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

She hinges her theory on the following provisions of Rules 110 and 111 of Rules of Court.Sec.To invoke the defense of double jeopardy. 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. and (2) when. petitioner filed a manifestation expressly waiving his right to appeal therefrom.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. pleaded guilty to the charge. 2005 NATURE Petition for Certiorari seeking to reverse the July 27. (2) reserves the right to institute it separately. it is respectfully recommended that the attached Information be approved and filed in Court. Reasoning . 1. 2000 setting aside its Feb. petitioner was convicted and meted the corresponding penalty. it authorizes recovery in only one. Thus. or (3) . Reasoning . institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.Ruling of the Trial Court Noting petitioner’s opposition to the private prosecutor’s entry of appearance. The assailed orders dated May 3. or any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first offense charged. 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). the RTC allowed the private prosecutor to appear and intervene in the proceedings. Reasoning . The Rules of Court allow the offended party to intervene via a private prosecutor in each of these two penal proceedings.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’ . separate informations were separately filed against herein [p]etitioner before proper [c]ourts. Its decision dated Feb.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. On the basis of his plea. 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. Felix R. 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. 2000 Decision which had attained finality. In any of these instances. the court may. Hence. (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge. grant a new trial or reconsideration. 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 .Honorable Assistant City Prosecutor Rossana S. (2) the court has jurisdiction to try the case. except in the following instances: (1) when. 3. 1 Rule 121 of the same Rules provides: Sec. 2000 issued by the trial court are set aside. the appearance of a private prosecutor shall be allowed upon payment of the legal fees for these estafa cases pending before this Court. 22 . the RTC held that the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted. an offended party may intervene in the prosecution of a crime. he cannot be prosecuted anew for the same offense. (b) expressly reserve the right to do so or (c) the suit has already been instituted.” FACTS .P. DISPOSITION The petition is granted. 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. RODRIGUEZ v PONFERRADA 465 SCRA 338 PANGANIBAN.“The [p]ublic [r]espondent court during the said hearing noted the Formal Entry of Appearance of Atty.1. 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. Records show that petitioner was charged with homicide under a valid information before the trial court which has jurisdiction over it. However. 2000 and May 26. for Estafa and [v]iolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 4. the same should have been denied outright as being violative of the above provision. the offended parties are entitled to civil indemnity. Such waiver has the effect of causing the judgment to become final and unalterable. July 29. .These requisites have been established. 22 cases HELD YES. from the nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it. . While the law allows two simultaneous civil remedies for the offended party. 22. 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. or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. .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.It is an undisputed fact that after the promulgation of the judgment of conviction. and (4) he has been convicted or acquitted. the following requisites must be present: (1) a valid complaint or information. At any rate. None of these exceptions apply to the instant case. no civil liability arises in favor of a private offended party. the records do not show any irregularity in the preliminary investigation of the case before the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office.’ . but (a) they waive the right to institute a civil action.As a consequence thereof. In short. from the nature of the offense. unless the offended party (1) waives the civil action. the same should be denied outright. the private complainant’s interest in the case disappears and criminal prosecution becomes the sole function of the public prosecutor. . As petitioner has been placed in jeopardy for the crime of homicide. Solomon as [p]rivate [p]rosecutor as well as the Opposition filed thereto by herein [p]etitioner. only one civil liability attaches to it. while two crimes arise from a single set of facts.Based on the foregoing rules. it was beyond the authority of the trial court to issue the order of May 3. 2000 is reinstated. on motion of the accused or at its own instance but with the consent of the accused. 2002 Order of the RTC of Quezon City: “WHEREFORE.3. New trial or reconsideration – At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final.

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

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

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. YES Ratio While it is only the Solicitor General that may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Bulacan. . the trial judge relinquished the discretion he was duty bound to exercise.As aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General. Fabian as Bookkeeper. 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. 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. 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. Cashier and Teller. 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. Malolos. on the ground of insufficient evidence. 1993. however. the Complaint mentioned only the 5th incident. Alberto Fabian. which motion.Romeo Buban is accused of raping his then 12 year old daughter 5 times. The action may be prosecuted in (the) name of the said complainant. and recommending the filing of the corresponding information against them with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos. The charges of rape committed on other occasions were not supported with the required . Franklin M. on April 27. private respondent moved for a reconsideration of the portion of the same resolution dismissing the complaint against Susan Jordan. Manarang (hereinafter "prosecutor"). on separate occasions. 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. Perez as Officer-In-Charge. January 24. our ruling in the case of Dee v. The medical examination of the girl reveals that she was indeed raped.The prosecutor granted private respondent's motion for reconsideration. retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law. JR.In the case of Dela Rosa v.Pursuant to the said resolution. 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.For the period starting August 3. owns the Hagonoy Money Shop which employed petitioner Cristina O. had no legal personality to question the dismissal of the criminal charges against the petitioner.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales FACTS . 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.8 Hence.On September 23. In such case. . the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved.we held that: "In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1. 2. the complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal. as private complainant. 1992 up to December 5. an independent management. 696. 1994. WON Judge Masadao.Furthermore. Drilon. the Laya. Mogul. that if the private respondent in this case may file a special civil action for certiorari. In effect. issued Resolution No. as a general rule. Inc.Although the girl’s sworn statement mentioned five occasions of rape. 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 offended party PEOPLE v BUBAN GR No. 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. Milagros Martin. therefore. Jesus Y. then Secretary of Justice. series of 1994 ordering the prosecutor to cause the dismissal of the information against herein petitioner a2010 page 7 Prof.Private respondent Hagonoy Rural Bank. dismissed. Acting Provincial Prosecutor. 166895 VELASCO. 2007 NATURE Petition for review decision of CA FACTS . On the other hand. In fact. or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas. presiding judge of RTC Branch 9. ISSUES 1. Alberto S." . 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. and Cristina Medina and Milagros Martin as Solicitors/Field Managers. YES.Perez filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice praying for the dismissal of the charges against her. an information for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents was filed against herein petitioner. The audit also revealed that to cover-up the anomalous withdrawals. Bulacan. 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. as private complainant. Reasoning . In so doing. . the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The charges against Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas were. was denied with finality by the latter. Court of Appeals. . 1994. it was the prosecution. issued a resolution finding prima facie evidence that the petitioner and her coemployees had committed the crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. The private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the Secretary of Justice. however.. Salgado and Company. Manabat. WON the private respondent.This prompted the private respondent to file an affidavit-complaint for estafa against the aforementioned employees of the money shop and two outsiders. Reasoning . 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. . consultancy and accounting firm. Cristina Medina and Susan Jordan. to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors. It follows.

