed by respondent Lacson in the RTC of Manila. It was respondent Lacson himself who moved to dismiss the subject cases for lack of probable cause before then Judge Agnir. among others. The new rule fixes a timeline to penalize the State for its inexcusable delay in prosecuting cases already filed in courts.Nor was the fact of notice to the offended parties the subject of proof after the eleven (11) informations for murder against respondent Lacson and company were revived in the RTC of Quezon City presided by Judge Yadao. HELD .The records of the case. 149453 April 3. Rule 117 was not tackled by the litigants. . (2) whether it was ordered by the court after notice to the offended party.If the cases were revived only after the 2-year bar. No. the records of this case are inconclusive on the factual issue of whether the multiple murder cases against respondent Lacson are being revived within or beyond the 2-year bar. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure could be given retroactive effect. Provisional dismissal. The same records do not show whether they were notified of the hearing or had knowledge thereof. . their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. (2) whether it was ordered by the court after notice to the offended party.A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. It also appears that only seven (7) persons submitted their affidavits of desistance. . Fundamental fairness requires that both the prosecution and the respondent Lacson should be afforded the opportunity to be heard and to adduce evidence on the presence or absence of the predicate facts upon which the application of the new rule depends. 2002 FACTS .Like any other favorable procedural rule. Dispositive Case remanded desistance executed by the relatives of the three other victims. it is not fair to expect the element of notice to be litigated before then Judge Agnir for Section 8. there is still a need to determine whether the requirements for its application are attendant.There is no uncertainty with respect to the fact that the provisional dismissal of the cases against respondent Lacson bears his express consent. the authority of Judge Yadao to entertain the revived informations for multiple murder against him. the State must be given the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with said timeline. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. . Their affidavits of desistance were only presented by Atty. It was in the Court of Appeals where respondent Lacson raised for the first time the argument that Section 8. It can therefore present compelling reasons PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON G. this Court is not in a position to rule whether or not the re-filing of the cases for multiple murder against respondent Lacson should be enjoined.. The trial court was thus directed to resolve the following: . to justify the revival of cases beyond the 2-year bar. To be sure. But even then.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales involving the killing of some members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. Rule 117 was never considered in the trial court. The Court also held therein that although Section 8.. 8.. They involve disputed facts and arguable questions of law. . . (4) whether there is any justification for the filing of the cases beyond . Thus. The reception of evidence on these various issues cannot be done in this Court but before the trial court. However. Rule 117. shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. It appears from the resolution of then Judge Agnir that the relatives of the victims who desisted did not appear during the hearing to affirm their affidavits.

or even agree to a provisional dismissal thereof. dismissed the Criminal Cases. Neither did he ever agree. Jr. Jr. 4. Where the accused writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a provisional dismissal of the case No objection or With my conformity. The respondent allegedly admitted in his pleadings filed with the Court of Appeals and during the hearing thereat that he did not file any motion to dismiss said cases. the case may be revived only within the periods provided in the new rule. the prosecution did not file any motion for the provisional dismissal of the said criminal cases. The raison d’ etre for the requirement of the express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is to bar him from subsequently asserting that the revival of the criminal case will place him in double jeopardy . Irrefragably.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the 2-year period. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reads: Sec.The petitioners further contend that even on the assumption that the respondent expressly consented to a provisional dismissal of the Criminal Cases and all the heirs of the victims were notified of the respondent’s motion before the hearing thereon and were served with copies of the resolution of Judge Agnir. It is a positive. A motion of the accused for a provisional dismissal of a case is an express consent to such provisional dismissal. unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning. for the same offense or for an offense necessarily included therein. ISSUES 1. the respondent has failed to prove that the first and second requisites of the first paragraph of the new rule were present when Judge Agnir. 8. The petitioners maintain that the respondent did not give his express consent to the dismissal by Judge Agnir. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount.. and unduly impair. WON the time-bar in said rule should be applied retroactively HELD 1. the new rule would not apply. Provisional dismissal. . To apply the time limit retroactively to the criminal cases against the respondent and his co-accused would violate the right of the People to due process. Jr. However. . to a mere provisional dismissal of the cases. 3.The petitioners aver that Section 8. .The foregoing requirements are conditions sine qua non to the application of the time-bar in the second paragraph of the new rule. the respondent’s express consent to the provisional dismissal of the cases and the notice to all the heirs of the victims of the respondent’s motion and the hearing thereon are conditions sine qua non to the application of the time-bar in the second paragraph of the new rule. the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally.Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given either viva voce or in writing. the heirs of the victims were allegedly not given prior notices of the dismissal of the said cases by Judge Agnir. the writing amounts to express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case. On the other hand. the provision should be construed to mean that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after service of the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution without the criminal case having been revived. The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order of dismissal. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is applicable to the Criminal Cases 2. shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. Jr. reduce. The case may be revived or refiled even beyond the prescribed periods subject to the right of the accused to oppose the same on the ground of double jeopardy or that such revival or refiling is barred by the statute of limitations. (5) whether notices to the offended parties were given before the cases of respondent Lacson were dismissed by then Judge Agnir. . if a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without the express consent of the accused or over his objection. or both. According to the petitioners. . The respondent did not pray for the dismissal. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to the Criminal Cases because the essential requirements for its application were not present when Judge Agnir. The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a motion for a provisional dismissal of the case or his failure to object to a provisional dismissal does not amount to express consent. the respondent is burdened to establish the essential requisites of the first paragraph thereof. and diminish the State’s substantive right to prosecute the accused for multiple murder. or from the date of effectivity of the new rule. Jr.The Court further held that the reckoning date of the two-year bar had to be first determined whether it shall be from the date of the order of then Judge Agnir. It emphasized that the new rule fixes a time-bar to penalize the State for its inexcusable delay in prosecuting cases already filed in court. or both the prosecution and the accused move for a provisional dismissal of the case. of the Criminal Cases.The Court also agrees with the petitioners’ contention that no notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal or of the hearing thereon was served on the heirs of the victims at least three days before said hearing as mandated by Rule 15. issued his resolution of March 29.Section 8. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. if the cases were revived only after the two-year bar. impliedly or expressly. dismissing the eleven cases. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case. their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case.In this case. . or from the dates of receipt thereof by the various offended parties. the two-year bar in Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should be applied prospectively a2010 page 111 Prof. (6) whether there were affidavits of desistance executed by the relatives of the three (3) other victims. Section and not retroactively against the State. If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused. provisional or otherwise of the Criminal Cases. A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. Although the second paragraph of the new rule states that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after the issuance thereof without the case having been revived. 2. 1999. dismissing the cases. Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel of prosecutors and before the Court of Appeals. (7) whether the multiple murder cases against respondent Lacson are being revived within or beyond the 2-year bar. YES . direct. . According to the Court. the State must be given the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with the said time-bar. namely: 1. Jr. the State is not precluded from presenting compelling reasons to justify the revival of cases beyond the two-year bar. WON Section 8. Moreover.

2001 within which to revive these criminal cases. the records do not show that notices thereof were separately given to the heirs of the victims or that subpoenas were issued to and received by them . Vistan also filed a complaint against Bulaong for rescission of contract with damages. and the defendants filed their affidavit and counteraffidavits respectively. The period is short of the two-year period fixed under the new rule.On the other hand. Hence. Jr. even if the respondent’s motion for a determination of probable cause and examination of witnesses may be considered for the nonce as his motion for a provisional dismissal of the Criminal Cases. an adverse decision is rendered. 2000 or until December 1. mandamus. and the motion is withdrawn or overruled. Although in criminal cases. Hence. unreasonable.The assistant city fiscal filed an opposition to the motion to quash filed by petitioners. The defendant should instead. Buenaventura and Sta. defendant shall immediately either move to quash the complaint or information or plead thereto. Thus. 2000 to revive the criminal case without requiring the State to make a valid justification for not reviving the case before the effective date of the new rule. Jr. injurious. go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and. Dispositive Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON October 2003 BULAONG v CA (PEOPLE) 181 SCRA 618 MEDIALDEA. Vistan and Buenaventura filed a complaint for libel against Bulaong and his counsel de Guzman with the City Fiscal. The complainant . If the Court applied the new timebar retroactively. 1985.In Jan. Later. . and wrongful results in the administration of justice. if there is one.In March 1984. if the defendant moves to quash. The said information was later amended on. Bulaong filed a criminal complaint for estafa with the City Fiscal of Pasay against Vicente Vistan and Leonardo Buenaventura.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 4 of the Rules of Court. NO . he should prospectively. or through the public prosecutor who in turn must relay the notice to the offended party or the heirs of the victim to enable them to confer with him before the hearing or appear in court during the hearing. grounds: (1) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. Judge Agnir. It must be borne in mind that in crimes involving private interests. 1999. 1999 and set it for hearing on March 22. 1999 or barely five days from the filing thereof.In the case at bar. They further argue that the reply-affidavit was submitted and sworn to by petitioner Bulaong not only because he was required to do so by the investigating fiscal but also because it was in compliance with his legal and moral duty as complainant in the case for estafa against Vistan and Buenaventura and hence. petitioner Bulaong filed with the RTC of Zambales an action for sum of money against Vistan. . if the time limit is applied a2010 page 112 Prof. RTC of Pasay City denied the motion to quash. without pleading. Such notice may be served on the offended party or the heirs of the victim through the private prosecutor. 1984. if after trial on the merits. . Petitioners filed with CA a petition for certiorari. The said cases were consolidated and are pending trial. The new rule took effect on December 1. so is the State. the State would have only one year and three months or until March 31. issued his resolution. Although the public prosecutor was served with a copy of the motion. the State is not barred by the time limit set forth in the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To require the State to give a valid justification as a condition sine qua non to the revival of a case provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused before the effective date of the new rule is to assume that the State is obliged to comply with the time-bar under the new rule before it took effect. 2. 1999 when the public prosecutor received his copy of the resolution of Judge Agnir. Jr.Since the conditions sine qua non for the application of the new rule were not present when Judge Agnir.In Nov. petitioners Bulaong and his counsel de Guzman submitted to City Fiscal of Pasay a replyaffidavit containing statements which are alleged to be libelous. prohibition.The Court agrees with the petitioners that to apply the time-bar retroactively so that the two-year period commenced to run on March 31. the heirs of the victims were not notified thereof prior to the hearing on said motion on March 22. however. the instant petition for review on certiorari was filed ISSUE WON the procedure availed by petitioners after denial by the RTC of the motion to quash (MTQ) was correct HELD NO Ratio: Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are not the correct remedies against an order denying a motion to quash. 1999. 2002 within which to revive the cases. It cannot even be argued that the State waived its right to revive the criminal cases against respondent or that it was negligent for not reviving them within the two-year period under the new rule. dismissed the Criminal Cases on March 29. The State must be given a period of one year or two years as the case may be from December 1. the State would have two years from December 1. 1999 to November 30. the State had considerably less than two years to do so. oppressive. The State can thus revive or refile the Criminal Cases or file new Informations for multiple murder against the respondent. 1999 should be excluded in the computation of the twoyear period because the rule prescribing it was not yet in effect at the time and the State could not be expected to comply with the time-bar. It must be stressed that the respondent filed his motion only on March 17. The period from April 1. .Petitioners moved to quash the Information on the ff. and thereafter. with preliminary injunction. January 30. the accused is entitled to justice and fairness. 2000. CA dismissed petition for lack of merit. . 1. the new rule requires that the offended party or parties or the heirs of the victims must be given adequate a priori notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal of the criminal case. 1990 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA FACTS . Rule 117 of the ROC provides that. Petitioners filed MFR but was denied. This is in consonance with the intendment of the new rule in fixing the time-bar and thus prevent injustice to the State and avoid absurd. to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law Reasoning: [a] Sec. dismissing the criminal cases is inconsistent with the intendment of the new rule. The latter conducted an investigation. filed an information for libel against petitioners. the reply-affidavit belongs to the class of absolutely privileged communications . and 2) that the fiscal has no authority to file the Information. or do both and that. This would be a rank denial of justice. Maria. upon arraignment. Instead of giving the State two years to revive provisionally dismissed cases.

" (Rule 118) The Rule is mandatory. . moreover in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant. confirmed the Stipulation of Facts does not cure the defect because Rule 118 requires both the accused and his counsel to sign the Stipulation of Facts. . instead of relying solely on the supposed admission of the accused in the Stipulation of Facts. Bravo. a2010 page 113 Prof. The use of the term "shall" further emphasizes its mandatory character and means that it is imperative. the judgment of respondent Appellate Court is REVERSED and this case is hereby ordered RE-OPENED and REMANDED to the appropriate Branch of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City. the parties agreed on a joint trial and to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Wolfe and reiterated in Mill vs. The fact that the lawyer of the accused. and upon such appeal. negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory (McGee vs. provides: "SEC. The Trial Court convicted petitioner-appellant. Uy claimed that he was merely framed. Such order of denial may only be reviewed. should have proceeded with the trial of the case in the court below. in the ordinary course of law. credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Neither can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. 1985. CA decision is AFFIRMED. is interlocutory and not a final order. Under the rule of statutory construction. was to submit evidence to establish the elements of the crime. by an appeal from the judgment. after trial. in his memorandum. the presumption of FULE v CA 162 SCRA 446 MELENCIO-HERRERA . and. . Natividad). as mandatorily required by the Rules. present the questions which he sought to be decided by the appellate court in a petition for certiorari. March 7. is properly denied. YES. is a defense which petitioners could raise upon the trial on the merits. ISSUE 1.8564 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu.Ramon Uy was caught by the PNP in a buy bust operation. despite the cold fact that the basis of the conviction was based solely on the stipulation of facts made during the pre-trial on August 8. duly opposed by the prosecution. applicable to this case since the pre-trial was held on August 8. for further reception of evidence. the ends of justice require that evidence be presented to determine the culpability of the accused. If. penal statutes whether substantive and remedial or procedural are. 3 informations was filed against him for the illegal sale of 5. 1985. after trial on the merits. [c] In Collins vs. Yatco. which means that trial must proceed. -Only the prosecution presented its evidence. Petitioner-appellant waived the right to present evidence and submitted a Memorandum confirming . which was not signed by the petitioner. as required by Rule 118. 4. SO ORDERED. The CA committed a mistake. he can appeal the judgment and raise the same defenses or objections earlier raised in his MTQ which would then be subject to review by the appellate court. nor by his counsel HELD YES. Dispositive WHEREFORE. -Consequently. the Stipulation of Facts. Without said evidence independent of the admission.During the trial. and if final judgment is rendered against him. the accused. Republic). Salvador). to be strictly applied against the government and liberally in favor of the accused (People vs.As has been repeatedly held. after the denial of his MTQ.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales immediately plead. When a judgment has been entered by consent of an attorney without special authority. therefore. Terrado). and thus. WON Uy agreed to waive the testimony of the Forensic Chemist during the pre-trial HELD 1. -The conclusion is inevitable. accused cannot be deemed established beyond reasonable doubt. During the pre-trial. judgment is rendered adversely to the movant in the MTQ. What the prosecution should have done. -On appeal. renders the Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in evidence. upon discovering that the accused did not sign the Stipulation of Facts. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. like an order denying a motion to acquit. . [b] An order denying a MTQ. under the circumstances obtaining in this case. The MTQ the information for libel on the ground of qualified privilege. they could still raise the same on appeal.The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s story of a legitimate buy bust and convicted him of 2 of the 3 charges against him. And more importantly. 1985. 2000 FACTS .When arraigned. that the omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel. unless there be evidence to the contrary. he could then appeal. it will sometimes be set aside or reopened (Natividad vs. 1988 NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the CA FACTS -Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the RTC of Lucena City that convicted Fule of Violation of BP 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law) on the basis of the Stipulation of Facts entered into between the prosecution and the defense during the pre-trial conference in the Trial Court. which became effective on January 1. -The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. No agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against the accused unless reduced to writing and signed by him and his counsel. the guilt of the PEOPLE v UY 327 SCRA 335 DAVIDE. not appealable. They also agreed on the marking of the exhibits for the prosecution. operating to impose a duty which may be enforced (Bersabal vs.[d] Whether or not the alleged libelous statements in the reply-affidavit are covered within the mantle of absolutely privileged communications." and possession of 401 grams of the same drug. 1 ISSUE WON CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC convicting the petitioner of the offense charged. June 22. by consecrated rule. RAMON pleaded not guilty in each case. as the prosecution is entitled to prove at the trial that there was malice in fact on the part of the petitioners Dispositive Petition is DENIED. respondent Appellate Court upheld the Stipulation of Facts and affirmed the judgment of conviction. WON there was a legitimate buy bust 2. if that defense should fail.

Thus.During the pre-trial. Gerardo Alberto. January 31. 2. . Uy. Virginia Salazar de la Cruz (Virginia). conducted immediately after the arraignment on 21 November 1995. The Uy brothers claim that James Andrew was only 17 years and 262 days old at the time the crimes were committed. For the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. eliminate any a2010 page 114 Prof. one degree lower therefrom is reclusion perpetua. Bravo" must be understood in that context.It may at once be noted that neither Uy nor his counsel made express admission that the contents of the plastic bags to "be marked" contain shabu. .Uy’s premise is that at the pre-trial he did not waive the Forensic Chemist’s testimony but only "stipulated on the markings of the prosecution’s evidence. doubt on the conformity of the accused to the facts agreed upon. Acting Solicitor General Vicente V. 2006 NATURE MFR filed by brothers James Anthony and James Andrew. as maximum. Reasoning . and during the trip was . thereby dispensing will the testimony of Forensic chemist Loreto E. There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance. and the clause "thereby dispensing with the testimony of forensic Chemist Loreto E.The Uy brothers were convicted of the crimes of special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape. the need for a thorough study of the record became evident. Dispositive Decision affirmed in toto PEOPLE v LARRAÑAGA PER CURIAM. both of them being residents thereof and bound for San Jose City. the defense of denial or frame-up. Virginia was quite friendly. ISSUE WON James Anthony's penalty should be reduced because he was a minor at the time the crime was committed HELD YES Ratio Article 68 of the RPC provides: Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the PEOPLE v QUIAZON 78 SCRA 513 FERNANDO. 1977 NATURE Plea of Acting Solicitor Vicente Mendoza to acquit the accused. Dispositive The MFR is GRANTED. the penalty to be imposed on James Andrew is reclusion temporal in its medium period. as maximum.The purpose of this requirement is to further safeguard the rights of the accused against improvident or unauthorized agreements or admissions which his counsel may have entered into without his knowledge. August 31. FACTS . On the other hand. as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses. Section 4 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court expressly provides: SEC.Judgment of lower court convicted Antonio Quiazon of abduction with rape. by reason of his minority. the penalty of 12 years of prision mayor in its maximum period. the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion perpetua to death.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales regularity in the performance of official duty. is 1 degree lower than the statutory penalty.Events started in a chance encounter between complainant. . . Bravo. and Baptismal Certificate. shall prevail over appellant’s self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed . both surnamed Uy. prosecution and defense agreed to stipulate on the markings of the following prosecution’s exhibits. penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed. Uy cannot take advantage of the absence of his and his counsel’s signatures on the pre trial order. The SolGen recommended that the penalty imposed be reduced. That Uy agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Bravo may not be considered an admission of the findings of Bravo on the contents of the plastic bag.Even granting for the sake of argument that Uy admitted during the pre-trial that the plastic bags contained shabu .Since the entry in the birth certificate was not legible. has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. he should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of 12 years of prision mayor in its maximum period. the records disclose that during the pre-trial. and simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention. the court required the SolGen to secure a clear and legible copy from the Civil Registrar of Cotabato as well as the NSO. to 17 years of reclusion temporal in its medium period. . and the prosecution stipulated on the markings of the prosecution’s exhibits. . Uy cannot now raise it for the first time on appeal. as minimum. it is clear that Uy and his counsel merely agreed to the marking of the exhibits. as in the case of his brother James Anthony. submitted a Manifestation recommending that the judgment of the lower court be reversed and another be entered acquitting him. He begs leave and pleads that we admit at this stage of the proceedings his Certificate of Live Birth issued by the NSO. 40. Strictly. NO. and thereafter to file a comment on the issue of James Andrew's minority. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.Moreover.The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape being death. One degree lower therefrom is reclusion temporal. instead of filing a brief for appellee. They did not object when the prosecution presented the plastic bags and said that it contained shabu. Mendoza. Bravo. as minimum. as he may have waived his presence at the pre-trial conference. James Andrew Uy is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. . No agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against the accused unless reduced to writing and signed and his counsel. duly represented by counsel de parte Atty." Indeed. He prays that his penalty be reduced. Nueva Ecija. but always in the proper period. to 17 years of reclusion temporal in its medium period. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. the admission cannot be used in evidence against him because the Joint Order was not signed by Uy and his counsel. from the tenor of the aforequoted portion of the Joint Order. FACTS . the imposable penalty on James Andrew. For the crime of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention. like alibi. and agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. and appellant while they were passengers in a Baliuag Transit bus. .Nevertheless. praying for the reduction of the penalties imposed upon the latter on the ground that he was a minor at the time the crimes were committed. The documents showed that James Andrew was indeed a minor when the crimes were committed.

Quiazon brought Virginia home and introduced her to his parents. Reasoning . In addition. a2010 page 115 Prof. but she answered that she could not. the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. During the pendency of the case. The following morning. . by virtue of the complaint brought by Virginia against him. but to no avail. C. Quiazon and Virginia traveled from barrio to barrio until they reached Barrio Armenia in Tarlac. when Rogelio went to visit his brother-in-law. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged. soldiers became interested in asking her why she was in Tarlac. The improbability of the complainant's charge is immediately visible from the time and locus where the crime was supposed to have been committed. Virginia was asked who her husband was. The P.It is precisely because of such notorious lack of any persuasive force in the testimony of complainant that the Manifestation asserted most emphatically that appellant could rely on the constitutional presumption of innocence. suddenly grabbed her while she was in the public market of San Jose City and forced her to board a tricycle. he saw Virginia with contusions and a swollen face. stopped them because he noticed that they were new in the place. HELD NO.To avoid being found out.In Cabanatuan City the accused Antonio was detained in jail. -July 8. Virginia was also with a niece at the time. Dispositive Decision is reversed. Quiazon asked if he could visit her at home. However. The abduction occurred in broad daylight.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales leaning on Quiazon. that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. he told her to avoid him. When FILTEX paid no head to his demands. was at its busiest at 10 in the morning. Every time Virginia visited Quiazon they had sexual intercourse. 3: company employees against whom court cases are filed or to be filed. At the P. claiming that dismissal of the criminal case justified his reinstatement and payment of back wages. Detachment. who is a neighbor of the complainant in Barrio Abar. Moral certainty is required. .C. soldier. Suddenly Virginia stood up and left them because she saw her husband. C. . and even saw each other on countless occasions after the knowledge regarding the marriage surfaced. Section 14 (2) (Constitution) “In all criminal prosecutions. Officer asked her whether Antonio Quiazon was her husband. an employee of FILTEX and a member of the Samahan ng Malaya Manggagawa sa Filtex (FFW). 1964: FILTEX and SAMAHAN entered into a “Return Work Agreement”: >par. otherwise. This motion was denied. if found guilty they shall remain dismissed. -Castillo asked for reinstatement and back wages. The market. That same day they had sexual intercourse in the house of Quiazon. for his alleged involvement in a mauling and shining incident which occurred sometime in July 1964 at the height of a strike called by the SAMAHAN. and was told that complainant's husband had beaten her. 4: in the event said employees are found innocent by the courts. and she answered in the negative. one of the most valuable rights of an accused person . He asked his brother-in-law what had happened. Virginia visited him.The complainant alleges that on July 3.Art. was charged together with others in the MTC Makati with the offense of slight physical injuries. the COMPANY agrees to reinstate them to their respective jobs with back wages minus whatever earnings they earned during the period of suspension. and she answer that her husband is Sgt. Sgt.C.Two days thereafter they met. Headquarters. Then he took her to the house of his parents where he ravished her. but she had to do it because she was afraid of her husband. . Castillo was suspended from his job. the evidence supports Quiazon’s innocence. whom the complainant had never met before. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved xxx” . When he learned that she was married.After that day. 1973 the accused. -Pre-trial: the parties defined the principal issue “Is Castillo entitled to reinstatement and back wages . -CFI Rizal dismissed the case (November 28. . attract attention. Ratio Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime has been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. a P. shall be suspended by the company upon filing of such cases by the fiscal with the proper courts for as long as the said cases shall remain pending in court >par. because she loved him. the case being allegedly within the exclusive jurisdiction of CIR. or at about 10:00 in the morning. -After trial. When he was in jail. Antonio did not know that Virginia was in fact married.Manifestation: "The complainant had earlier introduced herself to the accused as a widow. the MTC Makati found Castillo guilty of slight physical injuries. it was not unexpected for such intimacies to be repeated.May 1973: the accused was eating in the public market with his friend Rogelio Vigilia and the complainant Virginia. Daton.” -FILTEX filed motion to dismiss. announcing that she was going to be their daughterin-law. While on their way to the voting precinct which was near a P. 1983 NATURE Appeal from CFI Rizal decision FACTS -Artemio Castillo. being a public place. The complainant answered that she was brought there by the accused and that Antonio abducted and raped her. ISSUE WON Quiazon is guity of abduction with rape. pursuant to paragraph 4 of the “Return to Work Agreement. Antonio did not also try to avoid her because he loved her xxx” Even Quiazon’s parents objected to the relationship. The proof against him must survive the test of reason.Quiazon and Virgina seldom saw each other after the former learned of the latter’s marriage. Gaudencio de la Cruz. 1973 when they were eating at the restaurant. grounds: lack of cause of action and want of jurisdiction. an army man. It was then when the P. where they stayed for more than a week. there was a police outpost near the market. Encouraged.C. . until sometime during the first week of May. September 30. they wrote each other letters. 3. 1966) because complainant failed to appear at the scheduled trial. and according to the Manifestation of the Acting Solicitor General. She apologized to him and told him that she did not want what had happened to him. Virginia said that instead they could meet in the public market of San Jose City. . his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. and the accused is acquitted. Any commotion would easily CASTILLO v FILTEX 124 SCRA 900 ESCOLIN. he instituted action in CFI Rizal.

HELD YES. CFI Rizal dismissed Castillo’s complaint. much less an idle ceremony. An appealed case shall be tried in all respects anew in the courts of first instance as if it had been originally instituted in that court. -There is need for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the state. 4 of the "Return to Work Agreement?” -Case was submitted for decision on the bases of the parties’ memoranda and stipulation of facts. The Constitution requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed as to why be was indicted and what penal offense he has to face. without petitioner being present. 4. When that date came. respondent Judge Romulo R. June 20. It is indisputable then that there was a denial of petitioner's constitutional right to be heard by himself and counsel. At the very least then. State’s obligation to protect labor is welfare state concept vitalized. "allowed the prosecution to present its evidence. Thereupon. HELD YES. Senining proceeded with the trial in absentia and found the accused guilty of such offense. Remand to Labor Arbiter of NLRC for determination of the amount of back wages. according to the fundamental law. . It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies. -Hence. The agreement to reinstate an employee expressly states that there must be a finding of innocence by the courts. this appeal. ISSUE WON Castillo backwages is entitled to reinstatement and a2010 page 116 Prof.Notwithstanding the absence of an arraignment of petitioner Manuel Borja. the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the appellant should be applied. is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. It is a vital aspect of the constitutional rights guaranteed him. It was shown that after one postponement due to his failure to appear. Mendoza. CFI Rizal dismissed the case for failure of the prosecution witnesses to appear. although his bondsman were notified. respondent Judge. . plus costs. since under the fundamental law his innocence is presumed. 1977 FACTS .It is at that stage of arraignment where in the mode and manner required by the Rules. . more specifically of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and of his right to be heard by himself and counsel. The comment was considered as answer. independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. So it has been held from the 1903 decision of United States v. the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment." -SC: Constitutional provision on protection to labor constrains courts to interpret the agreement in question in favor of the claim of the laborer and against that of management." -People vs.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales after the dismissal of the charge against him in accordance with par. interpretation of said agreement should not be stretched to include a "mere presumption of innocence under the law. to be tried de novo in the CFI as if it were originally instituted therein. synonymous with guilt. It did not stipulate that the case should be dismissed. ISSUE WON the accused’s constitutional right to procedural due process was violated. the judgment of conviction rendered by MTC Makati was vacated upon perfection of the appeal. Interpretation of par. agreed that the procedural defect was of such gravity as to render void the decision of the City Court affirmed by the Court of First Instance. Petitioner’s Claim It is the contention of petitioner that the failure to arraign him is violative of his constitutional right to procedural due process. -Applying this rule. and ordered him to pay FILTEX P1thou as attorney's fees. Sec 7: Trial de novo on appeal. the case was reset for hearing. . Since the criminal case was ultimately dismissed. Those who are less fortunate in terms of economic well-being should be given preferential attention. . Art.An equally fatal defect in the proceeding had before respondent Judge Senining was that notwithstanding its being conducted in the absence of petitioner. Castillo’s innocence need no longer be proved.The Solicitor General. a decision on the appealed case was rendered affirming the judgment of the City Court.Petitioner was not arraigned at all and was not represented by counsel throughout the whole proceedings in the respondent City Court. 4 of Return to Work Agreement -FILTEX: said paragraph requires an express finding of innocence by the court in order to entitle an employee to reinstatement and back wages. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged. no such finding of innocence had been made because the criminal case was dismissed on a mere technicality.It was then alleged that without any notice to petitioner and without requiring him to submit his memorandum. Reyes. with the case being submitted for decision. for the first time. -ROC Rule 123.a right safeguarded the accused. even of his life depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. respondent City Court promulgated thedecision. -It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. Accusation is not. ^_^ hehe! ) Dispositive CFI Rizal decision set aside. NCC. as set forth in the comment of the Solicitor General. he was convicted. it is undisputed that on appeal. (Art. It is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of possible loss of freedom. to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to disprove the evidence against him. To such a standard this Court has always been committed. that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. BORJA v MENDOZA 77 SCRA 422 FERNANDO. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by person on trial under such an exacting test could sentence be one of conviction. when asked to comment. Dramayo: The starting point is the constitutional presumption of innocence . to render void. Labor Code. he must be fully informed of why the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him. -While it is true that Castillo was convicted of the offense of slight physical injuries by MTC Makati. . The phrase "to vacate" applied to a judgment means "to annul. 1700. accused of slight physical injuries.An appeal was filed in the CFI of Cebu presided by respondent Judge Rafael T. both oral and documentary. . It is not useless formality. The proof against him must survive the test of reason. Guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. Reasoning: CFI Rizal’s dismissal of the case was only because of the failure of the complainant to appear at the scheduled trial. an accused.

. At around 4:30 PM. yet were considered by the trial court convicting the appellant.Without the accused having been arraigned." . socio-economic status and educational background of the accused were not examined. Such "constitutional right is inviolate. Apduhan. Sec.It is the constitutional right of the accused to be heard in his defense before sentence is pronounced on him. Khazie’s slippers were recovered from Alicando’s home along with a stained T-shirt and pillow. 3 provides that in a plea of guilt. Reasoning PEOPLE v ALICANDO 251 SCRA 293 PUNO. another neighbor. > Alicando was arrested and her verbally confessed his guilt to PO3 Tan without the assistance of counsel. a2010 page 117 Prof. The searching inquiry of the trial court must be focused on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea.The information was written in English and it was unknown whether or not the accused could understand English well. What is more. .This rule is a restatement of the doctrine laid down in People vs. Its language is clear and explicit. Arraignment of the accused was null and void Ratio During arraignment. the trial court inadequately warned Alicando that a plea of guilt would result to a mandatory of penalty of death without explaining to him what mandatory meant.Precisely. In fact.The appeal to the Court of First Instance presided by respondent Judge Mendoza did not possess any curative aspect. > The age. and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. Khazie offered to buy yemas from Rebada but Alicando closed the window. 1995 NATURE Automatic review FACTS . offered independently of the plea of guilt of the appellant. Rule 116.The questions of the trial court failed to show the voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the appellant nor did the questions demonstrate appellant's full comprehension of the consequences of his plea. Specifically. Respondent considered the appeal taken by the petitioner as waiver of the defects in the proceedings in the respondent City Court. Reasoning . Ratio Rule 116. illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act. 3 modifies priorituis prudence that a plea of guilt even in capital offenses is sufficient to sustain a conviction charged in the information without need of further proof.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . Sec. > The records do not clearly illustrate the personality profile of the accused. in addition. > Khazie did not come home so Romeo and his wife looked for her. . . Ratio “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine: once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence. > At around 5:30 PM. 1994 – The trial court sentenced Alicando to death by electric chair or. commentaries and the rules to bolster his position.July 20. 1994 in Iloilo City. . Rebada did not tell them what she saw. whether express or implied. In other words. the court should ascertain that the accused voluntarily entered into the plea and fully comprehends the ramifications of such a plea and. 1994 – Alicando was arraigned and pleaded guilty. Some prosecution evidence. by gas poisoning. Based on his confession and follow-up interrogations. one of Penecilla’s neighbors. Rebada. > With regard to comprehension. the absence of an arraignment can be invoked at anytime in view of the requirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial. December 12. the complaint or the information should be read in a language or dialect which the accused understands. the trial court ordered the prosecution to present its evidence. > With regard to voluntariness.June 29." As pointed out then by the Solicitor General. Romeo’s friends left. Rebada then told the Penecillas what she knew." There is no doubt that it could be waived. . Dispositive The petition was granted. trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified. whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same illegal act. It could not be said with certainty that the accused was informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. . After the plea of guilt. any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. Rebada then heard Khazie crying so she approached the house and saw through an opening between the floor and the door that Khazie was being raped. In the process of raping Khazie. . but here there was no such waiver.Alicando was charged of rape with homicide for the death of Khazie Penecilla on June 12. were inadmissible. ISSUE WON the accused was properly meted the sentence of death HELD NO 1. 2. the prosecution should also be required to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability.The trial judge failed to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 116 of the RoC. it is mandatory. Thus: "However. The plea of guilt was null and void. Khazie’s corpse was found under the house of Santiago. Alicando eventually joined them. > Khazie’s father Romeo was having a drink with two friends in Romeo’s house. Reasoning . . questions regarding the presence or absence of maltreatment of the accused are deemed insufficient when a record of events in the penal facility indicate that Alicando suffered a hematoma from being locked up in a cell with violent inmates upon his arrest. the indispensable requisite for trial in absentia is that it should come "after arraignment.The rule requires that after a free and intelligent plea of guilt the trial court must require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant and the precise degree of his culpability beyond reasonable doubt.The provision in the present Constitution allowing trial to be held in absentia is unavailing. > In the morning. 3. he choked her thus causing her death. it becomes academic to discuss the applicability of this exception to the basic constitutional right that the accused should be heard by himself and counsel. if the penal facilities would be available by then. but it is equally inadmissible. It cannot justify the actuation of respondent Judge Senining. the Memorandum in support of the appeal unmistakably raised as error the absence of petitioner at the arraignment and cited jurisprudence. the appeal itself is tantamount to questioning those defects. spotted Khazie by the window of Alicando’s house. . after arraignment.The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.

Silence is assent as well as consent. the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability. + Under one of the recognized exceptions of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. the lower court should require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability 3. . 3. + The discovery of the victim's body near the house of the accused would have naturally led authorities to undertake a more thorough investigation of the site. . An innocent person will defend himself so silence can be understood as a person deferring to do just that. 1975 FACTS . where a direct and specific accusation of crime is made. It was not unnatural for him to have a shirt with bloodstains because he was a butcher. and the evidence in dispute in the instant case falls within those exceptions. .On September 25. ..Even if the evidence gathered were admissible. the appellant was clearly assisted by counsel. > The records fail to indicate that appellant questioned his plea of guilty at any stage of the trial. > The accused’s silence can counter the assertion of the Court that the plea of guilt was improvident. on its own. It is also the burden of the prosecution to show that the evidence derived from confession is not tainted as "fruit of the poisonous tree. Benigno Aquino Jr.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . compels the judge to content himself reasonably that the accused has not been coerced or placed under a state of duress . and may.. in fact went out of its way to repeatedly inform the defendant of the nature of his plea and the implications of the plea he was making. And yet. he sued for a writ of habeas corpus in which he questioned the legality of the proclamation of martial law and his arrest and detention. intimidating robes.The physical evidence objected to falls under the exclusionary rule. that the bulk of proceedings in our trial courts. > The alleged bloodstains on the pillow and shirt were never proven with laboratory tests. be regarded under some circumstances as a quasi-confession. > The doctrine is not without its exceptions. even in Metro Manila alone. one observes AQUINO v MILITARY COMMISSION 2 63 SCRA 546 ANTONIO. 12 of the 1987 Constitution which requires the assistance of counsel for the accused as well as provides for the right of the accused to remain silent and to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him and that these rights cannot be waived subject to exceptions.After Martial Law was proclaimed. 1972. was arrested (on Sept 22. . to indicate in the record the fact that the information was read in the language or dialect known to the defendant even if the same was in fact actually complied with by the lower court. 2-A of the President for complicity in a conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take over the Government. > The rule on arraignment and plea does not absolutely require that the same be indicated in the record of every criminal case > Rule 116 contains nothing requiring trial courts. There is no rule on conducting inquiry except that in People vs. . Nowhere in the rules does it state that an extra-judicial confession is a prerequisite for a conviction based on a plea of guilty.The burden to prove that an accused waived his right to remain silent and the right to counsel before making a confession under custodial interrogation rests with the prosecution. including the process of arraignment is conducted in the vernacular > Three things which need to be accomplished after the accused in a criminal case enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense. which have all been complied with in this case: 1. a2010 page 118 Prof. > There is nothing on the record which would warrant a finding that the information was not read in the language or dialect known to the appellant.” 2. > The trial court.This is in violation of Art. The testimony of a lone witness. the court should inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his behalf and should allow him to do so if he so desires . particularly in those areas where the victim was last seen. they are still insufficient as evidence. is sufficient to convict an accused even if uncorroborated. 1972). > There was no testimony that the shirt in question was worn by the accused when he committed the crime. > The absence of an extra-judicial confession does not detract from the efficacy or validity of appellant's plea of guilty. the court should conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the accused's plea. . > The 1987 Constitution's exclusionary rules absolutely forbid evidence obtained from illegal searches and seizures or evidence resulting from uncounseled custodial investigations of accused individuals. May 9. It does not affect the requirement compelling the prosecution to prove SEPARATE OPINION KAPUNAN [dissent] . Dayot.The plea of guilt was not improvident. He was asked a number of times if he was sure of the plea he was making.There was substantial compliance with the requirements for arraignment and plea." Dispositive The Decision convicting accused of the crime of Rape with Homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death is annulled and set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.The Court admitted as evidence the things seized in Alicando’s house. free from signs of impropriety or falsehood. > When the appellant pleaded guilty in open court. Sec.and that his guilty plea has not therefore been given improvidently . the Judge's. + Another exception refuses to treat the doctrine as absolutely sacred if the evidence in question would have been inevitably discovered under normal conditions.There is adequate legal evidence to sustain the trial court’s conviction with moral certainty. A violation of this provision renders the evidence gathered inadmissible. He did not put up any defense with regard to the evidence and the testimonies and even directed the police to the location of the evidence. pursuant to General Order No. the more appropriate question in such cases is whether the evidence to which the objection is made would not have been discovered at all but for the illegality or would have been discovered anyway by sources or procedures independent of the illegality. it was held that “a searching inquiry . These are inadmissible evidence for they were gathered by PO3 Tan of as a result of custodial interrogation where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel.other by actual threats of physical harm from malevolent quarters or simply because of his.

2.When the proceedings before the Military Commission opened. to determine whether "there is reasonable ground to believe that the offenses 5. due notice. WON the denial to an accused of an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him in the preliminary investigation constitutes an infringement of his right to due process. should be definitely resolved. petitioner questioned the fairness of the trial and announced that he did not wish to participate in the proceedings even as he discharged both his defense counsel of choice and his military defense counsel. Petitioner filed supplemental petition questioning the legality of the creation of the Special Committee. sedition. WON Administrative Order No. . The procedure before the Military Commission. YES . an essentially fair and impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for the preparation of the defense. the Board of Review and the Secretary of National Defense.Military Commission No. . the President of the Philippines necessarily possesses broad authority compatible with the imperative requirements of the emergency. It cannot be said that petitioner has been singled out for trial for this offense before the military commission. a Special Committee was created to reinvestigate the charges against petitioner. accusation in due form." In GO No. WON the court has jurisdiction despite petitioner’s motion to withdraw 2. Nor is it justifiable to conceive. jurisdiction over this offense has been vested exclusively upon military tribunals. with their corresponding staff judge advocates. ISSUES 1.To preserve the safety of the nation in times of national peril. . not wrongdoing. over crimes against public order. 12. praying that said Commission be prohibited from proceeding with the perpetuation of testimony under its Order dated March 10. therefore. NO . WON Military Commission No.When this case was called for hearing. . 8 the Chief of Staff of the AFP.The guarantee of due process is not a guarantee of any particular form of tribunal in criminal cases. .The court denied the motion. through whom petitioner's hypothetical conviction would be reviewed before reaching the President. creating the Special Committee strips the petitioner of his right to due process 4. is to be presumed. . 3. incident to or in connection with the commission of said crimes" which were pending in the civil courts were ordered transferred to the military tribunals. petitioner filed an "Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order Against Military Commission No. ammunition and explosives.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . . this Court also issued a restraining order against respondent Military Commission No. Due process of law does not necessarily mean a judicial proceeding in the regular courts. all "criminal cases involving subversion. . 2". operates equally on all persons in like circumstances. especially if weighed against the great confidence and trust reposed by the people upon the President and the latter's legal obligation under his oath to "do justice to every man".In the present case. WON petitioner may validly waive his right to be present at his trial HELD 1. 12. 12. 355. Prejudice cannot be presumed. until further orders from the Supreme Court. would all be insensitive to the great principles of justice and violate their respective obligations to act fairly and impartially in the premises. furnishing them arms and other instruments to further the uprising. This assumption must be made because innocence. pursuant to pertinent General Orders. it is imperative that the questions raised by petitioner on the constitutionality and legality of proceedings against civilians in the military commissions. are directly related to the quelling of the rebellion and preservation of the safety and security of the Republic. 2. a2010 page 119 Prof. . Under GO No. violations of the laws on firearms. 1975 until the matter is heard thereto. . since all matters in issue in this case have already been submitted for resolution. 3. insurrection or rebellion or those committed in furtherance of. notice and opportunity to defend and trial before an impartial tribunal. much less presume. 39. restraining it from further proceeding with the perpetuation of testimony under its Order dated March 10." We cannot. the same being illegal.The President created a Special Committee to reinvestigate the charges filed against him in the military commission.On March 24. 2 has been lawfully constituted and validly vested with jurisdiction to hear the cases against civilians. on the occasion . Reasoning . assures observance of the fundamental requisites of procedural due process. since the President had already prejudged petitioner's cases and the military tribunal is a mere creation of the President. It is intended that the Committee should conduct the investigation with "utmost fairness. SC dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of martial law and the arrest and detention of petitioner. Presidential Decrees and Letters of Instruction. 1975. as reviewing authorities. the Chief of Staff of the AFP. This jurisdiction of the tribunal.For the petitioner's assurance.It is asserted that petitioner's trial before the military commission will not be fair and impartial. and other crimes which. YES . as prescribed in PD No. 1975.The Court has previously declared that the proclamation of Martial Law is valid and constitutional and that its continuance is justified by the danger posed to the public safety. to create military tribunals & try and decide cases "of military personnel and such other cases as may be referred to them.SC issued a writ of habeas corpus and heard the case. among others. and "subject to his control and direction. of.Petitioner is charged with having conspired with certain military leaders of the communist rebellion to overthrow the government.It was precisely because of petitioner's complaint that he was denied the opportunity to be heard in the preliminary investigation of his charges . for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act and for murder. On the basis of this. he has authorized in GO No. for illegal possession of firearms. 1975. however. petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of military commissions to try him. the military tribunals were vested with jurisdiction "exclusive of the civil courts". that the members of the military commission. including the petitioner. in the face of the emergency. impartiality and objectivity" ensuring to the accused his constitutional right to due process. 2 has been lawfully constituted and validly vested with jurisdiction to hear the cases against civilians. A military tribunal of competent jurisdiction. WON the taking of testimonies and depositions were void 6. violations of the Anti-Subversion Act. petitioner's counsel presented to this Court a Motion to Withdraw the petition and all other pending matters and/or incidents in connection therewith. and they are of paramount public interest. including the petitioner.On April 14. indulge in unjustified assumptions. Pursuant to GO No. adequately meet the due process requirement. alone or together with others.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
charged were in fact committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof." Petitioner, however, objected by challenging in his supplemental petition before this Court the validity of Administrative Order No. 355, on the pretense that by submitting to the jurisdiction of the Special Committee he would be waiving his right to cross-examination because Presidential Decree No. 77, which applies to the proceedings of the Special Committee, has done away with cross-examination in preliminary investigation. 4. NO - The Constitution "does not require the holding of preliminary investigations. The right exists only, if and when created by statute." It is "not an essential part of due process of law." The absence thereof does not impair the validity of a criminal information or affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case. As a creation of the statute it can, therefore, be modified or amended by law. - It is also evident that there is no curtailment of the constitutional right of an accused person when he is not given the opportunity to "cross-examine the witnesses presented against him in the preliminary investigation before his arrest, this being a matter that depends on the sound discretion of the Judge or investigating officer concerned." 5. NO, the taking of the testimony or deposition was proper and valid. - Petitioner does not dispute respondents' claim that on March 14, 1975, he knew of the order allowing the taking of the deposition of prosecution witnesses on March 31, to continue through April 1 to 4, 1975. - The provisions of PD No. 328, dated October 31, 1973, for the conditional examination of prosecution witnesses before trial, is similar to the provisions of Section 7 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. - In Elago,the court said that the order of the court authorizing the taking of the deposition of the witnesses of the prosecution and fixing the date and time thereof is the one that must be served on the accused within a reasonable time prior to that fixed for the examination of the witnesses so that the accused may be present and cross-examine the witness. - 'The opportunity of cross-examination involves two elements: "(1) Notice to the opponent that the deposition is to be taken at the time and place specified, and "(2) A sufficient interval of time to prepare for examination and to reach the place,

a2010

page 120

Prof.
presence at all stages of his trial, there appears, therefore, no logical reason why petitioner, although he is charged with a capital offense, should be precluded from waiving his right to be present in the proceedings for the perpetuation of testimony, since this right, like the others aforestated, was conferred upon him for his protection and benefit. - It is also important to note that under Section 7 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court (Deposition of witness for the prosecution) the "Failure or refusal on the part of the defendant to attend the examination or the taking of the deposition after notice hereinbefore provided, shall be considered a waiver" - Presidential Decree No. 328 expressly provides that the failure or refusal to attend the examination or the taking of the deposition shall be considered a waiver. "