Kilayko for respondents. Antonio: Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness referring to minor details. .the argument of the accused that the testimony of the girl is not reliable for inconsistencies is untenable. If at all.RTC found the accused guilty (sentence: death penalty plus moral damages. thus it can be deduced that the conviction pertains to the 5th incident only.Participation of the private prosecution in the instant case was delimited by this Court in its Resolution of October 1. the complaint should contain all instances of the crime charged." . Cesar Tan. The other 4 counts of rape were dismissed because the complaint did not specify the same. 1976 . without any personality to have any paper of his entertained by this Tribunal” . Assistant Solicitor General Alicia Simpio-Diy and Solicitor Eduardo L.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.Feb 12. a2010 page 8 Prof. Obvious to all. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed. Jr. submitted his Comment to the petition. 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. he should do so. People v. 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.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales complaints in accordance with Section 5. .petitioners seek the annulment of respondent Judge's Orders in the Criminal Case People of the Philippines v Jorge Tan. Sentence changed to reclusion perpatua (pursuant to RA 9346. and only mentioned the last instance of rape. The prosecution did not question anymore the dismissal of the other 4 counts. 1976. Castro & Associate as private prosecutors.Solicitor General Estilito P. and to adapt a position in contravention to that of the Solicitor General. and whose interest. 1976 . to the end that the court's mind may not be tortured by doubts. . therefore. . and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime. JR v GALLARDO 73 SCRA 308 ANTONIO. Estanisloo A. But.Since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State. but that justice shall he done. and to the state. 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. As can be gleamed from the case. . Mendoza.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 . despite the inclusion of the other 4 in the sworn statement of the girl. 1975. 2. thus: "to collaborate with the Solicitor General in the preparation of the Answer and pleadings that may be required by this 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. . abolishing the death penalty) and higher damages. WON the accused may be convicted for the other counts of rape. Fernandez and Dakila F. 1976 . so the court did not discuss it further. but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all. he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law. October 5. it is but natural that the representatives of the State should direct and control the prosecution.private prosecutors submitted their Comment in justification of the challenged Orders of the respondent Judge and objected to the remand of this case. WON CA erred in finding the accused guilty despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence 2. The dispositive portion of the RTC’s decision was not specific as to which charge it found the accused guilty. while he may strike hard blows. The other 4 charges were dismissed for lack of legal basis to convict. that the innocent may not suffer and the guilty not escape unpunished. 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. he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. Teofanis Bondoc. where the complaint mentions only one instance of rape HELD 1.Jan 30. clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in their evidence. 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. 2. civil indemnity. Reasoning . ISSUES 1.SolGen. > Suarez v Platon: the prosecuting officer "'is the representative not of. to take part in the proceedings. Mariano Bartido and Librado Sode for frustrated murder and Double Murder of the son and uncle of Mayor Inigo Larazzabal. Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure." .Jan 14. Reasoning . in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case. WON respondent Judge should be disqualified from further proceeding with the criminal cases HELD 1.private prosecutors now contend that they are entitled to appear before this Court. the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. but the body of the decision implies the dismissal of the other 4 charges. an ordinary party to a controversy. NO Ratio there is no error in the appreciation of evidence by the court." To collaborate means to cooperate with and to assist the Solicitor General. they serve as proof that the witness is not coached or rehearsed. CA affirmed. DISPOSITION judgment affirmed with modification. do not impair her credibility. ISSUES 1. they interpose no objection to the remand of the aforementioned criminal cases "for the rendition of a new decision by another trial judge. As such. to the accused. NO Ratio Private prosecutors cannot intervene independently of and take a position inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General. exemplary damages) but only with regard the 5th incident only. on behalf of the People of the Philippines. hence. this is the prosecution's prime duty to the court. Osmundo Tolentino.

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. for that would be tantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the criminal proceedings. and responsibility of the prosecuting officer.The SC noted that the rape incidents in this case occurred prior to the effectivity of RA 8353. his intervention must always be subject to the direction and control of the prosecuting official. the victim. or where the law defining and punishing the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity. action or proceeding which. sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 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. investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. Consequently. or guardian. proceeding. control. 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. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 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. in which case he lost his right to intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to have lost his interest in its prosecution. 2. which took effect on October 22. 478.The trial court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to the supreme penalty of death. represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court. 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. and to control the proceeding. which right belongs exclusively to the promotor fiscal by virtue of the provisions of section 44 of General Orders.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. . and as it is discretionary with him to institute and prosecute a criminal proceeding. It is evident. seven times over a period of eight years beginning 1989 when the victim was seven years old. its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation. 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. therefore. "an offended party may intervene in the proceedings. 1997 with raping his minor daughter. This civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action. 58. However. the continuation of the offended party's intervention depends upon the continuation of the proceeding. . Irene. . 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. abduction. rape. prior to the rendering of judgment. the offended party may not intervene in the prosecution of the offense." . whether an offended party intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action. 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. nor in any case. 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. offenses of seduction. body or commission in any matter. as the offended party is not entitled to represent the People of the Philippine a2010 page 9 Prof. or acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents. * * * The office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government. "Defining the Powers and Functions of the Office of the Solicitor General". grandparents. the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons. As provided for in the said article. unless the offended party either expressly waives the civil action or reserves to institute it separately. shall discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer. in his opinion. PEOPLE v DELA CERNA 390 SCRA 538 CORONA . on July 3. the crime of rape was classified as a crime against person. 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.from the nature of the offense.Ernesto dela Cuesta was charged on May 16. Function and Organization. (1) The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines. personally or by attorney. provides: SECTION 1. 1998. 1997.the position occupied by the offended party is subordinate to that of the promotor fiscal because. 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 any event.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales under the direction. . Consequently. as the promotor fiscal alone is authorized to represent the public prosecution. . the Court of Appeals. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997. and as such. No. and said court grants the petition. or to control the proceeding once it is commenced. 2002 NATURE Automatic review of decision of Cebu City RTC FACTS . . 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. Thus. No. except when the case is pending in the Court of First Instance. contrary to the provisions of law and the settled rules on the matter. 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. 58. . affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require. in his opinion." > Herrero v Diaz: "intervention of the offended party or his attorney is authorized by section 15 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. and as his right to intervene therein is subject to the promotor fiscal's right of control.The victim testified in open court about the incidents of rape. Under this statute. October 9. being at liberty to commence it or not or to refrain from prosecuting it or not. 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. in the prosecution of offenders. depending upon whether or not there is. or the People of the Philippine Islands.

Her complaint can be rightfully considered filed by a minor.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . 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. The offended party. has the right to initiate the prosecution for the above offenses. or guardian. in any case. the right to institute the criminal action. WON Jonalyn was credible as a witness 4. fault. it having been signed by JONALYN as the offended party.Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure states: The offenses of seduction. abduction. In case the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she could file the complaint and has no known parents. It claimed that JONALYN’s testimony. shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her . The assistance of JONALYN’s aunt. 1275-M-96. grandparents. 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. unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. . . then 20 years of age who was found to have the mentality of an 8-year-old girl. The defense also insisted on assailing the competency of JONALYN as a witness. Thus. She stated that BIENVENIDO placed himself on top of her and inserted his private part into her womanhood. 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. . abduction. or guardian. ISSUES 1. or guardian as extinguishing the crime. the trial court decided to suspend the proceedings to give the prosecution sufficient time to confer with her. 8353 which took effect on 22 October 1997) and Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. was coached and rehearsed. if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons. could likewise file the complaint independently of her relatives. JONALYN. WON leading questions should have been allowed to be asked to Jonalyn HELD 1. WON Jonalyn was competent to testify 3. . rape or acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents. Dr. two informations were filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor before the RTC of Malolos charging Bienvenido Dela Cruz with rape. 1274-M-96 for insufficiency of evidence. even if she were a minor.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. There was as such no reasonable doubt to speak of. but acquitted him in Criminal Case No. YES . 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.A. BIENVENIDO entered a plea of not guilty.If a minor under the Rules of Court can file a complaint for rape independently of her parents. grandparents. was a superfluity.The defense filed a demurrer to evidence.Upon a complaint signed by JONALYN with the assistance of her aunt Carmelita Borja. grandparents. rape or acts of lasciviousness. she had the mental age of an 8½-yearold child under the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. considering her mental state. and disgraceful acts occurring in the family. grandparents or guardian.When JONALYN was presented as its first witness. the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf. . However. As signed by JONALYN. 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. . ISSUE WON the trial court erred in convicting the defendant HELD NO .The affidavit did not in fact contain any retraction on the claim of rape. the Supreme court held that the pardon or forgiveness must be prior to the institution of the criminal action. which vest upon JONALYN. grandparents or guardian may file the same. . or guardian. July 11. . her parents.The trial court issued an order allowing leading questions to be propounded to JONALYN. 2. . nor. 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.The offenses of seduction.The complaint in the instant case has complied with the requirement under the Revised Penal Code and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. grandparents. independently of her parents. the prosecutor could be permitted to ask leading questions. Trial court convicted BIENVENIDO of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. Noticing that JONALYN had difficulty in expressing herself. 2002 FACTS . JONALYN’s signature alone suffices to validate the complaint.Even using the old statute which considered rape as a private crime and the forgiveness of the victim or the parents.The trial court denied the Demurrer to Evidence and set the dates for the presentation of the evidence for the defense. in any case. . Where the offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint. as the offended party. 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 undeniable truth is that JONALYN had no capacity to sign the same considering her mental deficiency or abnormality. WON the complaint for rape filed was valid 2. It cited its previous rulings to this effect. No. or even of her mother. . . as the case may be. PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 384 SCRA 375 DAVIDE. the complaint started the prosecutory proceeding. a2010 page 10 Prof.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. as the case may be. YES . who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial.In his appeal.Trial court allowed the prosecution to put on the witness stand a Medical Officer of the National Center for Mental Health. parents.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. nor. if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons. which was granted. JONALYN took the witness stand. She declared in open court that BIENVENIDO raped her twice.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. Hence the guilty verdict was proper considering that the testimony of the victim was considered by the trial court as credible and believable.

place. the trial court.The RTC found Ronnie Quitlong. ignorant of. inexperienced. 2. . she could not have fabricated or concocted her charge against BIENVENIDO.The leading questions were neither conclusions of facts merely put into the mouth of JONALYN nor prepared statements which she merely confirmed as true. and second. Tuazon. 4. to inform the court of the facts alleged. The information. One time. as it is. rendered its now assailed decision. The 3 men kept arguing. of the 1987 Constitution. YES. Section 14. does not obviate the fact of her competency. enough proof was adduced. Jesus Mendoza remained at large. names (plaintiff and defendant). the crime was qualified The crime committed was qualified by abuse of superiority. and third. While superiority in number would not per se mean . however. unembellished. terrified.S. with details. The trial court acted favorably on the motion. The finding of the trial court. the fishball vendor would not admit that he had shortchanged Calpito.. yet.On 21 April 1995. Considering her feeble mind. 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. 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. Moments later.It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading questions in conducting the examination of a witness who is immature. to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause. . he found out that he only received P35 for his P100.Article III. facts must be stated. aged and infirm. and circumstances. (United States vs. 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. Tuazon that JONALYN had the understanding of an 8year-old child. . Confronted by Calpito and Gosil. 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.Complainant has made herself clear about the sexual molestation she suffered in the hands of the accused. in bad physical condition.000. Soriano saw eight men rushing towards Gosil and Calpito. as amended. Jr. Also. YES . . . When Calpito counted his change. following his evaluation of the respective submissions of the prosecution and the defense. so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction. submitted a motion for reinvestigation alleging that “it was a certain Jesus Mendoza who stabbed the victim. Its only effect was to consider her testimony from the point of view of an 8-year-old minor. The right to be informed of any such indictment is likewise explicit in procedural rules. Quitlong is guilty of murder while the other 2 are only accomplices. July 10. are found guilty as accomplices in the commission of the crime. At their arraignment. The City Prosecutor filed a motion to admit an amended information on the basis of affidavits..Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales as well as their understanding of the obligation of an oath. NO.000 and moral damages in the amount of P50. 542). 2. lacking in comprehension of questions asked. feeble-minded. ISSUES 1. Salvador Quitlong and Emilio Senoto guilty of murder for the killing of Jonathan Calpito. these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time. included Jesus Mendoza among the named accused. But unlike accused-appellants who were immediately arrested after the commission of the crime.Calpito was a student from Baguio city. 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 . Appellants Salvador Quitlong and Emilio Senoto. shortly after the filing of the information. the detained accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.The foregoing narrative has established not only JONALYN’s competency but also her credibility. Calpito got stabbed and fell to the ground. he wanted some fishballs so he and Gosil bought some fishballs worth P15. not conclusions of law. Accused-appellants. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense. 1998 HELD 1. in particular. 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. a2010 NATURE Appeal from the decision of the RTC page 11 Prof. including their rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence. or unaccustomed to. deaf and dumb. 3. 92 U. YES . with the modification that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim JONALYN YUMANG civil indemnity in the reduced amount of P50. as supported by the testimony of Dr. uneducated. it is in its simplicity that its credence is enhanced. no improper motive was shown by the defense as to why JONALYN would file a case or falsely testify against BIENVENIDO. if one should be had. In order that this requirement may be satisfied. court proceedings.object of informing an accused in writing of the charges against him: First. confused and agitated. June 28. Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent. FACTS . .The prosecution has proved JONALYN’s competency by the testimony of Dr. or unable to speak or understand the English or imperfectly familiar therewith. superiority in strength. In short. timid or embarrassed while on the stand. . Cruikshank. Plain and simple her testimony may have been.

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

Under the Informations. opposed the motion.On July 18. 1997 and the credit memo sent by PCIB to Caltex . They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. 1997.PCIB.Petitioner further averred that unless the Informations were amended to change the private complainant to PCIB. through SRMO. conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance. . however. All of these were never issued by Caltex. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules. or except a particular case from its operation.757.790. a domestic corporation engaged in messengerial services.790. SRMO had no personality to appear as private prosecutor. the PCIB credited the amount of P581.In the meantime. hence. No. The prosecution presented its witnesses. a company check. 1998.No sufficient evidence to show that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of the private offended parties.25 payable to Dante R. Ricarze was employed as a collector-messenger by City Service Corporation. shorn of judicial discretion.Petitioner Eduardo G. . CALTEX) G. Reasoning . . it is always within our power to suspend the rules. and pleaded not guilty to both charges. Romano alleged that. the RTC issued an Order granting the motion of the private prosecutor for the substitution of PCIB as private complainant for Caltex. PCIB pointed out that petitioner had marked in evidence the letter of the ACCRA Law Office to PCIBank dated October 10. even if the evidence for defense is also weak.Petitioner was arraigned on August 18. the private complainant is Caltex and not PCIB. 2001.On November 6. It however denied petitioner’s motion to have the formal offer of evidence of SRMO expunged from the record.7 Petitioner opposed the pleading.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. the presumption of innocence of the accused must be sustained and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right. and it was only after the prosecution had rested its case that SRMO entered its appearance as private prosecutor representing the PCIB. courts have always been. . SR. 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. one of its depositary banks. his right as accused would be prejudiced. Substantive NO Ratio When the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty. where the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak.229. PEOPLE v TULIN RICARZE v CA (PEOPLE. the PCIB had been subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex as private complainant. as they ought to be. it was discovered that unknown to the department. hence. provided it is filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be better served thereby. . the re-credited amount was brought out on cross-examination by Ramon Romano who testified for the Prosecution. Consequently. 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. 2001. He also delivered invoices to Caltex’s customers. one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt. Inc. In rendering justice. 1997. February 9.25. the forged checks were deposited and endorsed by him under Gutierrez’s name. a2010 page 13 Prof. one of which amounted to P1. the PCIB is entitled to receive any civil indemnity which the trial court would adjudge against the accused. He was assigned to the main office of Caltex Philippines. It is better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man. Makati Branch. 2007 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS . and not the other way around. 1998. Pre-trial ensued and the cases were jointly tried. Reasoning .The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. 1997 in the amount of P5. as in this case. Petitioner Benito Astorga is ACQUITTED of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt. the Formal Offer of Evidence filed by SRMO should be stricken from the records. the accused must be duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences. Branch 63.8 He insisted that the amendments of the Informations to substitute PCIB as the offended party for Caltex would place him in double jeopardy. . Caltex filed a criminal complaint against petitioner before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City for estafa through falsification of commercial documents. contending that the private complainant was represented by the ACCRA Law Offices and the Balgos and Perez Law Office during trial. notwithstanding two missing checks and two other check forgeries. Furthermore. Montecillio and Ongsiako Law Offices (SRMO) as private prosecutor filed a Formal Offer of Evidence. . Gutierrez. After the requisite preliminary investigation. after which the Siguion Reyna. as a general rule. that the Informations can no longer be amended because he had already been arraigned under the original Informations. a prohibited pleading.570. It appears that Darma merely extended his hospitality and entertained the DENR team in his house.00 to Caltex on March 29. it is within the sound discretion of the Court to admit the same. on October 16. 160451 CALLEJO. Since the ACCRA and Balgos and Perez Law Offices had not withdrawn their appearance. His primary task was to collect checks payable to Caltex and deliver them to the cashier.R.Further investigation revealed that said savings account had actually been opened by petitioner. technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights. 1997. Moreover. Thus. . However. Check No. while his department was conducting a daily electronic report from Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB) Dela Rosa. 1998 against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. the City Prosecutor of Makati City was not informed of this development. had been cleared through PCIB on October 15. It contended that the PCIB had re-credited the amount to Caltex to the extent of the indemnity. He pointed out. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied on November 14. if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice. 74001 dated October 13. the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. (Caltex) in Makati City.