"(2) The requirements as to the interval of time are now everywhere regulated by statute * * *; the rulings in regard to the sufficiency of time are thus so dependent on the interpretation of the detailed prescriptions of the local statutes that it would be impracticable to examine them here. But whether or not the time allowed was supposedly insufficient or was precisely the time required by statute, the actual attendance of the party obviate any objection upon the ground of insufficiency, because then the party has actually had that opportunity of crossexamination for the sole sake of which the notice was required." 6. YES - Under the present Constitution, trial even of a capital offense may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused. It is now provided that "after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified." - On the basis of the aforecited provision of the Constitution which allows trial of an accused in absentia, the issue has been raised whether or not petitioner could waive his right to be present at the perpetuation of testimony proceedings before respondent Commission. - As a general rule, subject to certain exceptions, any constitutional or statutory right may be waived if such waiver is not against public policy. The personal presence of the accused from the beginning to the end of a trial for felony, involving his life and liberty, has been considered necessary and vital to the proper conduct of his defense. The "trend of modern authority is in favor of the doctrine that a party in a criminal case may waive irregularities and rights, whether constitutional or statutory, very much the same as in a civil case." - There are, certain rights secured to the individual by the fundamental charter which may be the subject of waiver. The rights of an accused to defend himself in person and by attorney, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to a speedy and public trial, and to meet the witnesses face to face, as well as the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, are rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They are rights necessary either because of the requirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial, or of the need of protecting the individual from the exercise of arbitrary power. And yet, there is no question that all of these rights may be waived. Considering the aforecited provisions of the Constitution and the absence of any law specifically requiring his

SEPARATE OPINION (on waiver of presence only) CASTRO [concur and dissent]
- My understanding of the provisions of the new Constitution on waiver of presence in criminal proceedings is that such waiver may be validly implied principally in cases where the accused has jumped bail or has escaped, but certainly may not be asserted as a matter of absolute right in cases where the accused is in custody and his identification is needed in the course of the proceedings. - Thus, I voted for qualified waiver.- the accused may waive his presence in the criminal proceedings except at the stages where identification of his person by the prosecution witnesses is necessary. I might agree to the proposition of "total" waiver in any case where the accused agrees explicitly and unequivocally in writing signed by him or personally manifests clearly and indubitably in open court and such manifestation is recorded, that whenever a prosecution witness mentions a name by which the accused is known the witness is referring to him and to no one else.

TEEHANKEE [dissent]
- Petitioner’s presence at the proceedings could not be compelled by virtue of his express waiver thereof as explicitly allowed by the Constitution and by P.D. No. 328 itself. - Petitioner's submittal that he cannot be compelled to be present at the proceedings even against his will by virtue of his express waiver is meritorious. Whereas previously such right of waiver of the

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
accused's presence in criminal proceedings was generally recognized save in capital cases (leading to the suspension of trial whenever the accused was at large) or where the accused was in custody although for a non-capital offense, the 1973 Constitution now unqualifiedly permits trial in absentia even of capital cases, and provides that "after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified," thus recognizing the right of an accused to waive his presence. P.D. No. 328 under which the perpetuation proceedings are being conducted in military commissions (as the counterpart rule for similar proceedings before the regular civil courts, as provided in Rule 119, section 7 of the Rules of Court) explicitly provides that after reasonable notice to an accused to attend the perpetuation proceedings, the deposition by question and answer of the witness may proceed in the accused's absence and "the failure or refusal to attend the examination or the taking of the deposition shall be considered a waiver." Thus, an accused's right of total waiver of his presence either expressly or impliedly by unjustified failure or refusal to attend the proceedings is now explicitly recognized and he cannot be compelled to be present as against his express waiver.

a2010

page 121

Prof.
Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2 and held that "he cannot be validly compelled to appear and be present during the trial of this case." - Petitioner prays that the order of respondent judge be annulled and set aside and that private respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. be compelled to appear during the trial of the criminal case whenever required to do so by the trial court. - Private respondent claims that Sec 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution grants him absolute right to absent himself from the trial of the case filed against him despite the condition of his bail bond that he "will at all times hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the Court." ISSUE WON the judge erred in granting private respondent’s manifestation to waive his right to be present during trial HELD YES - Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, Section 19 thereof provides: SEC. 19. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified. - The 1973 Constitution now unqualifiedly permits trial in absentia even of capital offenses, provided that after arraignment he may be compelled to appear for the purpose of Identification by the witnesses of the prosecution, or provided he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his arraignment that he is the person named as the defendant in the case on trial. - The reason for requiring the presence of the accused, despite his waiver, is, if allowed to be absent in all the stages of the proceedings without giving the People's witnesses the opportunity to Identify him in court, he may in his defense say that he was never Identified as the person charged in the information and, therefore, is entitled to an acquittal.

for the authorities to enforce execution of any adverse judgment. But I cannot see why an accused should be compelled to be present at the trial when he prefers perhaps the solitude of his cell to pray either for forgiveness, if he knows he is guilty, or, if he is innocent, for God to illumine the court so there would be unerring justice in his case. (hehehe) - My understanding is that the problem of identification of an accused may be adequately solved without violating the justified wishes of the accused to be left alone. To start with, if he is referred to by the witnesses of the prosecution by name, the court may presume that the amused who has acknowledged his true name at the arraignment is the one indicated.

BORJA v MENDOZA [SUPRA, PAGE 78] PEOPLE v PRESIDING JUDGE OF URDANETA 125 SCRA 269 RELOVA; October 26, 1983
NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - Private respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. is charged with murder before the RTC of Pangasinan, in Urdaneta. He is out on a P30,000.00 bail bond which contains the following conditions: The aforenamed, as bondsmen, hereby jointly and severally undertake that the above-mentioned defendant, as principal therein will appear and answer the charge above-mentioned in whatever Court it may be tried, and will at all times hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the Court, and if convicted, will appear for judgment, and render himself to the execution thereof; or that if he fails to perform any of these conditions will pay to the Republic of the Philippines the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) ... - After his arraignment, Valdez, thru his counsel, manifested orally in open court that he was waiving his right to be present during the trial. The prosecuting fiscal moved that Valdez be compelled to appear and be present at the trial so that he could be identified by prosecution witnesses. Respondent judge sustained the position of private respondent who cited the majority opinion in Aquino,

BARREDO [concur]
- Petitioner has the right to waive his presence at the perpetuation proceedings before the respondent Commission.I find eminent merit in the contention of petitioner that even for identification purposes he cannot be made to be present at the trial against his will. Since under the Constitution, trial of criminal cases in the absence of the accused is allowed, when after the arraignment and in spite of due notice he fails to appear without justification, pursuant to Section 19 of the Bill of Rights or Article IV. - I can understand why an accused has to be present at the arraignment and at the reading of the sentence. In the former, it has to be known to the court that he is indeed the person charged and that he personally understands the accusation against him. More importantly, the plea must be entered by him personally to avoid any misconstruction or misrepresentation, innocent or otherwise. In the latter, it is essential that the accused himself, should be aware from personal knowledge what is the verdict of the court, and if it be conviction, what is the penalty to be served by him. These are matters too personal to permit delegation. At the same time, his presence makes it simpler in the public interest

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
- Furthermore, it is possible that a witness may not know the name of the culprit but can Identify him if he sees him again, in which case the latter's presence in court is necessary. Dispositive petition granted and the assailed order of respondent judge is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE

a2010

page 122

Prof.
prosecution moved that the hearing continue in accordance with the constitutional provision authorizing trial in absentia under certain circumstances. The respondent judge denied the motion, however, and suspended all proceedings until the return of the accused. ISSUE WON the judge erred in suspending the proceedings HELD YES Ratio Under Art.IV Sec.19, the prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution and possibly eventual conviction provided only that: a) he has been arraigned; b) he has been duly notified of the trial; and c) his failure to appear is unjustified. Reasoning - The rule is found in the last sentence of Article IV, Section 19, of the 1973 Constitution: In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to he informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified. - The purpose of this rule is to speed up the disposition of criminal cases, trial of which could in the past be indefinitely deferred, and many times completely abandoned, because of the defendant's escape. - the fugitive is now deemed to have waived such notice precisely because he has escaped, and it is also this escape that makes his failure to appear at his trial unjustified. Escape can never be a legal justification. - The right to be present at one's trial may now be waived except only at that stage where the prosecution intends to present witnesses who will Identify the accused. - the defendant's escape will be considered a waiver of this right and the inability of the court to notify him of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with his trial. He will be deemed to have received due notice.

ISSUE WON the accused, despite having waived his presence at the trial, may still be compelled to be present in the same trial when he is to be identified HELD YES. Stare Decisis. Reasoning - The rule adopted by the Court in the case of Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2 (supra) is that while the accused may waive his presence at the trial of the case, his presence may be compelled when he is to be identified. The Court said: “Since only 6 Justices are of the view that petitioner may waive his right to be present at all stages of the proceedings while five 5 Justices are in agreement that he may so waive such right, except when he is to he identified, the result is that the respondent Commission's Order requiring his presence at all times during the proceedings before it should be modified, in the sense that petitioners presence shall be required only in the instance just indicated. Dispositive Petition GRANTED, orders of respondent Judge ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Judge is ordered to issue the necessary process to compel the attendance of the accused at the hearing of the criminal case for purposes of identification. Temporary TRO lifted and set aside.

PEOPLE v MACARAEG 141 SCRA 37 CONCEPCION; January 14, 1986
NATURE Petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction to review order of CFI of Pangasinan FACTS - Private Respondent Vasco Valdez was charged with Homicide before the CFI of Pangasinan for the death of one Severs Paulo and posted bail for his provisional release. Attached to the bail bond was a waiver stipulating that the trial may proceed in his absence. - When the case was called for trial, the prosecution presented Welino Paulo, as its 1st witness, who when asked if he could identify the accused, answered in the affirmative. Since the accused was not present in court, the prosecution asked the court to order the presence of the accused so that he could be identified. Counsel for accused objected to the motion by invoking the waiver in the bail bond and contended that the absence of the accused is part of his defense. - Respondent Judge Daniel Macaraeg of the CFI, invoking the case of Aquino v Military Commission No.2, denied the motion: “The issue at bar was one of those squarely raised in the Aquino case where six out of ten Justices voted that the accused may not be compelled to be present during the trial when he is to be identified by the witnesses of the prosecution while four voted that the accused may be compelled in this instance. The reason of the majority is that the accused must not be compelled to assist the prosecution in proving its case.” - The prosecution moved for reconsideration but respondent Judge denied the motion. Prosecution then filed this petition with prayer for a TRO. The SC granted the petition and issued a TRO, restraining the respondent Court from further proceeding with the criminal case.

PEOPLE v SALAS (ABONG, DE LEON, ET AL) 143 SCRA 163 CRUZ; July 29, 1986
NATURE Certiorari and Mandamus FACTS - Mario Abong was originally charged with homicide in the CFI of Cebu but before he could be arraigned the case was reinvestigated on motion of the prosecution. As a result of the reinvestigation, an amended information was filed, with no bail recommended, to which he pleaded not guilty. - While trial was in progress, the prisoner, taking advantage of the first information for homicide, succeeded in deceiving the city court of Cebu into granting him bail and ordering his release; and so he escaped. - Respondent judge Salas, learning later of the trickery, cancelled the illegal bail bond and ordered Abong's re-arrest. But he was gone. Nonetheless, the

for both society and the offended party have a legitimate interest in seeing to it that crime should not go unpunished. Following the arraignment. (2) that the accused has been notified. 1973 at 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon.Accused Samson Suan. an accused who has been duly tried in absentia retains his right to present evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testified against him HELD 1. . WON trial in absentia is warranted 3. Nazareno. Hence. What the Constitution guarantees him is a fair trial. Ramon E. accused were arraigned and each of them pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. or on November 6. NO . With the categorical statement in the fundamental law that his absence cannot justify a delay provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified. The absence of the accused without any justifiable cause at the trial on a particular date of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present during that trial. NO . the lower court proceeded with the trial of the case but nevertheless gave the private respondent the opportunity to take the witness stand the moment he shows up in court.It is not disputed that the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused-private respondent when he appeared during the arraignment on August 22..In this case. 1973. Fernando Cargando. and public trial. the private respondent was arraigned on . escapes from the custody of the law 2. Hon. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which provides: SEC. To capsulize the foregoing discussion. After due trial. August 22. Such voluntary appearance is accomplished by appearing for arraignment as what accused-private respondent did in this case. When an accused under custody had been notified of the date of the trail and escapes. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. jurisdiction is acquired by the court over his person and this continues until the termination of the case. all the above conditions were attendant calling for a trial in absentia. to wit: . Dispositive The judgment of the trial court in so far as it suspends the proceedings against the private GIMENEZ v NAZARENO 160 SCRA 1 GANCAYCO. Alex Potot. set the hearing of the case for September 18. The Constitutional Convention felt the need for such a provision as there were quite a number of reported instances where the proceedings against a defendant had to be stayed indefinitely because of his non. after arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified. this petition. All the acused including private respondent. to meet the witnesses face to face. 1973 and this is evidenced by his signature on the notice issued by the lower Court. Also. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of parties but continues until the case is terminated.1973 the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration questioning the above-quoted dispositive portion on the ground that it will render nugatory the constitutional provision on "trial in absentia" cited earlier. However. be tried in absentia invoking the application of Section 19. WON a court loses jurisdiction over an accused who after being arraigned. INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE: . this was denied by the lower court in an Order dated November 22. In all criminal prosecution. were duly informed of this. he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial dates until custody in regained. and to have compulsory process to the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. On August 22. It was also proved by a certified copy of the Police Blotter that private respondent escaped from his detention center.. In cases criminal. 1973.1973. No explanation for his failure to appear in court in any of the scheduled hearings was given. notwithstanding his escape from the custody of the law. Jr. YES .The contention of the respondent judge that the right of the accused to be presumed innocent will be violated if a judgment is rendered as to him is untenable. 3. and (3) that he fails to appear and his failure to do so is unjustified. This prompted the fiscals handling the case (the petitioners herein) to file a motion with the lower court to proceed with the hearing of the case against all the accused praying that private respondent de la Vega. 1973 all the above-named. Even the trial court considered his absence unjustified . A judgment of conviction must still be based upon the evidence presented in court.appearance. 1973 and in the said arraignment he pleaded not guilty. 19. . Such evidence must prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.. . the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. . Rogelio Mula. were charged with the crime of murder on August 3. 2. to have a speedy. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. impartial. He was also informed of the scheduled hearings set on September 18 and 19. failed to appear in court. However. That is the way it should be. particularly Section 1 (c) of Rule 115 clearly reflects the intention of the framers of our Constitution..Before the scheduled date of the first hearing the private respondent escaped from his detention center and on the said date.1973 and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. suffice it to say that where the accused appears at the arraignment and pleads not guilty to the crime charged. On November 16.Pursuant to the above-written provision. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired either by his arrest for voluntary appearance in court. WON under Section 19.. ISSUES 1. April 15 1988 NATURE Petition for certiorari and mandamus FACTS . Article IV of the 1973 Constitution aforecited a "trial in absentia"may be had when the following requisites are present: (1) that there has been an arraignment.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Dispositive the order of the trial court denying the motion for the trial in absentia of the accused is set aside. such an abuse could be remedied. As the facts show. Rogelio Baguio and the herein private respondent Teodoro de la Vega Jr..Going to the second part of Section 19. a2010 page 123 Prof. the respondent judge.An escapee who has been duly tried in absentia waives his right to present evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testified against him. . not continued enjoyment of his freedom even if his guilt could be proved. the lower court rendered a decision dismissing the case against the five accused while holding in abeyance the proceedings against the private respondent. He is still presumed innocent. there can be no violation of due process since the accused was given the opportunity to be heard.

After pleading not guilty he entered a plea of guilty to counts 1.ABONG should be prepared to bear the consequences of his escape. 1948 NATURE APPEAL from a judgment of the People's Court FACTS . SALAS was probably still thinking of the old doctrine when he ruled that trial in absentia of the 10 escapee could not be held because he could not be duly notified. An amended information was filed as a result. is reversed and set aside.]. SALAS denied the motion. IV. he did not sympathize with the defendant's cause. 743. learning later of the trickery. The respondent judge is hereby directed to render judgment upon the innocence or guilt of the herein private respondent Teodoro de la Vega. S.11 Under [Sec. Citing Aquino v. 36 Phil. S. 2. and c) his failure to appear is unjustified. The same fact of his escape will make his failure to appear unjustified because he has. a2010 page 124 Prof. Commission No. . the present petitions.J. and many times completely abandoned. SALAS is correct in disallowing trial in absentia of ABONG’s case HELD NO . trial of which could in the past be indefinitely deferred. ABONG. Labial. b) he has been duly notified of the trial.. The special prosecutor introduced evidence only on count 4. the defendant's escape will be considered a waiver of this right and the inability of the court to notify him of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with his trial. III. Escalante. 1987 Const. and so he escaped. in favor of the legality and regularity of all the proceedings of the trial court. in accordance with the evidence adduced and the applicable law. Presiding Judge. succeeded in deceiving the court into granting him bail and ordering his release. Sec. Jr. ISSUE WON J. 3 and 7. 5 and 6. JOHNSON v ZERBST 304 US 458 BLACK. as the present attorney admits. SALAS was SET ASIDE. and it is also this escape that makes his failure to appear at his trial unjustified. that was enough. with no bail recommended.The appellate tribunal will indulge reasonable presumptions. however. cancelled the illegal bail bond and ordered ABONG's re-arrest. If Attorney Carin did his best as a sworn member of the bar. May 23.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales respondent Teodoro de la Vega. Meanwhile. is not sufficient to overcome this presumption. . 1987 Const.19. ISSUE WON the judgment must be reversed because of the trial court's failure to appoint "another attorney de oficio for the accused in spite of the manifestation of the attorney de oficio (who defended the accused at the trial) that he would like to be relieved for obvious reasons.”10 is to speed up the disposition of criminal cases." HELD NO . 82. FACTS .14(2). not to mention a possible or even probable conviction. He will be deemed to have received due notice. trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified.. until it is terminated. as the present counsel assumes. vs. Mil. He forgets that the fugitive is now deemed to have waived such notice precisely because he has escaped.) It is presumed that the procedure prescribed by law has been observed unless it is made to appear expressly to the contrary. (U. including forfeiture of the right to be notified of the subsequent proceedings and of the right to adduce evidence on his behalf and refute the evidence of the prosecution. .The purpose of the constitutional rule that “after arraignment.The appellant was prosecuted in the People's Court for treason on 7 counts. 1986 NATURE Special civil actions. and maintained the original plea as to counts 4.The attorney de officio manifested that he would like to be relieved from his assignment. Jr. (U.) The fact that the attorney appointed by the trial court to aid the defendant in his defense expressed reluctance to accept the designation because.9 of outline. ART. to which ABONG pleaded not guilty. ART. . vs. the present counsel "sincerely believes that the said Attorney Carin did his best.ABONG was originally charged with homicide in CFI Cebu but before he could be arraigned the case was reinvestigated. including the presumption that the accused was not denied the right to have counsel. See p. 27 Phil. Now. and protection. Hence.14(2). As a matter of fact. of the law.000. placed himself beyond the pale. and suspended all proceedings until the return of ABONG. July 29. the prosecution moved that the hearing continue in accordance with the constitutional provision authorizing trial in absentia. taking advantage of the first information for homicide. although it was not the best of a willing worker. The statement of the counsel in the court below did no necessarily imply that he did not perform his duty to protect the interest of the accused. certiorari and mandamus. because of the defendant's escape. Dispositive Order of J." We do not discern in the record any indication that the former counsel did not conduct the defense to the best of his ability. The defendant was found guilty on count 4 as well as counts 1. 2 and People v. the prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution provided only that: a) he has been arraigned. During the trial. his sentiments did not cut any influence in the result of the case and did not imperil the rights of the appellant. and he was directed to continue hearing ABONG’s case in absentia as long as he has not reappeared. Now. Sec. 2. The right to be present at one's trial may now be waived except only at that stage where the prosecution intends to present witnesses who will identify the accused. 3 and 7 and was sentenced to death and to pay a fine of P20. by escaping. PEOPLE v PRIETO (alias EDDIE VALENCIA) 80 Phil 138 TUASON: January 29. stating with reference to counts 5 and 6 that he did not have sufficient evidence to sustain them. 1938 NATURE Appeal from the decision of the District Court denying the petition for habeas corpus which the Court of Appeals affirmed FACTS 11 1973 Const. Judge SALAS. PEOPLE v SALAS CRUZ.

convicted. the burden of proof rests upon him to establish that he did not competently and intelligently waive his constitutional right to assistance of Counsel. and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas corpus.' . it is open to the courts of the United States. acquiesces in a trial resulting in his conviction and later seeks release by the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus. even if such inquiry involves an examination of facts outside of. II. without assistance of counsel. . were transported to the Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta. even on habeas corpus.. November 21.. must be construed and applied so as to preserve-not destroy-constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty. he held that proceedings depriving petitioner of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel were not sufficient 'to make the trial void and justify its annulment in a habeas corpus proceeding. S. they were indicted. 'In all criminal prosecutions. the accused were unable to employ counsel for their trial. it results that under the sections cited a prisoner in custody pursuant to the final judgment of a state court of criminal jurisdiction may have a judicial inquiry in a court of the United States into the very truth and substance of the causes of his detention. tried. the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus. When collaterally attacked. If in a habeas corpus hearing. immediately were arraigned... on leave. 'it would be clearly erroneous to confine the inquiry to the proceedings and judgment of the trial court' and the petitioned court has 'power to inquire with regard to the jurisdiction of the inferior court. to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. A judge of the United States-to whom a petition for habeas corpus is addressed-should be alert to examine 'the facts for himself when if true as alleged they make the trial absolutely void. Ratio The purpose of the constitutional guaranty of a right to counsel is to protect an accused from conviction resulting from his own ignorance of his legal and constitutional rights. and under the act of 31 Car. and the guaranty would be nullified by a determination that an accused's ignorant failure to claim his rights removes the protection of the Constitution. January 21. both pleaded not guilty. that a judgment cannot be lightly set aside by collateral attack. chap. either in respect to the subject-matter or to the person. although it may become necessary to look behind and beyond the record of PEOPLE v HOLGADO 85 PHIL 752 MORAN. 1950 FACTS . conviction and sentence. but that they constituted trial errors or irregularities which could only be corrected on appeal. they were taken to court and there first give notice of the indictment. They were then tried. the record. habeas corpus cannot be used as a means of reviewing errors of law and irregularities-not involving the question of jurisdiction-occurring during the course of trial. '. said that they had no lawyer.Compliance with this constitutional mandate is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court's authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty. effect is to substitute for the bare legal review that seems to have been the limit of judicial authority under the common-law practice. of his constitutional right under the provision of the Sixth Amendment. 1934..It appears from the opinion of the District Judge denying habeas corpus that he believed petitioner was deprived. and January 25. however.'There being no doubt of the authority of the Congress to thus liberalize the common-law procedure on habeas corpus in order to safeguard the liberty of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States against infringement through any violation of the Constitution or a law or treaty established thereunder.If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not complied with. convicted. in the trial court. the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his life or his liberty. is to 'dispose of the party as law and justice require. In such a proceeding. The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void. a more searching investigation.' Congress has expanded the rights of a petitioner for habeas corpus and the '.Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court of First Instance of Romblon with slight illegal detention because according to the information. and the 'writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error.' However. The scope of inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings has been broadened-not narrowed-since the adoption of the Sixth Amendment. but not inconsistent with. upon determining the actual facts. 1935.. They were bound over to await action of the United States Grand July. Where a defendant.. however. Upon arraignment.It must be remembered. that.' . charged with feloniously uttering and passing four counterfeit twenty-dollar Federal Reserve notes and possessing twenty-one such notes.C. Dispositive The cause is reversed and remanded to the District Court for determination whether petitioner did not competently and intelligently waive his right to counsel. being a private person. but were kept in jail due to inability to give bail. Both were then enlisted men in the United States Marine Corps. it is the duty of the court to grant the writ. . While counsel had represented them in the preliminary hearings before the commissioner in which they-some two months before their trial-were bound over to the Grand Jury. 2. and sentenced that day to four and one-half years in the penitentiary. True. kidnap and detain one Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for about eight hours thereby depriving said Artemia Fabreag of her personal liberty. January 23. and-in response to an inquiry of the court-stated that they were ready for trial. in which the applicant is put upon his oath to set forth the truth of the matter respecting the causes of his detention.. March 22. however.Petitioner and one Bridwell were arrested in Charleston. without counsel. and sentenced. the sixth amendment HELD YES . 1935. to look beyond forms and inquiry into the very substance of the matter . he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive.. he does meet this burden and convinces the court by a preponderance of evidence that he neither had counsel nor properly waived his constitutional right to counsel..' . If court finds for petitioner the decision of the district court convicting petitioner must be declared void.. If the accused.the accused shall enjoy the right .' These principles.The Court of Appeals affirmed ISSUE WON the remedy of habeas corpus render the conviction of the petitioner void when there is a violation of the right to counsel. and the court.' . his conviction to a sufficient extent to test the jurisdiction of the state court to proceed to judgment against him. the judgment of a court carries with it a presumption of regularity. is not represented by counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right. When this right is properly waived.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales .." . the assistance of counsel is no longer a necessary element of the court's jurisdiction to proceed to a2010 page 125 Prof.

and. 3 — If he desires and is unable to employ attorney. what is worse.Allegedly. it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney. it was not prudent. he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned. the police nabbed Nicandro. but it is essential that the court should assign one de oficio if he so desires and he is poor grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own. Apparently the court became satisfied with the fiscal's information that he had investigated Mr. he plead guilty as he was without a lawyer. 2 — After giving him such information the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an attorney. So ordered. to say the least.IN THE CASE. and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. the informant asked to buy marijuana from Nicandro. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney. without absolute any evidence to determine and clarify the true facts of the case." The facts alleged in said information are not clear as to whether the offense is named therein or capital offense of "kidnapping and serious illegal detention" as found by the trial judge in his judgment.Pursuant to information regarding the illegal sale of prohibited drugs by Nicandro. the WPD conducted surveillance and organized an “entrapment with the confidential informant acting as the buyer of marijuana. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. Such attitude of the court was wrong for the simple reason that a mere statement of the fiscal was not sufficient to overcome a qualified plea of the accused. the trial judge must have deduced the capital offense from the facts pleaded in the information. and upon delivery of 4 sticks of marijuana cigarettes. and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty." In the formation filed by the provincial fiscal it is said that he "accuses Frisco Holgado of the crime of slight illegal detention. The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel. we immediately nabbed said suspect and . without counsel. Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law. The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of Patrolman Joves. The trial court failed to inquire whether or not the accused was to employ an attorney. . and 4 — If a2010 page 126 Prof.in the instant case. as well as marijuana flowering top. Nicandro orally admitted having sold the marijuana. and that a certain Numeriano Ocampo told Holgado to plead guilty. ISSUE WON the conviction of the lower court is valid HELD NO. the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court must grant him a reasonable time therefor. . No investigation was opened by the court on this matter in the presence of the accused and there is now no way of determining whether the supposed instruction is a good defense or may vitiate the voluntariness of the confession. The Court reserved the sentence for a two days despite the fiscal’s assurances that the certain Numeriano Ocampo has been investigated and found without evidence to link him to the crime . . the court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. It is invalid.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . .the court has four important duties to comply with: 1 — It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before being arraigned. particularly in the rules of procedure.It must be noticed that in the caption of the case as it appears in the judgment above quoted. and imposing upon him such a heavy penalty as ten years and one day of prision mayor to twenty years.During the trial. particularly the qualified plea given by the accused who was unaided by counsel. the question was so framed that it could have been construed by the accused as a suggestion from the court that he plead guilt if he had no attorney. the court should have seen to it that the accused be assisted by counsel specially because of the qualified plea given by him and the seriousness of the offense found to be capital by the court. . upon being investigated and after having been duly apprised of her constitutional rights.It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney. the offense charged is named SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION while in the body of the judgment if is said that the accused "stands charged with the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. .The question asked by the court to the accused was "Do you have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty?" Not only did such a question fail to inform the accused that it was his right to have an attorney before arraignment. February 11. 1986 NATURE Appeal from judgment of CFI Manila FACTS . .Under the circumstances." The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of this qualification. the record does not show whether the supposed instructions was real PEOPLE v NICANDRO 141 SCRA 295 PLANA. to grant him reasonable time to procure or assign an attorney de oficio.rules of Court. Dispositive The judgment appealed from is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court below for a new arraignment and a new trial after the accused is apprised of his right to have and to be assisted by counsel. Since the accused-appellant pleaded guilty and no evidence appears to have been presented by either party. The marked bills were recovered from her pockets." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. Ocampo and found that the same had nothing to do with this case. but refused to reduce her confession to writing. and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. And this is a denial of fair hearing in violation of the due process clause contained in our Constitution. .One of the great principles of justice guaranteed by our Constitution is that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law". he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. that the accused who was unaided by counsel pleaded guilty but with the following qualification: "but I was instructed by one Mr. the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. section 3. for the trial court to render such a serious judgment finding the accused guilty of a capital offense. Ocampo. but. Not one of these duties had been complied with by the trial court. that – If the defendant appears without attorney. His testimony said “when we saw the accused handed the 4 sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes to our confidential informant and after a prearranged signal was given by the informant that the accused had already sold her the marijuana.” With marked money. Rule 112. one of the officers who conducted the entrapment. The record discloses that said court did not inform the accused of his right to have an attorney nor did it ask him if he desired the aid of one.. . But above all.

Miranda v Arizona: “we will not presume that defendant has been effectively apprised of his rights and that his privilege vs self incrimination has been adequately safeguarded on a record that doesn’t show that any warnings have been given or any effective alternative has been employed. affecting said corporation. This is particularly impt because Nicandro was illiterate and can’t be expected to be able to grasp the significance of her rights merely by hearing an abstract statement thereof.IV. xxx As for the procedural safeguards to be employed. Joves testified that “the first thing I did was I informed the accused of her constitutional rights. relying mostly on Nicandro’s confession as stated in the Joves’ testimony. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him.incrimination. formed of each right. WON rights of accused (vs self-incrimination and to confront witness vs her) were violated. A simpler & more lucid explanation is needed where the subject is unlettered . neither did he state the manner he advised her of her rights so as to make her understand them. . the police may not question him.The court found the testimony of Pat. To be valid. It stands to reason that where the right has not been adequately explained and there are serious doubts as to whether the person interrogated knew and understood his relevant BATAAN SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING CO INC (BASECO) v PCGG 150 SCRA 181 NARVASA.When asked how he conducted the investigation. She appealed. ISSUES 1. and acts done. depending upon the education.since right “to be informed” implies comprehension. but when the improbability of illegal drugs being sold openly was pointed out. are: (1) Executive Orders Numbered 1 and 2. -it is probable that Joves did not really see either the alleged delivery of marijuana or the supposed payment therefor. it must be made knowingly & intelligently. Acquitted for reasonable doubt confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence). and to be in. degree of explanation required will necessary vary. 1973 Consti (No person shall be compelled to be a witness vs himself. there can be no questioning. however. intelligence & other relevant personal circumstances of the person under investigation. . so is it the duty of the prosecution to affirmatively establish compliance by the investigator with his said obligation. promulgated by President Aquino on February 28. Prior to any questioning. threat. 1987 NATURE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari and prohibition to review the order of the Presidential Commission on Good Government FACTS . there is a denial of the right. and other orders issued. Likewise.Like other constitutional rights. With his testimony seriously placed in doubt. which presupposes an awareness or understanding of what is being waived. Joves unreliable as it appears that he himself was unsure of what he saw. however.in this case. in accordance with said executive orders by the Presidential Commission on Good Government and/or its Commissioners and agents.BASECO prays that this Court 1) declare unconstitutional and void Executive Orders Numbered 1 and 2. Joves did not say what specific rights he mentioned to Nicandro.Challenged in this special civil action of certiorari and prohibition by a private corporation known as the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co. violation. If. 2. The defendant may waive those rights. Absent such affirmative showing. that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him. he qualified his story by saying that the sale took place secretly. constitutional rights when he answered the questions.. as it cannot truly be said that the person has been “informed” of his rights. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it. 1986 and March 12. the right vs selfincrimination. Inc.” CFI convicted her. and that he has a right to the presence of an atty. .reliance on oral admission is assailed as violative of Sec20. Reasoning . Any a2010 page 127 Prof. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have right to remain silent and to counsel. admission or confession made by a person under investigation cannot be admitted in evidence. either retained or appointed. It is at best uncertain whether any prosecution witness really saw the alleged sale of marijuana. first saying that he saw the marijuana being sold openly. he indicates in any manner & at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an atty before speaking.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales at the same time we identified ourselves as police officers. . and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding what is conveyed.” . it is idle to talk of waiver of rights. Art. intimidation.As it is the obligation of the investigator to inform a person under investigation of his rights. takeover.above provision is an expanded version of the right vs self-incrimination. stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney & thereafter consents to be questioned. Pat. No force. Nor can a waiver of these rights be assumed on a silent record” Dispositive decision SET ASIDE. the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent. YES Ratio the right of a person under interrogation “to be informed” implies a correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain. thus any evidence obtained therefrom are inadmissible HELD 1. provided such is made voluntarily. the ff measures are required. may be waived.” (the court points out that the Miranda doctrine rests on the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be compelled to be a witness vs himself) . formally incorporating the doctrine in Miranda v Arizona: “the prosecution may not use statements. May 27. knowingly & intelligently. Reasoning . . WON court erred in giving probative value to the testimony of the officer 2. if the individual is alone & indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated. including the right of a person under investigation to remain silent & to counsel. there is not much left of the prosecution evidence. a waiver must not only be voluntary. YES Ratio The prosecution evidence leaves much to be desired. 1986 (2) the sequestration. . and to be informed of such right. Short of this. then I questioned her about the marijuana that were confiscated xxx and she verbally admitted that she sold the 4 sticks and possessed and owned the other marijuana leaves.

WON Executive No s 1. relatives. the Presidential Commission on Good Government was created. it does not follow that a corporation. and close associates both here and abroad. 2. business associates." The order was issued upon the authority of Section 3 (e) of Executive Order No. . Marcos. are to be filed "with the Sandiganbayan. until the transactions leading to such acquisition by the latter can be disposed of by the appropriate authorities. It was given power also to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of (its creation)." and 4) required "all persons in the Philippines holding such assets or properties. there is No Violation of Right against SelfIncrimination Ratio It is elementary that the right against selfincrimination has no application to juridical persons." and postulates that "vast resources of the government have been amassed by former President Ferdinand E. Philippines or abroad. 1379. " Executive Order No. " > So that it might ascertain the facts germane to its objectives. encumbrance. instrumentalities. and any records pertaining thereto. estates. NO Executive Order No. 1986 and the termination of the services of the BASECO executives." and paragraph (3). Reasoning . connections or relationship. WON right against self-incrimination can be invoked by BASECO HELD 1.BASECO contends that its right against selfincrimination and unreasonable searches and seizures had been transgressed by the Order of April 18. to make full disclosure of the same to the Commission on Good Government within thirty (30) days from publication of * (the) Executive Order. subordinates. buildings.While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute. encumbering or otherwise depleting or concealing such assets and properties or from assisting or taking part in their transfer. whether located in the Philippines or abroad. subordinates. statements of accounts and other documents as may be material to the investigation conducted by the Commission. punish for contempt. agents or trustees." 3. forfeiture proceedings provided for under Republic Act No.contracts. encumbering. or nominees from transferring. their close relatives. or frustrate or otherwise make ineffectual the efforts of the Commission to carry out its task under this order. * * to file and prosecute all cases investigated by it * * as may be warranted by its findings. in their names as nominees. whether located in the . moreover. trust accounts. in their names as nominees. enterprises. may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges subpoenae ad testification and duces tecum. 2 > gives additional and more specific data and directions respecting "the recovery of ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the previous regime." Upon these premises. require submission of evidence by a2010 page 128 Prof. 1986." and that. Marcos. business enterprises and properties taken over by the government of the Marcos Administration or by entities or persons close to former President Marcos. resulting in their unjust enrichment and causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. ISSUES 1. 1986 which required it "to produce corporate records from 1973 to 1986 under pain of contempt of the Commission if it fails to do so.'"34 All such cases. 1 > stresses the "urgent need to recover all ill-gotten wealth. concealment or disappearance which would frustrate or hamper the investigation or otherwise prevent the Commission from accomplishing its task. or by taking undue advantage of their office. in connection with * * (said Executive Orders Numbered I and 2) may be filed separately from and proceed independently of any criminal proceedings and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence. and/or his wife Mrs. residences. reparation of damages. or nominees have any interest or participation" 2) prohibited former President Ferdinand Marcos and/or his wife * *. agents or nominees which had been or were acquired by them directly or indirectly. Executive Order No. NO. banks or financial institutions. Imelda Romualdez Marcos. administer oaths. " . or any other civil actions under the Civil Code or other existing laws. mansions. agents or trustees.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 2) annul the sequestration order dated April 14. "To provisionally take over in the public interest or to prevent the disposal or dissipation. dummies. "charged with the task of assisting the President in regard to (certain specified) matters." It declares that: 1) "* * the Government of the Philippines is in possession of evidence showing that there are assets and properties purportedly pertaining to former Ferdinand E." Upon these premises. vested with special privileges and franchises. authority. in order to prevent their destruction. "To sequester or place or cause to be placed under its control or possession any building or office wherein any ill-gotten wealth or properties may be found. deposits. Mrs. subordinates. 14 > PCGG is empowered. 2 dealing with its power to "(r)equire all persons in the Philippines holding * *(alleged "ill-gotten") assets or properties. which shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction thereof. dummies. treating of the PCGG's power to "issue subpoenas requiring the production of such books. their close relatives. and other kinds of real and personal properties in the Philippines and in various countries of the world. condominiums. dummies. and all other orders subsequently issued and acts done on the basis thereof. concealing or dissipating said assets or properties in the Philippines and abroad 3) prohibited "any person from transferring conveying. agents. influence.among which was precisely > In relation to the takeover or sequestration that it was authorized to undertake in the fulfillment of its mission. and 2) " * said assets and properties are in the form of bank accounts. business associates. to wit: 1. to make full disclosure of the same **. "with the assistance of the Office of the Solicitor General and other government agencies. concealment or dissipation under pain of such penalties as are prescribed by law. 2 and 14 are unconstitutional 2." > "(c)ivil suits for restitution. inclusive of the takeover order of July 14." 2. whether civil or criminal. shopping centers. "To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of acts by any person or entity that may render moot and academic. records. 1. through or as a result of the improper or illegal use of funds or properties owned by the government of the Philippines or any of its branches. shares of stocks. agents. business associates. it was granted power to conduct investigations. Imelda Romualdez Marcos. the PCGG was granted "power and authority" to do the following particular acts. the President 1) froze "all assets and properties in the Philippines in which former President Marcos and/or his wife. " Executive Order No. papers. his immediate family. their close relatives. the "technical rules of procedure and evidence shall not be strictly applied to* *(said) civil cases. or indemnification for consequential damages. conveying.

information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony. ISSUE WON the CFI judge erred in allowing the just the submission of affidavits in lieu of oral testimony HELD SEPARATE OPINION BARREDO [concur] . Testimony to be given in open court. A transcript of the record made by the official stenographer so stenotypist and certified as correct by him shall be prima facie a correct statement of such testimony and proceedings. Hence only questions directed to the eliciting of testimony which. It received certain special privileges and franchises. giving a false statement. except a prosecution for perjury. concurs in a separate opinion. The “opponent” demands confrontation for the purpose of cross examination which cannot be had except by the direct and personal putting of questions and obtaining immediate answers.. after the accused himself had already testified in his own trial. PEOPLE v ESTENSO 72 SCRA 473 ANTONIO. is relevant to and competent to prove. but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any a2010 page 129 Prof. could not. residence. Walling > corporations are not entitled to all of the constitutional protections which private individuals have. Melencio-Herrera. Executive Order No. and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Gancayco and Sarmiento concur Teehankee. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. which require that testimony of the witnesses should be given orally in open court.Barredo noted that it was the private prosecutor who objected to the procedure adapted and the 12 Section 1. . Rule 13212 of the rules of Court clearly require that the testimony of a witness shall be given orally in open court. manner. having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises. of the CFI of Iloilo. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute. Its powers are limited by law. Section 2. Paras.The main and essential purpose of the rule is to secure for the adverse party the opportunity to crossexamine the witness presented. Hence this appeal. it does not follow that a corporation. amending Section 4 of Executive Order No.The CFI judge granted the motion of the defense. .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. To state this proposition is to answer it. Herrera's qualified concurring opinion. Dispositive Petition granted. upon the plea that they will either incriminate him or may incriminate it. YES .. the nature of the objection and the ground on which it was sustained or overruled must be stated.The private prosecutor objected to the manifestation as the same is a violation of Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. 14 assures protection to individuals required to produce evidence before the PCGG against any possible violation of his right against self-incrimination. see concurring and dissenting opinion. inquire how these franchises had been employed. Gutierrez. . It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state. the name. . The order of the judge is set aside. under the general rules of evidence. . United States > The corporation is a creature of the state.At any rate.the testimony of witnesses shall be given orally in open court and under oath or affirmation.There is also the advantage obtained in the personal appearance of the witness in open court as it affords the judge to assess the weight and value that can be given to any of the testimony based on his perception of the witness’ countenance. 2891. In deed. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. v. and all the questions put the witness and his answers thereto being included. Testimony in Superior Courts to be reduced in writing. manifested to the Court that he was filing only affidavits for his subsequent witnesses subject to cross-examination by the prosecution on matters stated in the said affidavits and on all matters pertinent and material to the case. 14-A. vested with special privileges and franchises may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges. There is a reserve right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. said Section 4 now provides that "The witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against selfincrimination. in the exercise of sovereignty. Jr. or otherwise failing to comply with the order.Wilson v. It gives them immunity from prosecution on the basis of testimony or information he is compelled to present. The defense amounts to this.Rules governing the examination of witnesses are intended to protect the rights of the litigants and to secure orderly dispatch of the business of the courts. They are not at all within the privilege against self-incriminatior. 1976 NATURE Original Action for Certiorari and prohibition FACTS .In superior courts." Dispositive petition is dismissed Voting Yap. .Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. or if the witness declines to answer a question out. Reasoning . If a question put is objected to and the objection is ruled on. Feliciano joins M.Sections 1 and 2. the testimony of each witness shall be taken in shorthand or stenotype. concurs with qualifications in a separation opinion. and expression. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. Fernan. August 27. and whether they had been abused. the counsel for the accused. As amended. the issues of the case. It is also settled that an officer of the company cannot refuse to produce its records in its possession. the great weight given the findings of fact of the trial judge in the appellate court is based precisely upon the judge having had the opportunity and the assumption that he took advantage of it to ascertain the credibility of the witness. Cruz dissents in a separate opinion. and occupation of the witness being stated. Cortes joins Gutierrez in his concurring and dissenting opinion. although this court more than once has said that the privilege runs very closely with the 4th Amendment's Search and Seizure provisions. may be propounded to the witness.In Criminal Case No. that an officer of the corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. entitled People of the Philippines vs Gregorio Ojoy. the fact and the proceedings taken thereon shall be entered in the record. Padilla see concurring opinion. . Bidin joins Gutierrez in his concurring and dissenting opinion. or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case.