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

Priscilla Cruz. 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 complaint in this case therefore properly contained an averment as to the ownership of the property. it may be alleged that it is unknown. ownership must be alleged as matter essential to the proper description of the offense. As the accused failed to do so. 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. However. and to indemnify the offended party. in the amount of P5. July 15. 19 of the Constitution. Dispositive WHEREFORE. and indictments for such offenses must name the owner. if known. and on occasion thereof killed the said Roman Estriba and three others. 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. 2. 4. WON there was no reinvestigation conducted to justify the filing of the amended information 3. or against whose property. this appeal. As the highest degree of respect is accorded to the factual findings of the TC. the allegation of the owner's name is essential. To constitute robbery. NO -No element of ransom exists as no ransom note was presented in court. 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 evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support a finding of guilt even without the said extra-judicial confession.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. any case. the Amended Information failed to allege that the kidnapping was for the purpose of extorting a ransom.The information in a prosecution for robbery with quadruple homicide charged that the accused criminally and by force appropriated certain articles of value. 58 declares that a complaint or information shall show. is violative of the rudimentary principles of pleading. upon the other hand. Where the name of the injured party is necessary as matter of essential description of the crime charged. -In. the complaint must invest such person with individuality by either naming him or alleging that his name is unknown. is of no importance. Besides. 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. 330 STREET. WON the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom HELD 1. 1918 NATURE Review of a decision of the CFI of Province of Iloilo. when the first was not present. The rule is that an accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information. 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. due to Article 3 Sec. . However. the a2010 page 15 Prof. 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. 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.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. ISSUE WON the conviction for robbery with quadruple homicide can be sustained HELD NO . Also. an order issued by the Municipal Court of Gapan finding a prima facie case against the accused. NO . a Return of Service of one subpoena. and upon principle. the property of one Roman Estriba. be alleged as unknown it should NOT be inferred that the naming of such person. sentencing the defendants Pedro Lahoylahoy and Marcos Madanlog to death upon a complaint charging the crime of robbery with multiple homicide. when known. in case of necessity.Subsection 5 of section 6 of General Orders No. -Hence. the names of the persons against whom. the offense was committed.The said discrepancies in the testimonies were minor details which could not destroy the substance of said testimonies. Hence.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. the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED US v LAHOYLAHOY and MADANLOG 38 Phil. . The accused Poncing Abergas.00. NO . was acquitted of the charge. 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. 3. 2. in charging the crime of robbery committed upon the person.From the fact that the name of the injured person may. 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. and in addition. NO. he is deemed to have waived his objection to the information and is assumed to be satisfied with its legality. 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. Mrs. FACTS . the property obtained must be that of another. the death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. But of course if his name cannot be ascertained. ISSUES 1. It is elementary that in crimes against property.000. and a variance in this respect between the indictment and the proof will be fatal. it is perfectly clear that they could be prosecuted tomorrow for robbery committed upon issue of the credibility of the witnesses cannot be raised. among others things. . 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. It is also necessary in order to identify the offense.

HOWEVER. lawless violence. insurrection. Maceren. rebellion. . it is impossible to convict the two accused of the offense of robbery committed by them in this case. 3820 OF THE CITY OF MANILA) which may be charged against the accused for their acts to constitute a crime. or an overall length of 11-3/4 inches in the Information filed with J. by reason of the lack of conformity between the allegation and the proof respecting the ownership of the property.' 'bolo. a2010 page 16 Prof. criminality. This is essential to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly.D. 1081 are committed and abetted by the use of firearms. subversion. or to abet. the orders of dismissal were given before arraignment of the accused. The offense carries two elements: first.' 'dagger. PD 9. 1780. Informations were filed with respondent judges in their respective courts (2 Branches of CFI. outside of the scope of the statute or the city ordinance mentioned above. November 20. if concealed. the act fans within the purview of the city ordinance or some statute when the circumstances so warrant.(PD 9 punishes the offender with 5-10 yrs imprisonment. .) . -ON SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION: for a complaint or information to be sufficient it must. etc.' 'kris. The two elements of the offense covered by P.In the light of what has been said it is evident that. explosives and other deadly weapons”) and par3 (It is unlawful to carry outside of residence any bladed. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood. pointed or blunt weapon such as 'fan knife. 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.D. Reasoning. chaos and public disorder mentioned in the aforesaid Proclamation No. Polo) in violation of PD 9.there exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure. What makes the act criminal or punishable under the decree is the motivation behind it. the accused were sentenced by the Supreme Court for four separate homicides. Act 1780 with a fine of P500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or both. 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. 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. PD 9 shows that the prohibited acts need not be related to the subversive activities. Where the facts are incomplete and do not convey the elements of the crime. connected with or related to subversion. 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.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. or in connection with subversion. 3. the three Judges ordered their immediate release unless held on other charges. then CFI Samar) but upon motion to quash filed by the several accused. rebellion. and that a construction of which the PEOPLE v PURISIMA 86 SCRA 542 MUNOZ-PALMA. pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the occasion of.Purisima. state the designation of the offense by the statute. chaos. or public disorder.' 'spear. 9(3) must be alleged in the information in order that the latter may constitute a sufficiently valid charged. In the criminal case before the CFI Samar the accused was arraigned but at the same time moved to quash the Information. ice pick with an overall length of about 8 1/2 inches in the Information filed with J.' or club. socyatan in the Information filed with J. except where such articles are being used as necessary tools or implements to earn a livelihood and while being used in connection therewith. 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. inter alia. But since it was specified in the Informations that the accused were charged with violation of Par3. . and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. insurrection. 1978 NATURE Petitions for review (26 petitions consolidated) of the decisions of the Courts of First of Manila and Samar. 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. 9 (3) on the other regarding the circumstances of the commission of the crime and the penalty imposed for the offense.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the property of Juana. In all the cases where the accused were under arrest. that the act proscribed is essentially malum prohibitum penalized for reasons of public policy.' 'barong. The pertinent paragraphs of the said PD is its “Whereas” clause ("WHEREAS. the quashing of the accusation is in order. It is the second element which removes the act of carrying a deadly weapon. and therefore they cannot be convicted of the complex offense of robbery with homicide.' 'balisong. Without that motivation. organized lawlessness or public disorder.D. insurrection. Sec26. In other words. and the plea of former jeopardy would be of no avail. There are other statutes (SECTION 26 OF ACT NO. the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed. (4) that PD was enacted to eradicate lawless violence which characterized pre-martial law days. blunt. lawless violence. ORDINANCE NO. The sufficiency of an Information is determined solely by the facts alleged therein. Par. or rebellion.In the 2 cases filed before the different branches of CFI Manila. Ratio. Ordinance 3820 with a fine of not more than P200 or imprisonment for not more than 1 month or both).) -Petitioner’s Contention: (1) Par 3. or pointed weapon. 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. . the intention of the accused who commits it is immaterial. and second that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of. (3) that since it is malum prohibitum. criminality. -ON PD 9:THIS CASE INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE INTENT OF THIS P. a simple act of carrying any of the weapons described in the presidential decree is not a criminal offense in itself.

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

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

. being then laborers. MATILDE v JABSON 68 SCRA 456 ANTONIO. But with the mitigating plea of guilty. and mutually aided one another. imposing upon the accused Crisanto Matilde.58. conspiring and confederating together with one Renato Matuto y Ann. (See original for exact wording of Information. it is essential. in relation to Presidential Decree No. y Cruz. and for this she (Rita) obtained 3 checks totaling P1.An Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed three informations in Criminal Cases Nos. who is still at large. 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. Jr.When the informations were amended from Qualified Theft to Simple theft and deleting from the body of Information the phrase “Grave abuse of confidence”. only executed his sworn statement more than five months atfer the incident. or using or producing" as employee or laborer of the complainant. paragraph 3. filed with the MTC of Bauan. FACTS . NATURE Certiorari to nullify the judgment of respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal. conspired and confederated with. the aforesaid three (3) informations uniformly stated that said accused were charged with the crime of qualified theft. Servando Calpo y Caballero. 1973 in the Municipality of Pasig. all of them mutually helping and aiding one another. Batangas an Information charging Rita of the crime of estafa. ISSUE WON the information that the accused is charged with the crime of simple theft “in relation to PD 133” suffices HELD NO . Marciano K. Matilde pleaded GUILTY but the Court imposed the penalty under PD 133 and not those by Article 309 (3) of the RPC.632. 1975. Espiritu. of the Revised Penal Code. penalty is in its minimum period.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales seriously against the crimes of Murder. the penalty prescribed in Presidential Decree No. are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that their alleged guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. 133 is to place a strong deterrent on workers from sabotaging the productive efforts of the industry where they are employed. 9552." nowhere was it alleged in the body of said information that the articles stolen were materials or products which petitioner was "working on. The constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the appellants was not over-turned by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. July 30. 133. . in Criminal Cases Nos. unlawfully and feloniously take. Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder as described in the body of the Information. Luz testified that Rita delivered the baby dresses to Uniware. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 9553 and 9554 against Crisanto Matilde. he cannot be conviceted and penalized under the aforesaid decree.Luz. 133. 133. Ricardo Abener y San Pascual. A cash voucher evidencing the receipt of said amount was entered into evidence. Philippines. to wit: . 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. objective of Presidential Decree No. with intent of gain and without knowledge and consent of their employer. a2010 page 19 Prof. Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia. thru Special Counsel Aguila. 133. being then laborers working at the Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises. Province of Rizal. 1982 FACTS . The information charged that petitioner and his co-accused. It held that since the BALITAAN v CFI (DE LOS REYES) 115 SCRA 729. that the information should aver that the articles stolen were materials or products which the accused was "working on or using or producing.During trial at the MTC. GUERRERO. In three criminal cases. 9553 and 9554. Isabela is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 9552. Edgardo Cape y Atienza. one of the witnesses.) . . Rita de los Reyes is the manager of her business. grave abuse of confidence. respondent court imposed upon petitioner. 133 (which imposes a heavier penalty) instead of that imposed by Article 309. that there is no allegation in the . despite of repeated demands of Luz. as provided for in Presidential Decree No. Branch XXVI. They also took note of the fact that Pacano.Luz Balitaan owns a baby dresses mending shop. instead of that imposed by Article 309. committed as follows: "That on or about the 14th day of November. for the crime of simple theft. and Ireneo Belver y Bale. with intent of gain. through grave abuse of confidence. and directed that another one be rendered. Disposition The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan. 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. did then and there wilfully. 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. From this decision. of the Revised Penal Code. Jr.000 pesos." . the above-named accused. The information contains that Rita misappropriated P127. y Cruz. the penalty prescribed in Presidential Decree No. in stealing the articles mentioned therein belonging to their employer. and the only source of light were two kerosene lamps inside the house. Except for the dates of commission and the amounts involved.The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and set aside the judgment. its President and General Manager. 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." 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. to qualify the offense and to justify the imposition of the heavier penalty prescribed by said Decree. The accused-appellants. 133. steal and carry away the following." 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. paragraph 3. Patricio Guiruela y Luna. Although the preamble of said informations stated that petitioner was charged with the crime of simple theft "in relation to Presidential Decree No. for the crime of simple theft. December 29. and without the knowledge and consent of the said firm. 133.97.

and he didn’t receive the amount (he didn’t even know Rita). "CONTRARY TO and in VIOLATION OF Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Misamis Oriental on January 9. 1999 NATURE Automatic review FACTS . . He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. committed as follows: That on or about the 29th day of January. But this doesn’t mean that proof of deceit is not allowed for par 1b.A daughter was again allegedly raped by her own father. Cesar said he did not make the baby dresses Rita said he did. "I wish you would die. Misamis Oriental when she was awakened by the weight of her father. HELD NO . who is now facing a death sentence after having been found guilty of said crime in a Decision 1 dated June 13. 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. You are a father without good morals. demand is not necessary and deceit or false representation must be shown. she resisted his onslaught by kicking and hitting him. 1995. Even if deceit may be present. Philippines. but Rita kept the money. . the appellant entered a plea of "Not guilty" to the crime charged. 7659. . Luz then demanded from Rita the said amount. . Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Balingasag. Three weeks later. herein appellant Artemio Calayca.It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. 1995. 1995. January 20. Dispositive CFI decision to strike out testimonies is reversed and set aside. 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. (b) that there is conversion or diversion of such property by the person who has so received it. MCTC Judge Alfredo Cain found sufficient ground to prosecute the appellant for the crime of rape.] . the abuse of confidence will characterize the estafa as the deceit will be merely incidental or. inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull motion. succeeded in having carnal knowledge (sexual intercourse) with her (sic) own daughter. Abuse of confidence and deceit may co-exist.using false pretenses or fraudulent acts (Art 315 par 2a RPC)--and not thru abuse of confidence (Art 315 par 1b RPC). March 6. He forcibly undressed her.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. against her will and consent. on March 21. (SGD.When arraigned under the above-quoted Information. (c) that such conversion. is absorbed by abuse of confidence.) ROBERTO S. even though the obligation is guaranteed by a bond. 1995. 1994 at about 1:00 o'clock in the morning. on May 2. on commission. CFI granted the petition and ordered the testimonies stricken out of the record. she was sound asleep inside their house at Barangay Solo. The court overruled such objections as the lawyer of the complainant told the judge that the evidence was presented to prove that the P127. Consequently.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales information whatsoever regarding these checks and this cash voucher. she verified the receipts of the payments. . 95129. the above-named accused did then and there willfully. "Cagayan de Oro City.632." But she was helpless to resist his lustful desire as he threatened her with a knife saying. Neddy Calayca.58. Provincial Prosecutor II" . 1994. Feeling the pain in her vagina. the information must contain these elements: (a) that personal property is received in trust. narrated that at about 1:00 o'clock in the morning of January 29. the corresponding Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court reading as follows: "INFORMATION "The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor II. telling him with bitter tears. PEOPLE v CALAYCA 301 SCRA 192 MARTINEZ. the estafa committed is by abuse of confidence although deceit co-exists in its commission.The evidence for the prosecution was anchored mainly on the testimony of 16-year old Neddy Calayca who. ISSUE WON the testimonies are at variance with the allegations in the information. Under par 2a. "I will kill you if or to return the same. Municipality of Balingasag. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be stated must be determined by reference to the definitions and the essentials of the specific crimes. when she noticed that many baby dresses were lost. . 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. this automatic review. Rita gave Luz the encashed amount minus the P127. unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation. as amended by Republic Act No. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.The presence of deceit would not change the whole theory of the prosecution that estafa with abuse of confidence was committed. more or less.58 was due a Cesar Dalangin for some of the dresses he made. diversion or denial is to the injury of another and (d) that there be demand for the return of the property. accuses ARTEMIO CALAYCA of the crime of RAPE. Hence.Inasmuch as the crime of estafa through misappropriation or with grave abuse of confidence is charged. who was already on top of her. upon sworn complaint of the offended party.A rape charge was initiated by Neddy Calayca through a sworn complaint with supporting affidavits and documents 3 filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial . herein appellant Artemio Calayca. naked and armed with a bolo.The position of the defense is that the testimonies tend to prove another kind of estafa --. 1995.97. CASIÑO "Asst.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. [It turns out that Rita told Luz that P127. Neddy Calayca. Province of Misamis Oriental. Luz then instructed Rita to encash the checks and pay Cesar. The elements of these two are different. rendered by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 24) of Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case No. The testimony thus continued. Court of Balingasag. at Barangay Solo. for administration or under any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of a2010 page 20 Prof.58 was misappropriated from the P1.