Same should be submitted to the judge for his own examination as to materiality and relevance. Liwanag. he admitted membership in the Hukbalahap. he was charged with rebellion before the CFI of Pampanga and found guilty thereof. The court denied the motion. by only such witnesses as meet him face to face at the trial. . Among these are the need for the testimony to be submitted to the prosecution for vetting as to materiality and relevance. there was no curtailment of the constitutional right of the accused to meet the witnesses face to face. 2. In view of the desire of his counsel to file a motion to quash. However.Section 7 of Republic Act No. the HMB. he cannot now be prosecuted for subversion 4. 1976 NATURE Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bataan. and. . considering that he was then detained or confined at Camp Crame. Upon the facts. the witnesses were recalled to the stand during the trial and again examined in the presence of the appellant. Quezon City.Liwanag was charged for violating the provisions of RA 1700. a2010 page 130 Prof. . the Court issued the corresponding warrant for the arrest and thereafter set the case for trial. otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Act. There is his sworn statement wherein the appellant admitted membership in the Central Committee of the CPP and recounted his prismatic rise in the "Hukbalahap" and later in the HMB. until his apprehension. the court granted Liwanag twenty (20) days within which to do so. . Barredo felt that the approach is novel as this may be a solution to speeding up trials in the lower courts. the witnesses for the prosecution who testified at the preliminary investigation were recalled and were again cross-examined by counsel for the appellant. presented the appellant himself who stated that after his apprehension. WON having been charged with rebellion and subversion based upon the same overt act. . who give their testimony in his presence. while remaining as such leader or highranking member. and since . the prosecution presented three additional witnesses.The case was subsequently set for trial. It was intended to prevent the conviction of the accused upon depositions or ex-parte affidavits. FACTS . ambuscades and armed attacks against civilians. and local police forces. ISSUES 1. Finding a prima facie case against the appellant. The inclusion of said testimony was made subject to the right of the defendant to further cross-examine the witnesses whose testimony are sought to be reproduced and. WON Liwanag was deprived of his fundamental right to confront the witnesses against him when the trial court granted the motion of the Fiscal that the testimony of the witnesses presented during the preliminary investigation be adopted and made part of the evidence for the prosecution 2. the HMB. pursuant to said order. has taken up arms against the Government by making and conducting raids.Appellant's being an officer or ranking leader of the CPP and its military arm. October 19. from 1948 to 1960. and that Republic Act No." .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Solicitor General only commented at the insistence of the Supreme Court.Liwanag filed a motion to quash the information upon the grounds that he has been previously convicted of rebellion based upon the same overt acts as in the instant case. and he was also charged with murder before the CFI of Tarlac and acquitted. and that he surrendered to the PC patrol. . but testimony of witnesses taken down by question and answer during the preliminary investigation in the presence of the accused and his counsel who subjected the said witnesses to a rigid and close cross-examination. provides that "No person shall be convicted of any of the offenses penalized herein with prision mayor to death unless on the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court. waived the reading of the information and entered a plea of not guilty. . This provision "intends to secure the accused in the right to be tried. and give to the accused an opportunity of cross-examination. as charged. The defense. WON the decision should have been promulgated in the CFI of Rizal. as well as the numerous armed clashes he and PEOPLE v LIWANAG 73 SCRA 473 CONCEPCION.The Constitution guarantees an accused person the right to meet the witnesses against him face to face. assisted by his counsel. . so far as facts provable by witnesses are concerned. and later in the HMB. in an information filed before the Court of First Instance of Bataan. and did not take advantage of the amnesty offered in 1948. the prosecution moved that the testimony of the witnesses presented during the preliminary investigation of this case be adopted as part of the evidence in chief of the prosecution. WON trial court erred in finding Liwanag guilty 3." .The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of subversion.Barredo suggested certain improvements prior to the adoption of the procedure.Upon being arraigned. The trial court granted the motion subject to the condition that the witnesses be further cross-examined by counsel for the accused. 1700 is an ex post pacto law (bill of attainder) in that it changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment or penalty than that annexed to the crime when committed. Hence the Constitutional requirement that the opponent be given the opportunity to confront the witness is met.While concurring with the opinion of the court. finding the accused guilty of violating the provisions of Republic Act No. . the testimony sought to be made part of the evidence in chief are not ex-parte affidavits. Quezon City Branch. is borne out by the testimony of former associates of the appellant in the CPP and the HMB.At the trial. 1700. and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessories of the law. Philippine Constabulary. To bolster their case. and not in the Pasig Branch of said Court HELD 1. NO .Here.Preliminary investigation was conducted by the CFI of Bataan. He nevertheless stated that the procedure could probably work only for civil cases. and particularly to preserve the right of the accused to test the recollection of the witnesses in the exercise of the right of cross-examination. otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Act. and to pay the costs. without having renounced his aforementioned leadership and/or membership therein within the period prescribed by law. for having unlawfully and wilfully continued and remained as officer and/or ranking leader of the outlawed CPP and its military arm. he had already been convicted of rebellion. 1700. NO .Barredo anchored his approbation of the procedure on the fact that cross examination may be had even if direct examination is dispensed with.

Evidence offered by the other accused can not be taken up. In rebellion. where the appellant was captured along with his wife. . There is also the testimony as to the gun battle between a PC patrol and a group of HMB men led by the appellant in Bataan. The rule in every case is that the trial court should exercise the utmost circumspection in granting a motion for separate trial. the claim of having been put a2010 page 131 Prof. Dispositive UPON THE FOREGOING. ISSUE WON the decision of the court violates Talino’s right of confrontation as guaranteed by the Constitution HELD NO . .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales his men had with the Philippine Constabulary and police forces. . when the Act took effect. who his accusers are and must be given a chance to cross-examine them on their charges." but that was not the respondent court speaking. there must be a public uprising and the taking of arms against the Government. being a member or officer of said subversive association. in subversion.The grant of a separate trial rests in the sound discretion of the court and is not a matter of right to the accused. Inasmuch as the rebellion case covered the period up to June 19. it is sought after the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution. up to June 21. No accusation is permitted to be made against his back or in his absence nor is any derogatory information accepted if it is made anonymously. the court made the ff remarks: The peculiarity of the trial of these cases is the fact that We allowed. But.Talino. 1960. hereby affirmed.523. 3. March 16. representing the cost of repairs claimed to have been undertaken.Violation of Republic Act No. In United States v. Besides. 1957 to June 21. but actually not needed and never made. Macadangdang Ulat and Renato Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged while absolving the other defendants for insufficient evidence. while the Anti-Subversion Act punishes affiliation or membership in a subversive organization as defined therein. 1960. and the taking up of arms by a member of a subversive organization against the Government is but a circumstance which raises the penalty to be imposed upon the offender. 4. But .The records show that he had been confined at Fort Bonifacio (then known as Fort William Mckinley).In its decision.The right of confrontation is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the person facing criminal prosecution who should know. prosecution as wen as their own evidence. 1957. since the appellant is prosecuted for violation of Republic Act No. The cases were tried jointly for all the accused until Genaro Basilio. Basilio. Talino and Macadangdang were granted separate trials and they did not cross examine Ulat because.The accused is prosecuted under RA 1700 for having remained a high ranking member of the CPP and its military arm. the appellant and several others were charged and convicted of rebellion for having risen publicly and taken up arms against the Government for the purpose of removing the allegiance of the Republic of the Philippines or its laws.The court have carefully studied the decision under challenge and find that the respondent court did not consider the testimony given by Ulat in convicting Talino. and in furtherance thereof. This decision is now challenged by Talino on the ground that it violates his right of confrontation as guaranteed by the Constitution. NO . Talino makes much of the statement in the Comment that the petitioner's guilt could be deduced "from the evidence for the prosecution and from the testimony of Pio Ulat. The Sandiganbayan rendered its decision in all the four cases finding Talino. especially where.The crime of rebellion is committed by rising publicly and taking up arms against the Government for any of the purposes specified in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code. The part of that decision finding Talino guilty made no mention of Ulat at all but confined itself to the petitioner's own acts in approving the questioned vouchers as proof of his complicity in the plot to swindle the government. 1700 it is deducible that the period covered is that from June 20. without having renounced his membership in said organizations. and. 1960. the territory of the Philippines. up to its termination. .In the rebellion case. along with several others. 1946 to June 21. destroyed property. . A second reason for the prohibition is that a tribunal may have before it the deportment and appearance of the witness while testifying. the decision appealed from should be. the same is not specific as to the period covered by it. were charged in four separate informations with estafa through falsification of public documents for having allegedly conspired to defraud the government in the total amount of P26. if only to avoid the serious difficulties that may arise. as a matter of fact. since November 20. 1957 and the period covered in the instant case is from June 20. they were not even required to be present when the other accused were presenting their defenses. NO . such as the one encountered and regretted by the respondent court. as in poison pen letters sent by persons who cannot stand by their libels and must shroud their spite in secrecy. the latter's testimonies can not now be considered against said three accused. the HMB. 1962 and continued to be detained therein during the continuation of the trial. Rizal. from January. which were allowed. . . 1987 FACTS . has taken up arms against the Government. or subversion. as it is. engaged in combat against the forces of the Government. It would really have been simpler had there been no separate trial because the accused Pio Ulat said so many incriminatory things against the other accused when he took the stand in his own defense. whereas. Javier  confrontation is essential because cross-examination is essential. when the appellant was captured. At one of the proceedings. allowing the same only after a thorough study of the claimed justification therefor. This being the case. on four government vehicles. in deciding these cases as against them.00. with costs. the evidence for the. 1946 to June 19. separate trials for the accused Basilio and Talino and Macadangdang. because Basilio. upon their petition. Pio Ulat gave damaging testimony against Talino. through falsification of the supporting papers to authorize the illegal payments. in according the accused the right of confrontation. 1957. TALINO v SANDIGANBAYAN 148 SCRA 598 CRUZ. is a crime distinct from that of actual rebellion. mere membership in a subversive association is sufficient. That twice in jeopardy for the same act cannot be sustained. and committed serious violence during the period from May 28. 1700. in fairness. appellant admitted in court that he was a member of the "Hukbalahap" and the HMB and fought against the government.Although the information charges the appellant with having taken up arms against the Government. as in this case. Alejandro Macadangdang and petitioner Talino asked for separate trials. We can only consider. Makati.

FACTS . . . TC judge rendered decision sentencing Bagano with reclusion perpetua. Bagano pleaded not guilty. was filed against the accused. such witness is not qualified. After being introduced to Bostick. .From Bolstick’s testimonies as principal witness for the prosecution.Apellant’s signature appearing on the sack and individual bundles containing marijuana do not signify. All that he can know as to the testimony which is in fact given in PEOPLE v BAGANO 181 SCRA 747 BIDIN. Emateo asked Bagano to get the bag because Emateo did not want to get wet. the NBI team came out and made the arrests.Non-presentation of an informer is a privilege that has its own inherent limitation. Although there is a policy of non-disclosure of an informant’s identity.Prosecution revealed not to know anything about the informant’s background. . In not appreciating the defense that it was Emateo who owns the Marijuana in question ISSUE WON the Bolstick testimonies were hearsay HELD YES . the NBI was signaled that the transaction took place. which the latter borrowed him.Upon arraignment.An information for the violation of RA6425. the privilege must give way. No subpoena has been issued by the prosecution to Emateo. Bagano left Bostick and Emateo in the car. or is essential to the proper disposition of the case.The prosecution should have presented Emateo himself to testify on what actually transpired. to which the appellant agreed. the same has been obtained in violation of his right as a person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense and is therefore inadmissible. On the way back to Baguio. As far as the Sandiganbayan was concerned. The NBI team blocked Bostick’s car and arrested the appellant and Emateo.It is a cardinal rule that in order to merit conviction.Bostic and Emateo went to the residence of the latter in Baguio City to meet the appellant. .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales was the Solicitor General's analysis. In the instant case. the informant who interpreted the conversation was never presented to testify In appreciating the ‘bag’ and not the sack against the appellant that which Emateo owned and deposited in the quarter of the appellant at irisan earlier the same day of the alleged buy-bust operation. Rule 131) arises. .After trial on the merits. but also deprived the appellant of his right to cross-examine him. with costs against the petitioner. Emateo told him to wait for Emateo’s visitor. 1990 NATURE Appeal on the decision of RTC convicting the accused of the violation of RA6426 as amended. the group proceeded to Bagano’s house in Irisan Benguet where he kept the marijuana. a2010 page 132 Prof.He claims that the court erred: in finding that he agreed to sell 10kgs of marijuana when he had no knowledge of the alleged sale. the said testimony was inadmissible against the petitioner because he "did not cross examine Ulat and was not even required to be present when the latter was testifying. At Irisan. the respondent court even expressed the wish that Ulat had been presented as rebuttal witness in the separate trial of the petitioner as there would then have been "no impediment to the use of his testimony against the other accused. the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced (Sec 5(e).He went to the house of Emateo to collect P4000. by itself indicate ownership nor even illegal possession absent any other evidence. Suspect’s Claim . prosecution failed to present him as witness on the assertion that his whereabouts are unknown. February 5. In not holding as hearsay the alleged conversation between Bolstick and the appellant when Emateo.The appellant’s claim that the ownership of the sack of marijuana was previously deposited by Emateo was never contradicted by prosecution. preferably an American. The only exception is the testimony on what Bolstick saw. . Clayton Emateo. Emateo being the interpreter. of dried marijuana leaves. .Where a witness is offered to testify to statements of another person. An accused must always be deemed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. such a case is from the interpretation thereof which is given by another person. spoken in a language not understood by him. told appellant that he will pay for the marijuana after weighing it in the hotel. guilt for they are mere procedural steps undertaken after arrest. more or less. . On the way back to the hotel in Baguio. Negotiations for the purchase of 10kilos of marijuana between Bostick and Bagano was done. After agreeing for the price of P800/kg. a dangerous drug. .A buy-bust operation was conducted by NBI on a suspected narcotics dealer. for P800. It stated that the accused “willfully. the trial court could not and did not consider Ulat's testimony in determining the petitioner's part in the offenses. from whom he would get the money to pay for his debt. Emateo introduced Bagano and an unnamed friend to Bostick. such were mere translations and/or interpretations of what Bagano supposedly said in the dialect and interpreted by Emateo. much less evidence. .Although the identity of the informer was disclosed. because he does not speak from personal knowledge.Prosecution claims that according to Emateo. Bostick . In fact. " As it was not done. The lower court ignored the right of the accused to meet the witness face to face. the prosecution failed to so establish the guilt of herein appellant. a special agent of the US Air Force was introduced to Doming Bagano by an informer. but translated to his by an interpreter. The informant’s failure to take the witness to stand to confirm the correctness of his interpretations not only rendered the testimonies as hearsay and inadmissible. . Furthermore. it appearing that appellant was not informed of his right to counsel at the time he affixed his signature. Bare assertion of Bagano’s delivery of the bag does not.00 per kilo”. they proceeded to Irisan to get the bag Emateo would five the American as gift. also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. Where in the disclosure of an informer’s identity is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused. unlawfully and feloniously attempt to sell to another ten (10) kilos. His motion to admit bail was deferred and later denied. Dispositive judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED. . Bostick. appellant would only sell to a foreigner. otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act and imposing the penalty of P20K. the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of evidence presented by the defense. it cannot be invoked in this case. Solicitor General’s Claims . returning 15mins later carrying a nylon sack.

Statements not made under custodial interrogation are not protected. Failure to claim it is an implied waiver of said right. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel.The second right.Under the Rules of Court. among others: (1) not be a witness against himself (2) to testify as a witness on his own behalf. However. 3). 85215 NARVASA. Ramos gave his superiors a handwritten note (exhibit K) expressing his willingness to settle the irregularities (in the amount of P76k). however. rights to remains silent and have counsel. IV of the 1973 Constitution which provides: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. that he be represented by Nieves Blanco. . the accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness and is entitled. ISSUE WON it was grave abuse of discretion for respondent judge to exclude exhibits A and K HELD YES . and to be informed of such right. No force. the law excuses no one. The right against selfincrimination is not automatically operational but must be claimed. 1989 FACTS .It appears that respondent Judge mistakenly applied the rights set forth in Sec 20 Art. The witness thus may not disregard a subpoena or refuse to testify altogether. Respondent Judge declared exhibits A and K inadmissible as evidence as it appears he was not reminded of his constitutional . .Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket flight clerk of PAL’s Baguio station. The private prosecutors filed an MFR. 20. 1908 THEFT. it can only be claimed when the specific question. Defendant’s attorneys objected. Thus. July 7. threat. which the witness should know. . The Solgen. that the proceeds had been “misused” by him. if he chooses to testify. Note: The case is really this short only. On the day before the investigation. is NOT to “be compelled to be a witness against himself” and applies to any person testifying in any proceeding. the accused still possesses the right against self-incrimination. Judgment reversed and defendant acquitted. private prosecutors presented Ramos’ (above mentioned) statement. These section can be broken down into 3 rights: (1) the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such right (2) no force. threat. . or rather. is actually put to the witness and cannot be claimed at any other time. SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. The Court required respondent Judge Ayson and Ramos to comment. and that he was willing to sign his statement (exhibit A). and that although he planned on paying back the money. which means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. IV of the 1973 Constitution. intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him (3) any confession obtained in violation of this shall be inadmissible in evidence. . Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. and thus his constitutional rights in relation thereto don’t apply. the amount of which would be known at the next investigation which he desired to be held at Baguio CTO. any affirmative obligation to advise a witness of this right. and directed the issuance of a TRO enjoining respondents from further proceeding with the trial/hearing. sided with petitioner. as ignorance of PEOPLE v AYSON G. incriminatory in character. Ramos had voluntary answered the questions posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation and agreed that the proceedings be recorded and filed as exhibits A and K. spontaneously offering to US v GARCIA 11 PHIL 384 July 24. violence. but if he offers himself as a witness.Said orders are now assailed in this petition for certiorari and prohibition.The first right. his neglect of refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him. Also. The uncorroborated testimony of the prosecuting witness held insufficient to prove that the accused was guilty of taking money from a trunk.2 months later. intimidation. who was also required to comment. are a person’s rights in custodial interrogation.At the core of the controversy is Sec. after which the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. . At the investigation. he had been prevented from doing so out of shame. he may be cross-examined as any other witness.R. It is evident that a defendant under preliminary investigation is not under custodial interrogation. may refuse to answer only questions which could incriminate him of a crime for which he isn’t charged. The accused. civil.The accused must be informed of these rights prior to any questioning. . He also stated his willingness to settle the obligation on a staggered basis. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty. but respondent Judge justified his order citing the constitutional precept that the rights in custodial investigation cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. particularly as regards the handwritten confession as it was taken without Ramos having counsel. against self-incrimination. At the close of the case. and there is thus no occasion to speak of such rights under custodial interrogation. criminal or administrative. PAL management notified him of an investigation due to his alleged involvement in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. violence. a2010 page 133 Prof. It prescribes an option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry.The provision of the 1973 Constitution does not impose on the judge or any other presiding officer. Ramos admitted his non-disclosure of the tickets mentioned. including his handwritten admission as evidence. . No. an information was filed against Ramos charging him with estafa against PAL. praying that respondent judge’s orders be set aside and further ordering the admittance of exhibits A and K of the prosecution. 3 of the 1987 Constitution) and the rights of a person in custodial interrogation (Sec 12 Art. 17 Art. be sworn.There are 2 rights dealt with in the section: the right against self-incrimination (now embodied in Sec.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Dispositive challenged judgment is REVERSED and appellant is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. unlike an ordinary witness. . or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him.-From the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines. or answer any question altogether.” . I did not omit a single word. group of rights. the accused may refuse to take the witness stand. while searching the house of the witness for another person. Art.It is important now to inquire whether the rights mentioned apply to persons under preliminary investigation or already charged in court for a crime. It is clear from the undisputed facts that Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation. as alleged.