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

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

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

and hence the award given by the trial court should be reduced to P150. NO a2010 page 24 Prof. we have ruled that objections as to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. 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. as follows: "That sometime in the year 1987.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales him to suffer the penalties of 3 reclusion perpetua and to pay the amount of P200. incompletely healed hymenal lacerations at 5. rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender's making good on his threats. . Based on the medical certificate. RAZONABLE. . 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. 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. the amount of P50. Ratio The rationale of the rule (Section 11. naïve and hapless child of twelve years. Reasoning . complainant went to the police station and filed a complaint. Thus. 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. Her father often drank with friends inside their house and she was wary that appellant might give her to his friends. extinction of the offense or penalty and double jeopardy. in a motion to quash said information or a motion for bill of particulars.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. 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. 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. (2) it was unnatural for Maria Fe to remain in their house if it was true that she was threatened and intimidated.000 as moral damages. entirely dependent on him for all her needs.Razonable was charged in 3 separate Informations with the crime of rape. . The only defects in an information that are not deemed waived are where no offense is charged. Experience teaches us that many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist. at the time of examination. Rule 110 of the ROC) is to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Corollarily. Mantagbac.000 for each count of rape should be awarded by way of moral damages. the above-named accused did then and there wilfully. and hence could not properly defend himself.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. 7. the accused is duty bound to follow our procedural rules which were laid down to assure an orderly administration of justice. She also feared recurrence of the bestial acts. Then they proceeded to the Camarines Norte Provincial Hospital where she was examined. Brgy. However.Firstly. 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. consistent with recent rulings. Municipality of Daet. on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form. at Purok I. against the latter's will and by means of force and intimidation.000 for each count of rape. 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. it being an essential element of the crime charged 2.000. and 9 o'clock positions. FACTS . during the trial. It could hardly be expected that such a child of tender age would know what to do and where to go under the circumstances. which are identically worded." Razonable pleaded not guilty and his case was tried on the merits. current case law dictates that the victim shall be entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50.The fact that Maria Fe continued to live with Razonable will not likewise crumple her credibility. February 24. The impression becomes more profound where the malefactor is the victim's own father. Dispositive Considering that the acts were committed prior to the effectivity of RA 7659. At the time of the incident. She was living by her lonesome self with her father. it behooved the accused to raise the issue of a defective information. 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. accompanied by her sister Ana Marie. Most often. To claim this substantive right protected by no less than the Bill of Rights. unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his own daughter MARIA FE H.The delay in the filing of the cases does not necessarily impair the credibility of the victim. . lack of jurisdiction of the offense charged. 6. 2. the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the three cases. and (3) there was an unreasonable delay in the filing of the complaint which rendered the rape charges doubtful. for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain. .Decision of the RTC AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Province of Camarines Norte. she had. An accused who fails to take this seasonable step will be deemed to have waived the defect in said information.Secondly. Likewise. to her damage and prejudice. she was a simple. On the contrary. ISSUE 1. . "The crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of relationship. 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. In fine. . and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 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. IV. 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. the face and body movements of the assailant create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from their memory. living alone for a long time. he was able to give an alibi as to his whereabouts at that particular time.

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 -

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

. 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. not only when he has waived the civil action or expressly reserved his right to institute. because the action in fact satisfies the elements of quasi-delict. . and have opted instead to recover them in the present civil case. "the proviso in Section 2 of Rule 111 with reference to . filed on September 1. said car collided with an oncoming passenger bus (No. 71 owned and operated by the Mactan Transit Co. Chief of the Misamis Occidental Hospital. may also be regarded as an unauthorized amendment of substantive law. The proviso. Garcia. 4960 of the Municipal Court of Sindangan. petitioners have in . 3 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. . which is procedural. 33 and 34 of the Civil Code is contrary to the letter and spirit of the said articles. with the filing of the aforesaid criminal case. 1971. much less has the said criminal action been terminated either by conviction or acquittal of said accused. YES Ratio An action based on quasi-delict may be maintained independently from a criminal action. hired and boarded a PU car with plate No. Zamboanga del Norte.The lower court sustained Mactan Inc. effect abandoned their right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case. together with his wife. Reasoning . the filing of the instant civil action is premature. and. in a reckless. while the PU car was negotiating a slight curve on the national highway at kilometer 21 in Barrio Guisukan. petitioners sustained various physical injuries which necessitated their medical treatment and hospitalization. because the liability of the employer is merely subsidiary and does not arise until after final judgment has been rendered finding the driver.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Mactan Transit Co. Garcia. Luminosa L.It is. Articles 32. German C. "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. and driven by respondent. As a result of the aforesaid collision. and from the order of said Court dated January 21. respectively. the same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extracontractual. FACTS . 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. . YES. We find no legal justification for respondent court's order of dismissal.As we have stated at the outset. et.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.N. 241-8 G Ozamis 71 owned and operated by respondent. petitioners. respondent Pedro Tumala was charged in Criminal Case No. . The former is a violation of the criminal law. Zamboanga del Norte". while the latter is a distinct and independent negligence. WON the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint for damages on the ground that since no express reservation was made by the complainants. . is not applicable because Art 33 applied only to the crimes of physical injuries or homicide. Hence. HELD 1. Sindangan. and are intended to constitute as exceptions to the general rule stated in what is now Section 1 of Rule 111. 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. in a complaint a2010 page 29 Prof. and driven by defendant. 25) with plate No. bookkeeper of said hospital. but also when he has actually instituted the civil action. . Pedro Tumala. 1971. under the peculiar circumstances of the case. denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 1971 with respondent Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental an action for damages (Civil Case No. . that Art. or one where reservation to file the civil action need not be made. therefore. and Pedro Tumala. Zamboanga del Norte. . and dismissed the complaint ISSUES 1. compensatory and exemplary damages 2. of the PU car and the passenger bus that figured in the collision." . pursuant to Sec. By instituting a civil action based on a quasi-delict. filed by the Chief of Police and that. For by either of such actions his interest in the criminal case has disappeared. petitioners.But in whatever way We view the institution of the civil action for recovery of damages under quasidelict by petitioners. Undoubtedly an offended party loses his right to intervene in the prosecution of a criminal case. Garcia. a complainant may be deemed to abandon his/her right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case. 2. German C. et. petitioners have thereby foreclosed their right to intervene therein. 33 of the New Civil Code. hospital administrative officers. al to in a motion to dismiss was that the petitioners had no cause of action for on August 11. 2850) against the private respondents. 7 at Zamboanga City. 33 and 34 of the Civil Code. and Ester Francisco. owners and drivers. Ricardo Vayson. Al.. and Ester Francisco. and bookkeepers of Regional Health Office No. Luminosa L.On August 4. which do not provide for the reservation required in the proviso. or 20 days before the filing of the present action for damages. having always had its own foundation and individuality.The principal argument advanced by Mactan Inc. Some legal writers are of the view that in accordance with Article 31. 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. for these articles were drafted . for the purpose of attending a conference of chiefs of government hospitals. there is no question that petitioners never intervened in the criminal action instituted by the Chief of Police against respondent Pedro Tumala. therefore. Articles 32. guilty of negligence. 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.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.In the case at bar. 1972. not to the negligent act or imprudence of the driver. Inc. Inc. for a roundtrip from Oroquieta City to Zamboanga City. Marcelino Inesin. . Garcia. 77-4 W Z. . evident that by the institution of the present civil action for damages. . Pedro Tumala. with prayer for preliminary attachment. no civil action could be filed subsequent thereto unless the criminal case has been finally adjudicated.At about 9:30 a..m.

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. 2850 should be deemed as the reservation required. 2006 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS . Veridiano II). 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. which failure resulted in the injury on petitioners. there is no limitation to the capacity of the private complainant to seek judicial review of the assailed order. Reasoning . The capability of the private complainant to question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect of the case. petitioner filed the instant petition for review. it is my considered view that the latter provision is inoperative. Jr. which means that of the two possible judgments. . namely: (a) act or omission of the private respondents. 620-621). an enactment of the legislature superseding the Rules of 1940.Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was filed by the private complainant. The violation of traffic rules is merely descriptive of the failure of said driver to observe for the protection of the interests of others.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. 22. seeking to set aside the MTC order of suspension. People v. I cannot see why a reservation had to be made in the criminal case. . RODRIGUEZ v GADIANE 495 SCRA 368 TINGA.Besides. there being no showing that prejudice could be caused by doing so. (d) existence of direct causal connection between the damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of private respondents. subject to the limitation mentioned in the last sentence of Article 2177 of the Civil Code. 607. I concur in the judgment reversing the order of dismissal of the trial court in order that Civil Case No. A special action on an order issued by a lower court in a criminal case may be filed by the private offended party. the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General in behalf of the State. (c) physical injuries and other damages sustained by petitioners as a result of the collision. 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. the injured party is entitled exclusively to the bigger one. 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. 25 by respondent Pedro Tumala resulting in the collision of the bus with the passenger car. in the cases provided for by Articles 31. it cannot stand because of its inconsistency with Article 2177. the Sol-Gen.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. Certainly excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear indication of negligence.[1] A special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an aggrieved party alleging grave abuse of however. 39 and 2177 of the Civil Code. as well as subsequent proceedings.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. 2850 may proceed. From these orders. Reasoning . Garcia. instead of the government prosecutor representing the People of the Philippines in criminal cases. an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the civil action. 33. On 28 Feb. Dacudao and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. 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. and even if it were not substantive but adjective. but it should be noted. SEPARATE OPINION BARREDO [concur] . that neither Section 1 nor Section 2 of Rule 111 fixes a time limit when such reservation shall be made. it is inevitable that the averments on the drivers' negligence in both complaints would substantially be the same. et all (73 Phil. may be instituted by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case.P. 21762194 of the New Civil Code. July 17. . Respondents’s Comment In all criminal cases. . as one based on culpa aquiliana. Branch 12.I would like to limit my concurrence. CEB-26195. for violation of B.Thomasita Rodriguez (petitioner) was the private complainant in a criminal case filed against Rolando Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols. precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. As to the specific mention of Article 2177 in Section 2 of the Rule 111. a2010 page 30 Prof. such that a private prosecutor in a criminal case has no authority to act for the People of the Philippines. But if the order which is assailed is not one dismissing the case or acquitting respondents / defendants. 2850 is predicated on the above civil code articles and not on the civil liability imposed by the Revised Penal Code. the actual filing of Civil Case No. 2 in relation to Sec. and (e) the absence of pre-existing contractual relations between the parties. 2001. Since Civil Case No. 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. it being substantive in character and is not within the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate.Accordingly. before the RTC.It is true that under Sec. 100 of the Revised Penal Code or create an action for quasidelict or culpa extra-contractual under Arts. provided said party has reserved his right to institute it separately. (Metrobank v. (respondents). all initiatory pleadings. 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. This distinction has been amply explained in Barredo vs. assailing an interlocutory order. The petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 1964. (b) presence of fault or negligence or the lack of due care in the operation of the passenger bus No. It is the government’s counsel. 1 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court which became effective on January 1. who appears in criminal cases or incidents before SC. RTC dismissed the petition for lack of conformity or signature of the government prosecutor. ISSUE WON a private offended party in a criminal proceeding may file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. . Petitioner moved MFR but was denied. Veridiano II apply. 4960) and the civil action by petitioners. that degree of care.

he paid the sum of P12. The four (4) lots have a total area of 1. docketed as Civil Case No. namely. In so doing. among others. last paid for." But. 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.200. -Sometime in January.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. and. petitioner demanded from TSDC the issuance in his favor of the certificates of title for the three (3) lots. representing unrealized gross profits. that in the case of NAGUIAT v IAC (TIMOG SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT CORP) 164 SCRA 505 PADILLA. 957. petitioner commenced the construction of a house on one lot but failed to finish it within the stipulated period of six (6) months. . -Thereafter.00 per square meter. upon conviction. petitioner. Dispositive: Petition is GRANTED. representing 10% of the alleged total price of P72. Lots Nos. SEC. 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. Also. Such interest warrants protection from the courts.00. respondent Lazatin wrote petitioner a letter reiterating standard conditions of the sale. . complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. 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. Civil Case No. with a price of P60. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. on installment basis. -Before the civil action was filed. be punished by a fine of not more than twenty thousand (P20. the possible conviction of respondents would concurrently provide a judgment for damages in favor of petitioner. which was allegedly his full payment for the remaining three (3) Lots. actual damages equal to P320. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer.067. petitioner prayed. filed a complaint for specific performance with damages.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not more than ten years: Provided.000. Issuance of Title. Each lot consists of 300 square meters. for short) as its President.000. after which. which provides: "PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 13. 14 and 15. moral damages at the discretion of the court.529. Branch LX. (iii) the effective price was P70 per square meter with a rebate of P10. On 10 August 1983.Antolin T. which the petitioner allegedly accepted by affixing his conformity to said letter. four (4) lots from TSDC. from December 1983 up to June 1984. PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF. 25.000. The conditions for the sale of the lots were among others. the latter made substantial payments in the months of June to August 1983. TSDC's Board of Directors approved the petitioner's contemplated purchase of the aforesaid lots. petitioner paid TSDC the amount of P36. but the private respondents (TSDC and Lazatin) refused on the ground that the petitioner had not fully paid for said three (3) lots. 957 REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISIONS LOTS AND CONDOMINIUMS. 15 and 16. Section 1(b).00. 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.[2] In this case. Hence.30 as his alleged full payment for Lot. (ii) said construction to be finished within a period of six (6) months. as alleged by the private respondents. Naguiat purchased.00 for the four (4) lots. Rule 111 of 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the criminal action for violation of B. A corresponding receipt for said amount was also issued by TSDC to the petitioner. The action may be prosecuted in name of said complainant. and which private respondents had refused to do so. A corresponding receipt for the downpayment was issued by TSDC to the petitioner. with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City. CEB26195 is REINSTATED a2010 page 31 Prof. for short) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of developing and selling subdivision lots in "Timog Park. -Private respondents contend that since petitioner did not comply with the agreement. While the Contract to Sell between TSDC and the petitioner stipulated a two-year period within which to pay the total contract price. specifically Section 25 thereof.97. for violation of Presidential Decree No. of Block 26 of Timog Park. 13. and as a consequence. The assailed orders of RTC are SET ASIDE. "(i) 10% down payment with a commitment to commence construction therefrom (thereon) in one month's time. Penalties. August 18. there is no doubt that petitioner maintains an interest in the litigation of the civil aspect of the case against respondents. In a long line of cases. 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. petitioner also filed on 5 June 1984 with the City Fiscal of Angeles City a criminal complaint against herein respondent Manuel Lazatin." located in Angeles City. he was not entitled to the 10% rebate in price. 4224.000. shall.00 per square meter upon completion of the house in six (6) months. petitioner allegedly failed altogether to construct houses on them.200 square meters. -On 26 July 1984. plus the costs of the action. identified as Lots Nos. and. 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. On 7 November 1983. In his complaint. Lazatin (Lazatin. No fee. 39. . SEC. 1983. No.00. TSDC caused to be issued in the name of the petitioner the title to said lot. On the same date (7 February 1983) petitioner made a down payment of P7. 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. this Court construed the term “aggrieved parties” to include the State and the private offended party or complainant.P. 1988 NATURE Petition to review on certiorari the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court FACTS -Timog Silangan Development Corporation (TSDC. attorney's fees equal to P15. And as to the other lots. with Manuel P. To confirm the agreement. it was prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the private respondents to jointly and severally pay the petitioner. 14. 16.