Consengco.On January 16. 22 & 29. Today almost without exception every state by constitution. and the merits of the cases. 1968. There is to be no ban on such attendance. The trial of the cases in question was held. the matter was elevated to the SC by means of the present suit for certiorari and prohibition. April 17. 1968. but as prosecutors of the accusations filed at their clients' instance. Dispositive the writ of certiorari is granted annulling and setting aside the Orders of respondent Judge. It is thus evident that what took place in the chambers of the city court judge was devoid of haste or intentional secrecy. In any case. and said respondent cross-examined one of the witnesses presented by the adverse party. It possesses that character when anyone interested in observing the manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may do so. adversely affecting their 'right to a free and impartial trial. thru counsel. During all the 14 days of trial. 1973 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS . Laurel. in the leading case of In re Oliver: This nation's accepted practice of guaranteeing a public trial to an accused has its roots in the English common law heritage. Wednesday and Friday). was absent.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales compromise his liability. The trial must be public. thru their counsel. Respondents Calo and Carbonnel. that his trial is likely to be conducted with regularity and not tainted with any impropriety.The promulgation of judgment scheduled on Sep 23. The applications for postponement were not grounded upon any supposed defect or irregularity of the proceedings. submitted a 14-page memorandum in support of their prayer for exoneration. and he is hereby ordered to admit in evidence exhibits A and K a2010 page 134 Prof. 1968 fell on a Saturday. The guarantee to an accused of the right to a public trial appeared in a state constitution in 1776.The procedure had been agreed to beforehand by accused. and without an iota of evidence to substantiate any claim as to any other person so minded being excluded from the premises. Calo and Carbonnel. Atty." and ordering the city court Judge Garcia. on October 1. It is worthy of note that up to this late date. Hence. Laurel. and Simeon Carbonnel and Francisco Lorenzana. there was an order from him declaring that 'the constitutional and statutory rights of the accused' had been violated. As was stressed by him: "Trial should also be public in order to offset any danger of conducting it in an illegal and unjust manner. statute. fourteen separate occasions without objection on their part. much less a debate. but it likely evolved long before the settlement of the US as an accompaniment of the ancient institution of jury trial. who acted not only in defense of their clients. . requires that all criminal trials be open to the public. July 25. The thought that lies behind this safeguard is the belief that thereby the accused is afforded further protection. There was only 1 day (April 20) when Atty. Consengco. popularly known as the Jones Law. for slight physical injuries. with the conformity of the accused and their counsel. 23. 1968. ISSUE WON respondent Judge commit a grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the holding of the trial of the accused inside the chambers of petitioner . It was merely a reiteration what appeared in the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916. said respondents Calo and Carbonnel had not objected to or pointed out any supposed irregularity in the proceedings thus far. in the City Court of Manila presided over by petitioner Judge Gregorio Garcia. . There is no ambiguity in the words employed. The hearings have been thus conducted on . with application for preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction alleging jurisdictional defects. . This was arranged by the parties and the Court upon the insistence of respondents Calo and Carbonnel who. August 3 & 10. filed with the CFI of Manila a petition for certiorari and prohibition. 887 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila (resisting an officer). No relationship to the parties need be shown. Historically as was pointed out by Justice Black. Earlier. the accused were at all times represented by their respective counsel. 1968. The trial of the aforementioned cases was jointly held on March 4. Rafael Consengco. 1968. as police officers under suspension because of the cases. June 1. spanning a period of several months. on January 28.The MR was denied. to gain acceptance. 1968. noting 'that the trial of these cases lasting several weeks held exclusively in chambers and not in the court room open the public'." It would have been surprising if its proposed inclusion in the Bill of Rights had provoked any discussion. His being a stranger to the litigants is of no moment. After proceedings duly had. terse summation from Justice Jose P. . Said exhibits may not be excluded as the so-called Miranda rights had not been accorded to Ramos. But at the insistence of Carbonnel. 1968 was postponed to Sep 28. Later it was embodied in the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution ratified in 1791. "to desist from reading or causing to be read or promulgated the decisions he may have rendered already in the criminal cases pending in his Court. At the conclusion of the hearings the accused. It is thus understandable why such a right is deemed GARCIA v DOMINGO 52 SCRA 143 FERNANDO. and again to Oct 1. asked for and were granted time to submit memoranda. in the chambers of Judge Garcia. 1968.The Constitution guarantees an accused the right to a public trial. . no pretense has been made by the respondents that this constituted an irregularity correctible on certiorari. and for slander. As a matter of fact. 18. & 20. the memorandum submitted in their behalf is confined to a discussion of the evidence adduced in. 30. and April 17. for violation of Sec. Saturday was agreed upon as the invariable trial day for said eight (8) criminal cases. maltreatment. as violative of the constitutional right to public trial HELD YES . Accdg to J. thru counsel. Respondent Judge Felix Domingo issued a restraining order thus causing the deferment of the promulgation of the judgment. All the 14 trial dates except March 4 and 18. and conviction of petitioner Lorenzana in respect of their countercharges against the latter.However.city court Judge Gregorio Garcia. 1968 at the instance of Atty. likewise an organic act of the then government of this country as an unincorporated territory of the United States. or judicial decision. 8 informations were filed against respondents Edgardo Calo. May 4 & 11. the trial proceeded. that was one constitutional provision that needed only a single. until further orders of this Court. the importance of this right is its being a deterrence to arbitrariness. such a right found expression in the Philippine Bill of 1902. desired the same to be terminated as soon as possible and as there were many cases scheduled for trial on the usual criminal trial days (Monday. 1969. representing respondent Calo and Carbonnel. 1968.” .The 1935 Constitution which was in force at the time of this petition explicitly enumerated the right to a public trial to which an accused was entitled. 15.

There is no showing that the public was thereby excluded.An accused person is entitled to a trial at the earliest opportunity. capricious and oppressive delays [Acebedo v.August 1959: CA granted motion of petitioners to set aside the TC decision so that evidence for the defense on certain new facts or matters may be received.December 1955: the 2 petitioners filed a notice of appeal . Some are smaller than others. Rivera]. There is the well recognized exception though that warrants the exclusion of the public where the evidence may be characterized as "offensive to decency or public morals. . .It is an undisputed fact that at least fourteen hearings had been held in chambers of the city court Judge. It does not exclude from its operation cases commenced by private individuals. he will not be kept long in suspense as to the fate in store for him. . When it is remembered further that the occupants of such courts are not chosen primarily for their legal acumen. Sarmiento. and if culpable. would run the risk of being unjust. .January 1966: CA denied motion for reconsideration Respondent’s defense: (1) case was not properly captioned. Dispositive Writ of certiorari is granted. [Mercado v. Santos] . the CA not being made a party to the petition (2) it was not adequately shown that the right to a speedy trial had been violated. -"The Government should be the last to set an example of delay and oppression in the administration of justice and it is the moral and legal obligation of this court to see that the criminal proceedings against the accused come to an end and that they be immediately discharged from the custody of the law. the trial itself is necessarily delayed. .remedies available to the accused: The remedy in the event of a non-observance of this right is by habeas corpus if the accused were restrained of his liberty. Castañeda] . Conde v. he could no longer remember the details of the crime. civil as well as criminal. put an end to suits elevated to from the knowledge that a judge. as admitted by Justice Black in his masterly In re Oliver opinion. 1974 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS . If it were otherwise." [People v. irrespective of the nature of the offense or the manner in which it is authorized to be commenced. no matter with what offense he may be charged. they could contend that they had not been accorded their right to be tried as promptly as circumstances permit. and that a new decision be rendered. the relaxed attitude on procedural rules not being strictly adhered to all make for a less tense atmosphere. [Acebedo v. or mandamus for the final dismissal of the case.December 1951: Francisco Flores and Francisco Angel were accused for robbery . it suffices to satisfy the requirement of a trial being public if the accused could "have his friends. no problem arises." . It the usual course of events that individuals desirous of being present are free to do so. Such a fact though is not indicative of any transgression of this right. TC just sent back the records to CA . Where once a person is prosecuted criminally. And when the offended party took the witness stand.What did occasion difficulty in this suit was that for the convenience of the parties. without objection on the part of respondent policemen. even failed to identify the 2 petitioners. As a result the attendance of the general public is much more in evidence. it is not to be rationally expected that an accused would be denied whatever solace and comfort may come a2010 page 135 Prof. he is entitled to a speedy trial. Moreover.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales embraced in procedural due process. and of the city court Judge. Courtrooms are not of uniform dimensions. unfair. It is to be admitted that the size of the room allotted the Judge would reduce the number of those who could be our present. Further reflection ought to have convinced him though that such a fear was unjustified. He cannot be oppressed by delaying the commencement of trial for an unreasonable length of time. The crowded daily calendar. or arbitrary.There is much to be said of course for the concern displayed by respondent Judge to assure the reality as against the mere possibility of a trial being truly public. if the person accused were innocent. within a period of course compatible with his opportunity to present any valid defense. he may within the shortest time possible be spared from anxiety and apprehension arising from a prosecution. even with due diligence. WON the right of the petitioners to a speedy trial has been accorded HELD NO Ratio. An objective appraisal of conditions in municipal or city courts would have gone far in dispelling such misgivings. ISSUE . nor is its presence unwelcome.November 1955: TC found them guilty of robbery . but taken from that portion of the bar more considerably attuned to the pulse of public life. Case was returned to TC but for about a year nothing happened because the offended party failed to appear for about 6 or 7 times. December 10. Nor does it change matters. Sarmiento] Reasoning . Where a trial takes place. CA taking all the steps necessary to complete the transcript of stenographic notes of the original trial. he certainly lived up to what is expected of a man of the robe. with the eyes of the alert court alert to his demeanor and his rulings. it was in the air-conditioned chambers of a city court judge rather than in the usual place that the trial took place. xxx The Constitution does not say that the right to a speedy trial may be availed of only where the prosecution for crime is commenced and undertaken by the fiscal.February 1958: CA issued a resolution remanding the records of the case to the lower court for a rehearing of the testimony of a certain witness deemed material for the disposition of the case.In the absence of any valid decision. as is quite usual. Thus. when they moved to dismiss in the CA. prohibition.May 1965: petitioners sought the dismissal of their case due to the inordinate delay in their disposition (for almost 10 yrs). just because. Thus. it was in the latter's air-conditioned chambers that the trial was held. relatives and counsel present." . It was not the pendency in the Court of Appeals of their cases that should be deemed material. or by certiorari. as did happen here. To the extent then that the conclusion reached by him was motivated by an apprehension that there was an evasion of a constitutional command. FLORES v PEOPLE 61 SCRA 331 FERNANDO. the stage of trial has not been completed. If the proceedings pending trial are deferred. such a right could be reduced to a barren form of words. in the courtroom and a calendar of what cases are to be heard is posted. invoking constitutional right to a speedy trial . the nature of the cases handled. It is at times unavoidable that appellate tribunals cannot. The constitutional right to a speedy trial means one free from vexatious.

Respondents asserted that despite the publicity which the case had received. 1959. If publicity during the proceeding threatens the fairness of the trial. If there was a "trial by newspaper" at all. Olfindo. 16641-R entitled. . separate and different individual members of the court-martial. It is not enough that objectively the members of the court may be fair and impartial. . honestly feels that the member of the court peremptorily challenged by him cannot sit in judgment over him. As a preliminary consideration. WON each accused was entitled to one peremptory challenge HELD 1. a2010 page 136 Prof. acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the fact that about a month earlier. it follows necessarily that each of the accused is entitled to one peremptory challenge. . and considered of no force and effect. Alejandro.Even granting the existence of "massive" and "prejudicial" publicity. Blanco and Col. alias Abdul Latif Martelino. Indeed we cannot say that the trial of the petitioners was being held under circumstances which did not permit the observance of those imperative decencies of procedure which have come to be identified with due process. “The right to challenge is in quintessence the right to reject. Where there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will prevent a fair trial. since the petitioners here do not contend that the respondents have been unduly influenced but simply that they might be by the "barrage" of publicity. If from the officers who remain an impartial military court is obtained. YES Ratio Each of the 23 petitioners (accused before the general court-martial) is entitled to one peremptory challenge. the judge should continue the case until the threat abates." ISSUES 1. it had exceeded its powers in the sentence pronounced. a complaint for frustrated murder had been filed in the fiscal's office of Cavite City. for violation of the 94th and 97th Articles of War. Dispositive petition for certiorari is granted. Every accused person is entitled to a fair trial. March 25. Major Eduardo Martelino. as a result of the alleged shooting of some Muslim recruits then undergoing commando training on the island of Corregidor. Col. whether rightly or wrongly. impartially. The respondents argue that although there are actually a total of eleven specifications against the petitioners. Absent here is a showing of failure of the court-martial to protect the accused from massive publicity encouraged by those connected with the conduct of the trial either by a failure to control the release of information or to remove the trial to another venue or to postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have . And appellate tribunals have the duty to make an independent evaluation of the circumstances.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales them. What is decisive is that with the setting aside of the previous decision in the resolution of August 5." and therefore because there are eleven charges they are entitled to eleven separate peremptory challenges. People v. Valones.They then raised peremptory challenges against Col. et al. (b) Article of War 18 does not distinguish between common trials and joint trials. Martelino sought the disqualification of the President of the general court-martial. a new trial should be ordered. both peremptory and for cause FACTS . Lt. and the officers and men under him. 1970 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition. . Because the petitioners may entertain grave doubts as to the fairness or impartiality of distinct. It is likewise necessary that subjectively the accused must feel that he is being tried by a fair and impartial body of officers. and the order of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR No. though having such jurisdiction. He contended that the case had received such an amount of publicity in the press and was being exploited for political purposes in connection with the upcoming 1969 presidential elections as to imperil his right to a fair trial. Camagay. as members. irrespective of the number of specifications and/or charges and regardless of whether they are tried jointly or in common. Court considered the substantial issues over this technicality. "except for the purpose of ascertaining whether the military court had jurisdiction of the person and subject matter.” Reasoning . of the AFP.The trial courts must take strong measures to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused. The criminal case against petitioners in the aforesaid CA-GR No. 1965 denying the motion to dismiss as well as its order of January 8. it was not of the petitioners but of the Government.There are ongoing court-martial proceedings against the petitioner.The spate of publicity in this case before us did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on the responsibility of the Government for what was claimed to be a "massacre" of Muslim trainees. to nullify the orders of the court-martial denying their challenges. the respondents urge this Court to throw out the petition on the ground that it has no power to review the proceedings of the court-martial. and Col. Lt. . nullified. (a) A peremptory challenge is afforded to an accused who.Initially there was a question of jurisdiction: WON the general court-martial. Francisco Flores. 16641R are ordered dismissed. three of these should be considered as merged with two other specifications. as president of the court-martial. subsided. the constitutional right of the accused to a fair trial is maintained. WON the publicity given to the case against the petitioners was such as to prejudice their right to a fair trial 2. NO Reasoning . not to select. each side may exercise one peremptory challenge. or transfer it to another county not so permeated with publicity. convened to try the case. 2. Proceedings had to be suspended until SC finally ruled in favor of the jurisdiction of the military court.. nor does it make the nature or number of specifications and/or charges a MARTELINO v ALEJANDRO 32 SCRA 106 CASTRO. and the order of January 28. 1966 denying the second motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside. Col. Lt. petitioners could validly premise their plea for dismissal on this constitutional safeguard.After that. following the latter's admission that he read newspaper stories of the Corregidor incident. no proof has been presented showing that the court-martial's president's fairness and impartiality have been impaired.SC then restrained court-martial from proceeding with the case. . thus leaving a balance of eight specifications." The general courtmartial thereof takes the position that all the 23 petitioners are entitled to a total of only eight peremptory challenges. Col. There was also an issue as to the number of peremptory challenges that can be raised by each accused.It is the submission of the petitioners that "for every charge. "since in fact they allege the same offenses committed in conspiracy. 1966 denying the motion for reconsideration. *the procedural issue on the CA not being made the party respondent. and whether. of September 28. Malig.

and burned his house . Eduarda Bejic.First to Identify appellant was Antonio Bejic the lone survivor in the carnage against the Bejic family and household. and to pay ¼ of the costs of this suit (2) Criminal Case No. to indemnify Francisco Limen the amount of P8. Ramon was with Jesus Limen when the latter was killed and his house burned. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court is hereby lifted. a2010 page 137 Prof. 1982 NATURE Automatic review FACTS . . . attended by two (2) aggravating circumstances.What is indubitably clear is that the state witnesses who pointed to appellant as among the culprits are the ones with no motive sufficient to urge them to testify falsely against appellant who would be punished with no less than death in consequence of their perjured testimony.The three (3) other accused are Ramon Gutierrez. not to be reckoned with in determining whether there has been a denial of the right to speedy trial. March 29. 432 (1157). namely." as used in the said article in reference to the defense. NO . The delay in the filing of the information. Four (4) months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum. 471 (1183) for Arson-penalty of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen (17) years. killed Jesus Limen. which was heard jointly with the other three (3) cases. Region IX.000. one paltik revolver. WON the appellant has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial 2. and burned his house *On April 14. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jesus Limen the amount of P12. He would then argue that such weakness of the state evidence would commensurately strengthen his defense of alibi which. and sentenced them accordingly: (1) Criminal Case No. his wife Eduarda.Supreme penalty of 'DEATH'. nor who actually burned the house. .The cases stemmed from the ff acts: *On April 13. YES . the same accused ransacked the house of Jesus Limen. killed Crisanto Bejic. PEOPLE v ORSAL 113 SCRA 226 PER CURIAM. 473 (1185) for Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide. . the trial court erroneously rejected. 432 (1157) for Robbery in Band with Homicide. to be that of appellant whom he had known very well because appellant used to sleep in Antonio's grandfather with whom he was residing. Four (4) months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum. Roberto Bejic He was however candid enough to admit that he did not see who actually killed the rest of his relatives. particularly on appellant's complicity in the commission of the four (4) crimes. He Categorically stated that he recognized the voice that shouted: "Hoy". undeniably. not before the filing. . Generoso Abapo and Romeo Flores.Vicente Orsal is one of four accused in four separate cases filed in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City . appellant's contention in this appeal is that the evidence of the prosecution is weak and insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. in a zealous effort to show their want of credibility with the inconsistencies.Appellant first contends that he has been denied his constitutional right of speedy trial because the information was filed only about nine (9) months after his arrest and investigation. owing to the fact that he is a youthful offender. one circumstance strongly lending credence to all that Ramon Jimenez testified to. without any mitigating circumstances to offset the same. Zamboanga City . Roberto Bejic and Atanasia Legazpi the total amount of P48. to indemnify Francisco Limen the amount of P8.00. ISSUES 1. the test of violation of the right to speedy trial has always been to begin counting the delay from the time the information is filed. That he was taken along by appellant apparently as a hostage to prevent him from reporting to the authorities.In the main. This fact would tend to negate appellant's claims that the testimony of the state witnesses were scripted and merely rehearsed.000. is. as he is only 18 years old.The court found Orsal and Gutierrez guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crimes.00.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales determinant.penalty of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen (17) years.four separate and distinct imprisonment's of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen (17) years and Five (5) months of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum. the present petition is DENIED.That the appellant and his companions were the perpetrators of the killing of Jesus Limen and also the burning of his house was positively established by the testimony of Ramon Jimenez. the Court ordered his commitment to the Department of Social Services and Development. that the crimes were committed at nighttime and by a band. and to pay ¼ of the costs of this suit (3) Criminal Case No.There was no such denial. WON the evidence is sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt HELD 1. 2. taking his shoes and clothes.The sentence of death having been imposed in Criminal Case No. as well as his grandchildren Atanacia Legazpi and Roberto Bejic. which in the instant case has not been without reasonable cause.00. Ramon Gutierrez and Romeo Flores. improbabilities and contradictions they supposedly contained. 1974. As correctly set forth by the Solicitor General. the single decision rendered for all the four (4) cases is before the SC for automatic review. 1974 appellant. 472 (1184) for Arson. Dispositive Subject to our pronouncement that each of the 23 petitioners is entitled to one separate peremptory challenge. and so he was arrested with appellant together is. as he claims. particularly in the manner he was Identified as one of the alleged perpetrators of the four (4) crimes herein charged. "each side. but the two (2) last named accused having gone at large. Moreover. therefore.000. should be construed to mean each accused person. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Cristino Bejic.In the case of Gutierrez. and to pay one fourth of the costs in each of these four cases . .The testimony of Ramon Jimenez of course did not escape the very keenly scrutinizing examination to which appellant's counsel subjected the testimonies of all the other state witnesses. (c) A perceptive analysis of the companion articles convinces us that the word.000. together with Generoso Abapo. two paltik shotguns and a hand grenade.00 and to pay ¼ of the costs of this suit in each of these four cases (4) Criminal Case No. Suffice it to say that the alleged contradictions and inconsistencies were on minor and inconsequential details that would not in any way affect Ramon's credibility. only appellant Vicente Orsal and Ramon Gutierrez stood trial . Antonio also testified having seen appellant stab his cousin.

NO . Court granted motion and dismissed the cases. (1967) . . were found guilty and sentenced to twelve years and one day of cadena temporal. he is deemed to have waived or abandoned his right to a speedy trial 2. and oppressive delays. together with Sio Go. Dispositive Decision affirmed in toto.The right to a speedy trial means that the accused is free from vexatious. or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.{This case is full of delaying tactics} .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . a2010 page 138 Prof. not serve as motive to induce the two (2) aforenamed witnesses to give the testimony that named and pointed to not only appellant but three (3) other persons including Ramon Gutierrez who stood trial with appellant. would perjure themselves in pointing to appellant as one of the perpetrators of very grave and heinous crimes. by postponing the hearing not just once but twice. Gang Kan. 1983 NATURE Petition for certiorari on decision of CFI Quezon dismissing the criminal cases against accused Demetrio Jardin because his constitutional right to speedy trial was allegedly violated. 1941 NATURE Petition for a writ of certiorari FACTS . counsel asked for reinvestigation on the ground that the accused was not given the opportunity to present his defense during the preliminary investigation.Ang Gioc. WON this appeal places the accused in double jeopardy HELD 1. Counsel then asked for 5 days to file written sworn statement of accused as defense. . or explain his inability to do so. Counsel moved (orally) for dismissal.The delays in the prosecution of the offenses were all caused by the accused so he cannot invoke constitutional right to speedy trial.PI 2: accused moved to postpone many times. Dispositive Petition granted. who is his cousin. PEOPLE v ANG GIOC 73 PHIL 336 ABAD SANTOS. (b) a competent court.The last requisite is not present because the order of the CFI judge was null and void. (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge. The criminal cases are reinstated and the proper regional trial court is ordered to proceed with all deliberate speed in these cases. Court granted. accused and counsel were at trial. appellant should have done everything and resorted to even the coercive process of the Court to make said witness go to Court and present the desired document. .Jesus Agabon. Even as to Ramon Jimenez alone.PI was nevertheless conducted. as the malefactors. and (d) the defendant was acquitted. its salutary objective being to assure that an innocent person may be free from anxiety and expense of a court litigation or. His testimony became worthless when despite sufficient opportunity given him to produce the notebook in Court.AR 1: accused moved to postpone 4 time. .The respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the cases and in basing the dismissal on the constitutional right of the accused to speedy trial. October 31. the following requisites must be present in the first prosecution: (a) a valid complaint or information. Ang Gioc and his sureties were duly notified to appear before the court for the reading of .The dismissal of the criminal cases against the accused by the respondent court on the ground that his right to speedy trial had been violated was devoid of factual and legal basis. By his own deliberate acts. . or convicted.The court transferred the case to new branch of CFI Quezon without acting on manifestation. his defense of alibi is futile. was charged with the crime of frustrated murder in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Kee Ya and Chua Chui.Oct 1970. the defense witness never again appeared in Court. burning down of two (2) houses and stealing of valuable personal belongings.In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure to the benefit of an accused. . failed still to appear. NO . Court granted motion. no sufficient motive was shown why the two (2) eyewitnesses. capricious. . the alleged motive is assuredly not enough for him to charge falsely appellant. so the investigating fiscal filed a manifestation before the court that the records of these cases be returned and the trial on the merits of the same be set.Arraignment finally happened on Sept 8. Antonio Bejic and Ramon Jimenez. which lasted several months. with whom appellant claimed to be with when the crimes were being committed. The memorandum was never filed. they asked for 15 days to file memorandum. of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatever legitimate defense he may interpose. If his salvation hanged on the credibility of this witness. therefore. PEOPLE v JARDIN 124 SCRA 167 GUTIERREZ JR. was presented to corroborate appellant's alibi by testifying that in accordance with the regulation in his place. Arraignment date was set. but no one appeared for prosecution.AR 2: more postponements at instance of accused.PI 1: accused moved to postpone 4 times. . never appeared. FACTS .PI 3: reset because no show. After a protracted trial. .From how appellant's identity as one of the perpetrators of the four (4) crimes just mentioned has been established. he registered appellant's name in a notebook as a transient therein. . The barrio captain of New Sagay. if otherwise.As earlier stated. invoking accused right to a speedy trial. moved for reinvestigation again. That appellant's mother may have accused Ramon Jimenez of theft would. . accused asked for another postponement. and failed to appear everytime. with such grievous offenses as the killing of four (4) persons. Sio Go. . And the six criminal informations were filed in CFI. WON accused can invoke right to speedy trial 2. 1970. On postponed date.The criminal prosecutions originated from a lettercomplaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon requesting the Provincial Fiscal to file the necessary criminal action under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code against Demetrio Jardin for malversation of public funds thru falsification of public documents on six counts. A date was set for arraignment. Accused pleaded NOT GUILTY and asked for trial to be postponed. When he finally appeared with his counsel.AR 3: accused asked for postponement. He was released on bail. August 17. . except for a state witness. Ang Gioc and one of his co-accused. . ISSUES 1. No statement was submitted so the records of the case were returned to court.

. No litigant can repudiate this power which is bestowed by the Constitution. The fact remains that he succeeded in evading arrest for nearly thirteen years. . and when an order was issued for his arrest. This concern cannot be diluted. August 20.The accused has rights. Court of Appeals acquired no jurisdiction of the appeal filed by him. This principle is implicit in our Constitution which recognizes that an accused. ***But if ma’am wants details. and later issued the corresponding order of a2010 page 139 Prof. the accused escaped from jail and was tried in absentia. against the objection of the Solicitor General. A contrary view would encourage accused persons to trifle with the administration of justice. but the former failed to appear and thereupon the trial judge ordered his arrest and the confiscation of the bond furnished for his temporary release. This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. Ours is not only the power but the duty to review all death penalty cases. SAMSON v CA [SUPRA. to be right. while the majority. even if overwhelming. 1995. Ang Gioc petitioned the Court of Appeals to remand the cause to the court below for a new trial. PAGE 72] GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN [SUPRA. 6425 as amended by RA No. from which he appealed to the Court of Appeals where. When the accused flees after the case has been submitted to the court for decision. execution. We reject it without the least hesitation by declaring that Ang Gioc had waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him. In this situation. . This enlightened policy ought to continue as our beacon light for the taking of life ends all rights.We have always reviewed the imposition of the death penalty regardless of the will of the convict. 94-5897 before the RTC of Pasay City. he was allowed to file a bond for his temporary release. PEOPLE v ESPARAS 260 SCRA 539 PUNO. Br. 1996 FACTS . November 6. He was subsequently brought before the court and the sentence was read to him. finally arrested after nearly thirteen years from the date fixed for the reading of the sentence. He may avail of it or not. a matter of societal value that transcends the personal interest of a convict. 1981.The cases were consolidated on Dec 10. effective hedge against an erroneous judgment of a one-judge trial court.Ang Gioc has waived his right of appeal. however. (SHORT version: this guy stayed in prison for 3 yrs coz nothing was happening with his case-trial was postponed 11 times-the court then decided to dismiss it provisionally but was later on revived. one of which is the right of appeal. Our unyielding stance is dictated by the policy that the State should not be given the license to kill without the final determination of this Highest Tribunal whose collective wisdom is the last. He was duly notified to appear before the trial court for the reading of the sentence. Let us not for a moment forget that an accused does not cease to have rights just because of his conviction. right and this is not one of those fundamental rights which cannot be waived. Such was the situation with reference to the the respondent Ang Gioc. has no right to be wrong.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the sentence. This action of the court amounted to a judicial declaration that Ang Gioc was a fugitive from justice. and the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila declared final and executory. and provide means for guilty parties to escape punishment. The importance of this societal value should not be blurred by the escape of a convict which is a problem of law enforcement. as he pleases. Neither should this Court be moved alone by the outrage of the public for the rise in statistics of heinous crimes for our decisions should not be directed by the changing winds of the social weather. He may waive it either expressly or by implication. read on!) .Accused Esparas was charged with violation of RA No. the trial court declared the confiscation of the bond filed by Ang Gioc. . and such declaration cannot after the lapse of nearly thirteen years be controverted by proof aliunde. ISSUE WON the Court will proceed to automatically review her death sentence HELD YES . not a constitutional.In perfecting the record on appeal it was found that the stenographic notes taken during the trial were not transcribed and that the two stenographers who took the notes were already dead. The power is more of a sacred duty which we have to discharge to assure the People that the innocence of a citizen is our concern not only in crimes that slight but even more. 1989 FACTS . 759 for importing into the country 20 kilograms of "shabu" in Criminal Case No.Joel Caes was charged in 2 separate informations with ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA before the CFI of Rizal. . 114. PAGE 84] PEOPLE v CITY COURT OF MANILA [SUPRA. He was. except to dismiss it. in crimes that shock the conscience.The power of this Court to review a decision imposing the death penalty cannot be waived either by the accused or by the courts. and that court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it ordered the cause to be remanded to the court of origin for a new trial Dispositive remanding order must be set aside.All attempts to arrest him proved futile. The accused remains at large up to the present time. The matter was referred to several stenographers who stated that they could not transcribe the notes because the deceased had used systems known only to themselves. PAGE 82] CAES v IAC 179 SCRA 54 CRUZ. the warrant could not be served on him because he could not be found. the trial court found her guilty as charged and imposed on her the death penalty. After arraignment.CA remanded for new trial ISSUE WON the CA acquired jurisdiction of the appeal filed by him HELD NO . but failed to do so. The record shows that upon his failure to appear for the reading of the sentence. he will be deemed to have waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him. The law will not allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong. Whether or not he escaped to China is immaterial for our present purpose. but this is a purely statutory. . On March 13.

This consent cannot be presumed nor may it be merely implied from the defendant's silence or his failure to object.The first is where the dismissal is based on a demurrer to the evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested. See. 1983: The trial was once more reset by agree-judgment of the parties. 1983: the third resetting of the case was also canceled. Caes having been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.Nov 14. there must be: (a) a valid complaint or information.Rule 110. . (c) to which the defendant had pleaded.Nov 15. so as to leave no doubt as to the defendant's conformity.There are instances in fact when the dismissal will be held to be final and to dispose of the case once and for all even if the dismissal was made on motion of the accused himself. Their only function is to testify. This is in effect a failure to prosecute. i. Mendoza v. 1983. .July 12. for lack of notice. 1983. Such a dismissal is correctly denominated provisional. . or one acting under his authority. Although they may ask for the filing of the case. 1983: the trial was reset to November 14. . .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales .e.People v. WON the motion to revive the cases was invalid because it was not filed by the proper party nor was a copy served to CAES 2.Copy of the motion was furnished the City Fiscal of Caloocan City but not the petitioner. Dacanay (he had been promoted in the meantime) and Sgt. Bonifacio Lustado had been personally served with subpoena to appear and testify at the hearing scheduled on June 6. because witnesses being absent. . and ex parte at that and without hearing.IAC dismissed it for lack of merit on May 20.Jan 9. 1984: a motion to revive the cases was filed by Maj. also on motion of the accused. 1986. secures ISSUES 1.Feb 21.Fittingly described as "res judicata in prison grey.The trial judge erred in ordering the revival of the cases against Caes and that CFI also erred in affirming that order. 2. even if they are the complaining witnesses. Capt. without good cause. .There is no question that the first three requisites are present in the case at bar. 1983: no trial could be held again. . . The presumption that he approved of the motion is not enough. . motion was granted just the same. . YES ." the right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of a person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or convicted. he was entitled to their final dismissal under the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.People v Ylagan: It is settled that a case may be dismissed if the dismissal is made on motion of the accused himself or on motion of the prosecution with the express consent of the accused.Oct 19. 1982. . . 1983: the trial of the case had not yet started. But a dismissal is not provisional even if so designated if it is shown that it was made without the express consent of the accused. .Sept 6. Reasoning . 19.March 21.SC said that this case is similar to Conde v. and by no one else.The other exception is where the dismissal is made. Solis v. It is curious that the . WON the revival of the cases would place the petitioner double jeopardy in violation of the Bill of Rights HELD 1. It was reset because the prosecution witnesses were again absent. . . 5.April 19.Arraignment was originally scheduled on January 11. namely. 1984.. Judge Gorgonio ordered the case Provisionally Dismissed . 1982: the trial was again postponed for reasons that do not appear in the record. because of the denial of his right to a speedy trial. . . Hinaut. again because the prosecution witnesses were absent. and (d) of which he had been previously acquitted or convicted or which was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. and reconsideration was denied on June 17. 1982. this time because there was no trial fiscal. Obsania ~ To constitute double jeopardy.It follows that the motion for the revival of the cases filed by prosecution witnesses (who never even testified) should have been summarily dismissed by the trial judge. Said motion was granted by J.June 6. with prejudice to the refiling of the case. The purpose is to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at rest. Agloro: Such consent must be express. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE PROV.Caes questioned the judge's order on certiorari with this Court. Gorgonio -Caes filed a MR but was denied and the revived cases were set from hearing on Nov. assuring the accused that he shall not thereafter be subjected to the danger and anxiety of a second charge against him for the same offense. but was for some reason postponed. People v. the plaintiff is represented by the government prosecutor. People v.The witnesses. . cannot act for the prosecutor in the handling of the case.June 3. . . . no reason appearing in the record.Dec 20. 1983: trial was reset for lack of material time. they have no personality to move for its dismissal or revival as they are not even parties thereto nor do they represent the parties to the action. Carlos Dacanay and Sgt. Otherwise. par. a sheriffs return informed the trial court that the prosecution witnesses. .Herrero v. . the dismissal will be regarded as final. . 1983. 1983.In a criminal prosecution.The fact that he was not so informed made the irregularity even more serious. 1982: the trial was again postponed because the prosecution witnesses were absent. Diaz: This is true even if a private prosecutor is allowed to assist him and actually handles the examination of the witnesses and the introduction of other evidence. but this was reset upon agreement of the parties. Lustado who alleged that they could not attend the hearing scheduled on November 14. 1983: the trial was reset once more. Aragon. Such dismissal has the effect of a judgment on the merits and operates as an acquittal.Pendatum v.Jan 19. especially since we are dealing here with the liberty of a person who had a right at least to be notified of the move to prosecute him again. -The prosecutor should have initiated the motion himself if he thought it proper. . 1983: the prosecution moved for the provisional dismissal of the case because its witnesses had not appeared. . YES . 1986.1: It is axiomatic that the prosecution of a criminal case is the responsibility of the gov’t prosecutor and must always be under his control. Caes was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Almeda Lopez. Rivera (so this doctrine applies in this case too) where a prosecuting officer. a2010 page 140 Prof. . Ylagan. which referred his petition to the IAC. . and not having expressly consented to the "provisional" dismissal of the cases against him. and the petitioner's subsequent objection was brushed aside.The mere fact that the government prosecutor was furnished a copy of the motion and he did not interpose any objection was not enough to justify the action of these witnesses.August 31.Trial was scheduled for October 13. . . 1983: the trial was again postponed. (b) filed before a competent court. DISMISSAL? .On the same date. 1982.

Pursuant to Section 23.HOWEVER. The practice sought to be avoided by the rule is inexistent. this rule is inapplicable. All pleaded not guilty.Godoy is one of 6 accused of homicide. of Guinobatan. Implied consent. Benjamin C.October 20. However.October 27. because the prosecution has not yet rested its case. manifested that he would be filing a demurrer to evidence without leave of court within 10 days. the TC lost no time in denying Motion to Acquit and Godoy was ready to present evidence but prosecution moved to disqualify him. they will ask for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence. A different label doesn’t change the true nature of pleading.798. Garcia. . 2001 and was accordingly dropped from the amended information. were charged before the Sandiganbayan with 12 counts of falsification of public documents and 1 count of malversation of public funds involving the amount of P1. DISMISSAL OF THE CRIMINAL CASES declared as FINAL. . 2003: Demurrer to Evidence was filed without leave of court . HELD YES . in the order issued by the Sandiganbayan. a2010 page 141 Prof. 2003: Prosecution filed its Opposition. . Jr. Second. there is no proof that Caes expressly concurred in the provisional dismissal. Garcia died on August 25.. 2004: MFR denied ISSUE WON the decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan should be set aside to allow petitioner to present evidence despite the demurrer to evidence filed . The documentary exhibits are still in issue.June 10. whether true or not.May 17. in this case.Father of victim filed Petition for Certiorari before CA. June 9. PAGE 74] GODOY v CA MELENCIO-HERRERA. Albay. There is no material difference between the Motion to Acquit by Godoy and a demurrer to evidence. it was stated that petitioner.A demurrer to evidence is defined as “an objection by one of the parties in an action. TC denied the disqualification and allowed Godoy to present evidence. to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law.Who’s fault was it then? The responsibility clearly lies with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City for its negligence and ineptitude.. petitioner filed Motion to Acquit on ground of lack of evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. . Belarmino to file a demurrer to evidence even without leave of court but the latter manifested that he would still discuss the matter with his collaborating counsel. As it was based on the "lack of interest" of the prosecutor and the consequent delay in the trial of the cases. respectively.936. 2004: the Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty in all 13 cases.Rivera pleaded not guilty to all 13 cases. .The circumstance that the dismissal of the cases against the petitioner was described by the trial judge as "provisional" did not change the nature of that dismissal. through counsel. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. First.TC denied Motion to Acquit and admitted Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits for prosecution. an accused waives the right to present evidence.” . as we have repeatedly held. Prosecution presented its witnesses and offered documentary exhibits. Before defense submitted objections to offer. is not enough. . .Juan G.The court directed Atty.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time. .The rationale is that when accused moves for dismissal on ground of insufficiency of evidence. during the hearing. CA nullified the orders of TC and held that Godoy’s Motion to Acquit was a demurrer to evidence. 1988 NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CA FACTS . .Section 15 Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Crim Pro is relevant. ..Prosecution moved for disqualification of Godoy from presenting evidence as well as his exclusion from proceedings on ground that the Motion to Acquit is equivalent to a demurrer to the evidence so he had already waived his right to present evidence. the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is .64 given to the Municipality of Guinobatan as calamity fund for the victims of the Mayon volcanic eruption. . . August 30. ISSUE WON the Motion to Acquit is the same as a motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence HELD NO . to make out a case or sustain the issue”. Accused cannot be allowed to wager on outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints. Any doubt on this matter must be resolved in favor of the accused. RIVERA v PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO. it was final and operated as an acquittal of the accused on the merits. 2004: Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision and further moved that he be allowed to present evidence. Rule 119 of The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.September 29.May 3. . the Sandiganbayan considered the right of petitioner to present evidence waived and deemed the case submitted for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. . 2003: The defense was scheduled to present evidence. 2005 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court FACTS . as in this instance for more than a year. however. PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON [SUPRA. informed the court that they have not yet received the resolution on the prosecution’s Formal Offer of Exhibits.No less importantly. Atty. for “we are dealing here with the alleged waiver of a constitutional right. Prosecution filed MFR but this was denied. Dispositive PETITION IS GRANTED. the accused is entitled to relief . he does so in belief that evidence is insufficient to convict and any need for him to present evidence is negated. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer. Belarmino. municipal mayor and disbursement officer. Rivera and Eric O. Trial proceeded until prosecution concluded presentation of evidence after which prosecution formally offered documentary exhibits. further manifesting that upon receipt of the resolution. A pre-trial was conducted. The rule is explicit that in filing a Motion to Dismiss on ground of insufficiency of evidence. petitioner’s former counsel. neither may it be lightly inferred from the presumption of regularity.

During the hearing. if he so believes that the prosecution evidence is so weak that it need not even be rebutted. Atty. 1999 in the amount of P1. neither did the Sandiganbayan make any inquiry thereon before issuing the order. If there is a desire to do so. The trial court shall ensure the attendance of the prosecution and especially the accused with their respective counsel in the hearing which must be recorded. inaccurately stated that Atty. such as his age. Bodoso: Henceforth. taken or misappropriated. Rivera’s were personally encashed by her while she was allegedly accompanied by Garcia. for issuing PNB Check No. hence. d. directing the petitioner to file a demurrer to evidence even without leave of court. Lim.875. . the presumption of the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise.The order dated September 29. however. the records show that Atty. a. if any. suspension of the rules is likely to be welcomed more generously. When they are rigid and strict in application. It has not been satisfactorily established whether petitioner has appropriated. was charged for violation of BP 22. 8749242H was issued. 2007 FACTS . which may serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed waiver. c. a counsel who files a demurrer with leave of court.The presentation of evidence by the defense would resolve any doubt as to petitioner’s complicity and avoid possible miscarriage of justice. it shall be the task of the trial court to – a2010 page 142 Prof. all questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and understood by the latter. the Municipal Treasurer of Guinobatan. . Belarmino was not given the opportunity to discuss with petitioner the consequences of filing a demurrer to evidence without leave of court. . The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. . Thereafter. If the lawyer for the accused has not done so. . Flores: Though the Rules require no such inquiry to be undertaken by the court for the validity of such waiver or any judgment made as result of the waiver. The . liberty or State security are involved. Belarmino asked for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence and for time to discuss the same with his co-counsel but was instead ordered by the court to file the same without leave of court within ten days. Witnesses who owned the forged receipts testified that they handed the blank receipts to Garcia and not to petitioner. 2003. asserting that the prosecution failed to prove that he received the notice of dishonor.People v.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales competent or sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. the disbursement vouchers and other forms required to liquidate the amount were allegedly prepared by Lim and thereafter. hence. resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice. . Records of Criminal Case Nos. as a prerequisite to the validity of such waiver. the trial court shall give the latter enough time to fulfill this professional obligation. checks bearing her signature and that of HUN HYUNG PARK v EUNG WON CHOI CARPIO-MORALES. to protect the constitutional right to due process of every accused in a capital offense and to avoid any confusion about the proper steps to be taken when a trial court comes face to face with an accused or his counsel who wants to waive his client’s right to present evidence and be heard. . Branch 65 granted the demurrer and dismissed the case. together with the significance and outcome of the waiver of such right. b. On the contrary. or in default theory. or has consented to the taking by another person. the Court is empowered to suspend the rules. 0077133 postdated August 28.Park appealed the civil aspect of the case to the RTC of Makati.Clearly. respondent filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence to which he attached his Demurrer. . Aranzado when an accused pleads guilty. socio-economic status. elicit information about the personality profile of the accused. He pleaded not guilty. requires the Court to ascertain the same to avoid any grave miscarriage of justice.The evidence on record do not clearly show where and to whom the allegedly malversed money were given after it was encashed. Belarmino did not cite any ground when he moved for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence. Any lawyer worth his salt ought to know that the filing of a demurrer to evidence with leave of court has the beneficial effect of reserving the movant’s right to present evidence if the demurrer is denied by the court. Thus. . 3. after receipt of the cash. the trial court shall give the defense enough time to this purpose. but at the same time expressly waives his right to present evidence should put a judge on guard that said counsel may not entirely comprehend the consequences of the waiver.People v. What is clear is that the calamity fund was released to Almeda O. particularly – 1.Eung Won Choi. Albay to which Official Receipt No.After the prosecution rested its case. 26686-98 REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.000 which was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.(2/27/03) The MeTC of Makati. 2. This is contrary to the provisions of Section 23.” . transmitted to Rivera for approval. it shall be the unequivocal duty of the trial court to observe. and educational background. of such funds. Their presence must be duly entered in the minutes of the proceedings. Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. February 12. contending that the dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil aspect. prudence. the record must state the language used for this purpose as well as reflect the corresponding translation thereof in English. . a procedure akin to a “searching inquiry” as specified in People v. ask the defense counsel a series of question to determine whether he had conferred with and completely explained to the accused that he had the right to present evidence and be heard as well as its meaning and consequences. inquire from the defense counsel with conformity of the accused whether he wants to present evidence or submit a memorandum elucidating on the contradictions and insufficiency of the prosecution evidence. otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.Atty. Belarmino manifested that he will be filing a demurrer to evidence even without leave of court when the records show no such manifestation was made.Petitioner was not consulted nor did his counsel confer with him and ask whether he understood the significance of filing a demurrer to evidence. The trial court shall hear both the prosecution and the accused with their respective counsel on the desire or manifestation of the accused to waive the right to present evidence and be heard. and finally to the provincial Government. Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which specifically instructs that “the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds. when “transcendental matters” like life. Sandiganbayan resolutions SET ASIDE. Then. file a demurrer to evidence with prior leave of court. The Rules on procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.

Section 4 of Rule 7 of the RoC: Verification – Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule. .In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court. And while the Court. NO Ratio Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. The copy of the September 11.” Annex “G” bares a replicate copy of a different order. . The public prosecutor has generally no interest in appealing the civil aspect of a decision acquitting the accused. The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the offended party and the accused. the range of permutations is not left to the pleader’s liking. as warranted. The Rules require that the petition must “be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts. or are true and correct and not merely speculative. Choi counters that the word “or” may be interpreted in a conjunctive sense and construed to mean as “and. .” Park’s motion for reconsideration of the remand of the case having been denied. 2003.” or upon “knowledge.A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on “information and belief. YES Reasoning . a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. ISSUES 1.A pleading may be verified under either of the two given modes or under both. For what is at stake is the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith. pleadings need not be under oath. was likewise dismissed by the trial court on account of the same Demurrer. Its import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. hence.While petitioner averred before the CA in his MFR that the February 27. YES Reasoning . Since both Orders were adverse to him even with respect to the civil aspect of the case. “Authentic records” as a basis for verification bear significance in petitions where the greater portions of the allegations are based on the records of the proceedings in the court of origin. and not solely on the personal knowledge of the petitioner. which petitioner prayed to be reinstated. this.Upon Choi’s motion for reconsideration. it did not altogether extinguish his civil liability. he chose to affirm in his petition he filed before the court a quo that its contents are “true and correct of my own personal knowledge. It would play on predilection and pay no heed in providing enough assurance of the correctness of the allegations. Bearing both a disjunctive and conjunctive sense. accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. NO Ratio Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. a2010 page 143 Prof. he elevated the case to the CA which dismissed his petition. Reasoning . The case is terminated as far as he is concerned. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition for failure to implead the People of the Philippines as a party 4. so that Choi may adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case. or both. however. The copy of the other MeTC Order. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. It was to this Court that petitioner belatedly submitted an uncertified true copy of the said MeTC Order as an annex to his Reply to respondent’s Comment.The MeTC acquitted respondent. was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. we stress. the concurrence of both sources is more than sufficient. or on both sources. Either the offended party or the accused may. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities. WON the respondent has a right to present evidence on the civil aspect of the case in view of his demurrer HELD 1. On the other hand. from which Park is appealing. dated May 5. it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in . 3. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. petitioner was mandated to submit them in the required form. allows a relaxation in the application of the rules. 2003 MeTC Order was already attached to his petition as Annex “G. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition for not fully complying with verification requirements 2. but is dependent on the surrounding nature of the allegations which may warrant that a verification be based either purely on personal knowledge. when the context of the law so warrants.” or vice versa.The materiality of those documents is very apparent since the civil aspect of the case.” and not on the basis of authentic documents. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. It accordingly granted Park’s appeal and ordered Choi to pay him P1. 2003 RTC Decision.” or lacks a proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. in some instances. .The only duplicate original or certified true copies attached as annexes to the petition are the RTC Order granting respondent’s MFR and the RTC Order denying petitioner’s MFR. however appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused. As a rule.Park argues that the word “or” is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence. or entirely on authentic records. 2.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales RTC held that while the evidence presented was insufficient to prove Choi’s criminal liability. Such .000 with legal interest. Reasoning . certified correct by the clerk of court [Sec 2(d) Rule 42].To sustain petitioner’s explanation that the basis of verification is a matter of simple preference would trivialize the rationale and diminish the resoluteness of the rule. this parallel legal signification avoids a construction that will exclude the combination of the alternatives or bar the efficacy of any one of the alternatives standing alone. the accused may adduce countervailing evidence if the court denies the demurrer. . . . needless to state. the RTC set aside its decision and ordered the remand of the case to the MeTC “for further proceedings. 4. Petitioner later recompensed though by appending to his MFR a duplicate original copy. which petitioner attached to his petition before the CA is similarly uncertified as true. is not a certified true copy and is not even legible. verified or accompanied by affidavit. The acquittal ends his work. The use of the preposition “or” connotes that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for verification and. information and belief. The veracity of the allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on either one’s own personal knowledge or on authentic records. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that it was not accompanied by copies of certain pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition 3.However.875.

Upon medical examination. the accused refused to take the witness stand without any plausible justification. the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to resolve. he having been found fit to stand trial.000. consonant with present jurisprudence. to be exercised only on valid and justifiable reasons (which are absent in this case). which fact became the basis for such testimony being stricken from the records for lack of cross-examination. accused was found to be suffering from schizophrenia. it cannot be determined with certainty from the records the nature of Choi’s alleged oral objections to Park’s motion for reconsideration of the grant of the demurrer to evidence. it was the defense that objected to the same and insisted that the case be deemed submitted for decision. Defense then motioned for a reopening of the case which was denied for lack of merit.000. then the same evidence is likewise not insufficient to establish civil liability by mere preponderance of evidence. We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court that the accused is not entitled to the exempting circumstance of insanity. ISSUE WON accused was denied of his constitutional right to be heard and to defend himself.As for petitioner’s attribution of waiver to respondent. Dispositive Petition is DENIED. He thereby recognized that there is basis for a remand. In fact. and admission by the accused) was filed against Danilo Gole Cruz with the then CFI. with the modifications that the death sentence imposed by the trial court is reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 19(l). Dr. and (2) when respondent orally opposed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration pleading that proceedings with respect to the civil aspect of the case continue. and the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction. Buttressing the foregoing evidence is the positive identification of the accused at the situs and during the occurrence of the crime. Any ambiguity in the voluntariness of the waiver is frowned upon. postmortem report. the MeTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case without any finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.Park posits that Choi waived his right to present evidence on the civil aspect of the case (1) when the grant of the demurrer was reversed on appeal. right to present evidence must be positively demonstrated. proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally proceed. October 25. police interrogation. the present stance of the accused is a blatant disregard of solemn agreements submitted to and approved by a court of justice and would make a mockery of the judicial process. when the former presiding judge thereafter ordered the reopening of the case sua sponte. There is no doubt that it was the accused who killed Teresita Gumapay. . . killed Teresita Gumapay. on the initiation. For if the court grants the demurrer. . 1949 NATURE . Accused pleaded not guilty in the arraignment and trial on the merits followed wherein several witnesses were presented. One of the issues in a criminal case being the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime. 1982 the discharge of the accused from the mental hospital and for his return to the provincial jail of Bulacan. Any waiver of the a2010 page 144 Prof. While the court may reopen a case for PEOPLE v CONCEPCION 84 PHIL 787 PARAS. The suspension of the direct examination of the accused was at his instance and as moved by his counsel.In the instant case. trial as to the civil aspect of the case must perforce continue. confirmation and reiteration of his own counsel. Maaba recommended on March 22.00.00 to P30. Where a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused. (NO. amply supported by convincing circumstances laudably pointed out by the trial court. the evidence thereon being capped by his own written confession of the same before the investigating officers. the governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Coming now to the conclusion of the trial court that the accused raped and. hence. DISPOSITION WHEREFORE.Petitioner’s citation of Section 1 of Rule 33 is incorrect. it was the defense itself which moved to terminate the testimony of the accused. PEOPLE v CRUZ 177 SCRA 451 REGALADO. Against the effete efforts in the accused's afterthought to create an insanity defense is the whole weight of the presumption of sanity provided by law. citing Section 1 of Rule 33. SEPTEMBER 13. a court may not deny the demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at the same time grant the demurrer as to the civil aspect. . not the Rules of Civil Procedure which pertains to a civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to the suit. Absent such determination. and was admitted to a mental hospital. Article III of the Constitution. Verily. for if the evidence so far presented is not insufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Choi did not assail the RTC order of remand. In addition. REASONING: The failure of the accused to complete his testimony was of his own making. if the evidence so far presented is insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt. In other words. and the indemnification for the death of Teresita Gumapay is hereby increased from P12. The only recognized instance when an acquittal on demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the civil aspect is when there is a finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.) HELD RATIO: The mere filing of a motion to reopen a case must not in any way automatically vacate an agreement and order submitting the case for decision. on the occasion thereof. it does not follow that the same evidence is insufficient to establish a preponderance of evidence. with the concomitant calibration of the evidence and the consequent determination as to whether the quantum thereof passes the test of moral certainty of guilt. the Court has painstakingly scrutinized the record.On the other hand. Later.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales denial bears no distinction as to the two aspects of the case because there is a disparity of evidentiary value between the quanta of evidence in such aspects of the case. . 1989 FACTS The information for rape with homicide (based on witness testimonies. This unrebutted fact notwithstanding. reception of further evidence after the parties have closed their evidence. such action is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. He however tried to escape. courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against it. Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide and found his defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance unavailing. The authenticity of and the fact that he and the witnesses thereto knowingly affixed their signatures on said extrajudicial confession were never questioned.

filed with the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City. 2000. ISSUES 1. 1944. guilty of treason. to wit: pre-trial on November 22. Carlos Callosa. Salen. entitled People of the Philippines v. Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence stress the following requirements for reopening a case: (1) the reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction. . it was not one of the days set by the court for the prosecution. Salen. for murder. A few days thereafter. 2001.1avvphi1. Judge Maceda. 11 and 18. (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is conducted. unlawfully and feloniously attack. . Police Senior Inspector of the Southern Police District (SPD) Crime Laboratory to testify on the contents of the death certificate of Antonio Callosa. on July 3. The subpoena issued to Pedrosa for that hearing was duly served. 2001 assigned to it. He explained that because there was a mix-up in the dates specified in the subpoena and the hearing dates of when the case was actually heard. (2) the order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion. Salen failed since the doctor was no longer assigned to the SPD Crime Laboratory. Romeo T. FACTS . Salen.net On August 9. February 20. and stab with a deadly weapon (fan knife) one Antonio Callosa. Cabarles was then given a chance to adduce further evidence on his behalf. . the alleged eyewitness. committed as follows: That on or about the 25th day of April. 1999. Pedrosa took the witness stand and completed her direct examination. 11. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 2001 because the judge was indisposed. 2007 NATURE Petitioner seeks to annul the Order issued by respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda in Criminal Case No. the above-named accused.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court finding the appellant. YES Ratio Section 24. he observed that the prosecution may not have been given its day in court resulting in a miscarriage of justice. and presentation of defense evidence on June 20 and 27. 2001.Cabarles pleaded not guilty. 2001 hearing was never scheduled and May 25. and (5) the presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty days from the issuance of the order. and 23.Appellant was found guilt of treason on 3 counts: . on June 19. due to their guerrilla connections. the prosecution still failed to present a witness during the May 8. Also. In it.the three individuals were apprehended by the appellant or at his instigation. alleging that it was issued with grave abuse of discretion. Judge Maceda motu proprio issued the questioned order reopening the case. Concepcion. 2004. and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P10. being in conformity with the facts and the law.A day before the scheduled promulgation of judgment on April 2. the prosecution was unable to present its evidence on the first four of the five hearing dates: April 18.On June 18. and August 1. 2003. Cabarles filed the present petition questioning Judge Maceda’s order. May 4. Judge Maceda further observed that the May 18. in the City of Las Piñas.The matter of reopening a case for the reception of further evidence after either the prosecution or the defense has rested is within the discretion of the trial court. the Public Attorney’s Office conducted its crossexamination of Pedrosa. there aren’t many facts or anything) . Imelda Pedrosa. which directly caused his death. Rene "Nonoy" Cabarles y Adizas. 2001. 2001 hearing was reset to May 25. and insofar as the June 20. 1944 of Basilio Severino. Nonetheless. upon motion. brother of the deceased. July 4 and 18. which was not a date assigned for the prosecution but May 11. the mother of the deceased. -The prosecution had subpoenas issued to its witnesses: Flocerfina Callosa. the subpoena issued to Pedrosa required her to appear on April 11. a2010 page 145 Prof. presentation of prosecution’s evidence on April 18. but service upon Dr. WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order 2. (4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 2001 was likewise not a hearing date set by the court. According to Judge Maceda. assault. 2001. .Apprehension on December 3. the prosecution should have been given a last chance to present the alleged eyewitness and the doctor. Notwithstanding the service upon Pedrosa. . . Reasoning CABARLES v MACEDA QUISUMBING. Salen requiring them to appear on May 11 and June 20. without justifiable motive with intent to kill and by means of treachery and evident premeditation. 99-0878. 1999. 2003 to hear the testimonies of Pedrosa and Dr. 2001. did then and there willfully. and the appellant was accompanied by Japanese during all 3 apprehensions ISSUE WON the lower court committed an error by allowing the prosecution to present evidence of appellant’s Filipino citizenship after the prosecution had rested its case and the defense had moved for dismissal HELD NO Reasoning . Finally. But.Through no fault of its own.Apprehension on January 9 of Gavino Moras . since the prosecution was not able to present its evidence on the first four hearing dates and there was either no return on the subpoenas subsequently issued or there was no subpoena issued at all to Pedrosa and Dr. Dispositive The appealed judgment. Branch 275. is affirmed.000. 18.Judge Maceda denied Cabarles’s MFR and set the case for hearing on May 8. Since trial in the lower court continued. giving the People June 19 and July 3. 2001. of Clemente Chica . 2003. Cabarles was charged with murder under the following information: The undersigned Prosecutor II accuses RENE "NONOY" CABARLES Y ADIZAS of the crime of Murder. Thereafter.Apprehension on December 7. The trial court scheduled the case for hearing on the following dates. again decided to extend to the prosecution another chance. all in Cebu City. Judge Maceda deferred the promulgation of judgment and ordered the case archived pending this Court’s resolution of the case. 2001 setting was concerned. and Dr. 2003. the May 11. Judge Maceda noted that another subpoena was issued to Pedrosa and Dr. FACTS (the case is really short. WON petitioner’s right to due process and speedy disposition of his case was violated HELD 1. the prosecution was unable to present its evidence on the first four hearing dates. 2003 hearing. Judge Maceda found that there was no hearing conducted on April 18. 2003 as additional hearing dates. May 4.

. regardless of race. his affidavit shall not be considered as competent evidence for the party presenting the affidavit. Dispositive instant petition is GRANTED. from two (2) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. otherwise. 2. constitutes grave abuse of discretion and goes against the due process clause of the Constitution which requires notice and opportunity to be heard. . a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. . and even after promulgation but before finality of judgment and the only controlling guideline governing a motion to reopen is the paramount interest of justice. they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only. Rule 119. We hold that the assailed Order dated April 1.. but justice must be dispensed with an even hand. 1984.However. This remedy of reopening a case was meant to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Reasoning . the protection provided by the Bill of Rights is bestowed upon all individuals. 2003 Order without notice and hearing and without giving the prosecution and accused an opportunity to manifest their position on the matter. ergo. without the benefit of a hearing. but the adverse party may utilize the same for any admissible purpose. 2003 Order. Witnesses who testified may be subjected to cross-examination. . Judge Maceda issued the April 1. (6) months' imprisonment and to pay complainant the amount of P200. the Rule on Summary Procedure is inapplicable . "Section 14.00.Should the court. YES Ratio The concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible. without benefit of trial. the Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly to it for compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues raised. But not only was petitioner unrepresented by counsel upon arraignment. in an Order dated July 5. Hence.Subsequently. or when without cause or justifiable motive. the accused deserves no less than an acquittal.But even assuming that the case falls under the coverage of said Rule. trial should have proceeded immediately. WON he was afforded due process HELD NO . He pleaded not guilty. Let the records of this case be REMANDED immediately to the trial court concerned for its appropriate action without further delay. the court. is deemed violated when the proceeding is attended by vexatious. . WON the application of the Rules on Summary procedure was valid 2. The issuance of the said order." . 2003 Order is hereby stricken off the record. capricious.Upon a plea of not guilty being entered. Since Section 24 is a new a2010 page 146 Prof. for good reasons. April 15. Accordingly. Section 24 requires that a hearing must first be conducted. it shall order the dismissal of the case. after the parties have produced their respective direct proofs. or.On June 5.to be invoked without fear or favor. ISSUES 1. . the trial shall immediately proceed.petitioner was charged with the crime of Theft of one (1) Rooster [Fighting Cock] color red. the court shall set the case for arraignment and trial. . plus costs the provision. without exception. in the furtherance of justice. Also. and considering the irregularities in the issuance of the April 1. may allow new evidence upon their original case. Should the affiant fail to testify. A motion to reopen may thus properly be presented only after either or both parties had formally offered and closed their evidence. petitioner was subpoenaed to appear before respondent Judge and was arraigned without the assistance of counsel.The right to a speedy disposition of a case. 1985 NATURE Petition for Certiorari FACTS . 1984. Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.In a Decision promulgated on July 16. belonging to Romeo Posada worth P200. When case set for arraignment and trial.The crime of Theft as charged herein is penalized with arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. is contrary to the express language of Section 24. and almost eight years thereafter. it is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this petition.since petitioner-accused had pleaded not guilty. However. 6 Clearly. gender or political persuasion whether privileged or less privileged .Cabarles invokes the jurisdiction of this Court in the interest of speedy justice since the information against him was filed way back in June 1999. Regardless of how much we want to punish the perpetrators of this ghastly crime and give justice to the victim and her family.In fine. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient. and oppressive delays. 2003 was issued with grave abuse of discretion.Generally.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . Any further delay in the resolution of the instant petition will be prejudicial to Cabarles. The affidavits submitted by the parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the same. and its ruling will not be disturbed in the appellate court where no abuse of discretion appears.000. any evidence received and offered in this case as a result of the April 1. the same does not dispense with trial "Section 11. no judgment has yet been rendered.The Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases applies only to criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment or a fine of one thousand pesos (P1. while Judge Maceda is allowed to reopen the case before judgment is rendered. "No witness shall be allowed to testify unless he had previously submitted an affidavit to the court in accordance with Sections 9 and 10 hereof. color.00. or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured. creed. petitioner was sentenced to suffer six . he is not called upon to disprove what the prosecution has not proved.Following the procedure laid down in the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases. like the right to speedy trial. respondent Judge deemed the case submitted for resolution purportedly pursuant to the Rule on Summary Procedure. respondent Judge required petitioner and his witnesses to submit counter-affidavits to the supporting affidavits of the complainant . but before judgment is rendered. upon a consideration of the complaint or information and the affidavits submitted by both parties.00) or both . 1984. Said Order is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. we are not unmindful of the gravity of the crime charged. Procedure of Trial. to our mind. he was neither accorded the benefit of trial COMBATE v SAN JOSE 135 SCRA 693 MELENCIO-HERRERA. This failure. find no cause or ground to hold the defendant for trial.

. his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. Eleazar Caparas. namely: Plata. . however. The van. Under our Rules. for proceedings strictly in accordance with law. Fajardo and dela Cruz. later identified as Lanie dela Cruz. .Neither does dela Cruz appear to be the most guilty of the accused. Oliver Caparas. Oliver was made to board the same van and brought to the Petron Gas Station in Meycauayan Highway. of 18 September 1997. 1994. The testimony of dela Cruz was substantially corroborated by no less than the victim himself. then 13 years of age. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed. the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when. (d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty. The trial court. by itself and without corroboration. he was given P500.m.On 31 May 2000. . . Fajardo and Rodrigo. While inside the car. The case is remanded to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Magarao-Canaman. received a call from the kidnappers initially asking for P10 million ransom . his girlfriend. was instructed by Eleazar Caparas to deliver the ransom money. dela Cruz. she admitted her participation in the kidnapping of Oliver Caparas and implicated appellants.Later that night. were minor details and simply could be attributed to the frailty of human memory. (e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. (c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points. . however. be regarded as proof with a moral certainty that the latter committed or participated in the commission of the crime. an uncle of Oliver. . The rest remained at large.m. The trial court held that dela Cruz was not privy to the kidnap plan and was merely taken in later by the group because they suspected that she already knew too much.Appellants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.As noted by the trial court. the testimony of dela Cruz coincides with that of Oliver and Pedro relating to the PEOPLE v RODRIGO TINGA. the RTC rendered its decision finding all appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony must be substantially corroborated in its material points by unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances and must be to such an extent that its trustworthiness becomes manifest. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness. Pedro Navarro saw Oliver eating inside the canteen and brought him home where he was reunited with his father. Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial.On arraignment. appellants pleaded not guilty.On 10 September 1996. a2010 page 147 Prof. upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case.The testimony of dela Cruz was an absolute necessity. Upon arriving at the Petron Station at 3:00 a. Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies. Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides: When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense.Section 17.Appellants Plata and Fajardo submitted their individual appeal briefs. At around 1:00 a. was waiting for a ride to school in a corner near his house in Matimbo. Jun Parubrob. tailed by a car.The kidnappers proceeded to Bonita’s Resort in Pangasinan.The power to prosecute includes the initial discretion to determine who should be utilized by the government as a state witness. upon motion of the prosecution. and a John Doe. On 17 September 1996. Boyong Catindig. he proceeded to follow the instructions on the drop-off. ISSUE WON Dela Cruz was eligible to be a state witness HELD .After the kidnapping incident. During his stay. Helen Joven. January 23. took care of him by feeding him three times a day.7 million. Upon alighting from the van. .The following day. discharged Dela Cruz to serve as state witness. and .The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision except that it acquitted Rodrigo.00 and was told that he would be fetched by his uncle inside a canteen in the gas station. an investigation was conducted by the Intelligence Section of the Philippine National Police. traveled to Baguio. Moreover. . Upon the killing of Bert Liwanag. 2007 NATURE Automatic review FACTS . On that occasion.After three days of negotiation. Malolos. After receiving a call from the kidnappers. they slept overnight inside the van in a parking lot. It appears that one of the suspects was a member of an NPA rebel returnee group headed by Armando Rodrigo.An Information was filed on 11 March 1997 against appellants Plata. He was later transferred to a van. . While there. Oliver. it is the courts that will finally determine whether the requirements have been satisfied to justify the discharge of an accused to become a witness for the government. Armando Rodrigo. is hereby ANNULLED for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Oliver was then brought to a room and his blindfold removed. . was invited for questioning. he was blindfolded. when four (4) men forcibly seized and boarded him into a car. The prosecution has gathered the evidence against the accused and is in a better position to decide the testimonial evidence needed by the State to press its prosecution to a successful conclusion. These. It cannot be expected that her testimony would be entirely flawless.C