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

00 but making no award of damages in favor of the aggrieved party. Consolidation. was barred from filing a separate civil action for damages against the accused Cristina Malicsi. . may still be done. 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 was held that: "A Court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act. . plus damages) with a criminal action (for violation of the Minimum Wage Law). . In said criminal case. a2010 REYES v SEMPIO-DIY 141 SCRA 208 PATAJO. to clear congested dockets." Dispositive WHEREFORE. represented by a private prosecutor and the failing to make a reservation to file a separate action. Thus. the law invoked by the petitioner is inapplicable. as he pleaded guilty upon arraignment. FACTS . An exception to the above rule. based upon the express authority of Section 1. which provides: "Section 1. . and not Roa v Dela Cruz. Controlling case should be Meneses v Luat. or ex contractu." .Malicsi pleaded guilty to the information and was sentenced to pay P50. 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. Reyes was represented by a private prosecutor named Atty. .” . 1986 page 33 Prof.Instead. 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. RTC ruled in favor of the defendant. 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.In the Roa case. Peralta. Reasoning . the aggrieved party was unable to present evidence to prove damages against the accused.00 prevented petitioner from proving her claim for damages and making a reservation to file a separate civil action. plaintiff is barred). in short the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties litigants. the petition is GRANTED. In the Luat case. while it is true that Reyes was represented by a private prosecutor for the purpose of proving damages. reservation therefore…” (Judgment in such a proceeding becomes binding as res judicata. overtime and termination pay.The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits. . as held in Canos v.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. event or transaction. 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. to prevent delays. dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985 are REINSTATED. according to Roa v Dela Cruz. in Civil Case No. There was also admission that the private prosecutor was for proving damages against the accused. 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. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court. . 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 . . involve the same or like issues. and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. 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.In the present case. . The decision of the respondent appellate court. NATURE Direct appeal on a question of law from a resolution of the Regional Trial Court (Malabon). 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. plaintiff is not barred. Zenaida Cruz Reyes (petitioner) was the aggrieved party.In Canos v. the consolidation of a criminal action with a civil action arising not ex delicto. SO ORDERED.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Contract to Sell between the petitioner and the private respondent. 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 . it may order all the actions consolidated. where the Court sustained the order of a trial court to consolidate a civil action (an action for the recovery of wage differential. a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. to guard against oppression and abuse. it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions. defendant Luat did not proceed to trial. The Orders of the trial court. and not one for the recovery of civil liability arising from an offense. Hence the civil action filed by the petitioner was for the enforcement of an obligation arising from a contract. 6727. dated 9 October 1985.The issue in the RTC was WON the plaintiff. not only was the offended party represented by a private prosecutor in the criminal action. the unexpected plea of guilt by the accused and her being sentenced immediately to a fine of P50. 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.RTC: “There is no question that in defamation cases (such as the present) as in cases of fraud and physical injuries. In the Roa case.But. Peralta. hence. Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence. 4224 and Criminal Case No. January 29. the action went through trial on the merits. Because of her plea of guilty. Reyes was not able to make a reservation of her right to file a separate civil action for damages. Barayang. is SET ASIDE.MTC (Navotas): Cristina Malicsi was charged with the crime of intriguing against honor.

April 15. be granted. -December 15. said Order is now final against said plaintiffs. and attorney's fees. -May 11. and (2) to set aside its resolution of November 8. WON RTC was correct in dismissing the complaint with respect to plaintiffs Rogelio Aberca. Danilo de la Puente. -RTC NCR Branch 95 Judge Willelmo C. employing in most cases defectively issued judicial search warrants. 1983. that military men who interrogated them employed threats. Dispositive Petition is granted. a2010 page 34 Prof. -A reply was filed by petitioners on August 26. without acting on the motion to set aside order of November 8. 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. 1984. the case against the defendants (except for Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo. that plaintiffs were interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and counsel. and Master Sgt. exemplary)." -Plaintiffs resolved an amplificatory motion for reconsideration signed in the name of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) of Mabini Legal Aid Committee. -March 15. its order of May 11. and its resolution dated September 21. to the person whose constitutional rights and liberties have been violated 3. 1983 granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. Alfredo Mansos and Rolando Salutin. -Defendants filed a comment on the aforesaid motion of plaintiffs. as prayed for by the defendants. Bienvenido Balabaere) was dismissed. 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. certain members of the raiding party confiscated a number of purely personal items belonging to plaintiffs. Section 2 notwithstanding. that for some period after their arrest. -September 21. -on May 28. on the basis of the alleged failure of said plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's resolution of November 8. 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. failed to file MR within the reglementary period. moral. 1984 . nor interposed an appeal therefrom within the reglementary period. The suspension does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. and (3) the complaint states no cause of action against the defendants. 1983. harass and punish them. the provision of Rule 111. "After a careful study of defendants' arguments. defendants are immune from liability for acts done in the performance of their official duties. 1985: petitioners (plaintiffs below) filed the instant petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside RTC's resolution of November 8. that plaintiffs were arrested without proper warrants issued by the courts. -May 2. the court finds the same to be meritorious and must. 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 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. Marco Palo. 1983 and the amplificatory motion for reconsideration was filed for all the plaintiffs. that during these raids. that complying with said order. 1984: RTC Judge Esteban Lising. said plans being previously known to and sanctioned by defendants. NO ." -Plaintiffs allege. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended." -Plaintiffs filed motion to set aside the order dismissing the complaint and a supplemental motion for reconsideration. as to them. WON a superior officer under the notion of respondent superior be answerable for damages. elements of the TFM raided several places.1984: plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. November 9. therefore.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . furnishing a copy thereof to the attorneys of all the plaintiffs. -Respondents filed comment on the petition. 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. (2) assuming that the courts can entertain the present action. 1983. 1983 had already become final. 1983. On the other hand. -Plaintiffs filed two separate oppositions to the motion to dismiss.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. In effect. 1986. Alex Marcelino. 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. Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino. Plaintiffs claimed that the motion to set aside the order of November 8. granting the respondent's motion to dismiss HELD 1. issued an order declaring that since certain plaintiffs failed to file a motion to reconsider the Order of November 8. among others. alleging that it was not true that the plaintiffs mentioned in the order of May 11. dismissing the complaint. -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. 1985. 1984 declaring that with respect to certain plaintiffs. -Plaintiffs sought damages (actual/compensatory. 1984. ISSUES 1. they were denied visits of relatives and lawyers. 1984: RTC issued order dealing with both motions (1) to reconsider its order of May 11. Alan Jazminez. jointly and severally with his subordinates.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.1984: defendants filed a comment on said amplificatory motion for reconsideration. plaintiffs' arguments in their opposition are lacking in merit. the resolution of November 8. Fortun issued a resolution granting the motion to dismiss. What is suspended is merely the right of the individual to ABERCA v VER 160 SCRA 590 YAP. tortures and other forms of violence on them in order to obtain incriminatory information or confessions and in order to punish them. -Defendants filed a Consolidated Reply. although signed by only some of the lawyers.

1983. not just to the lawyers who signed the motion. Rolando Abadilla. . Jr. Col. except Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Master Sgt. YES -The doctrine of respondent superior has been generally limited in its application to principal and agent or to master and servant (i. should be considered. insurrection. "to prevent or suppress lawless violence. the same must be brought within one (1) year. Thus. he furnished copies thereof. as well as indirectly. a minimum of Idealism. On going to the bottom of the matter. meaning and a larger dimension. were merely responding to their duty. On March 25. to launch pre-emptive strikes against alleged communist terrorist underground houses.We find respondents' invocation of the doctrine of state immunity from suit totally misplaced. Panfilo Lacson. 3.At the heart of petitioners' complaint is Article 32 of the Civil Code. civilian or military.D. The rule of law must prevail.e. -The responsibility of the defendants. 1983 was filed by plaintiffs. Its message is clear. The cases invoked by respondents actually involved acts done by officers in the performance of official duties written the ambit of their powers. -However. but which reason nevertheless controls. No longer may a superior official relax his vigilance or abdicate his duty to supervise his subordinates. 2045 and 2045-A and lifting the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Col. of justice. 1981. we discover that life demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment which is not derived from reason. owe obedience and allegiance at all times. 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. Galileo Kintanar. True. the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. Democracy cannot be a reign of progress. Col. lst Lt.This must have been also the understanding of defendants' counsel himself for when he filed his comment on the motion. through counsel. it is not the actor alone (i. -By this provision. the principle of accountability of public officials under the Constitution acquires added . however. -Moreover. 2. No. Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article. But this cannot be construed as a blanket license or a roving commission untramelled by any constitutional restraint. petitioners' right and cause of action for damages are explicitly recognized in P. provided their acts or omissions do not a2010 page 35 Prof. The authority of an attorney to appear for and in behalf of a party can be assumed. -RTC was therefore mistaken in dropping defendants General Fabian Ver. -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.In carrying out this task and mission to protect the Republic from its enemies. For this purpose. revoking Proclamation Nos. Now this respect implies a maximum of faith. 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. 2. as they claim. to disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and protected by the Constitution. the decisive factor in this case.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. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land to which all officials. the motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. if admitted hypothetically. unless the law is respected by him who makes it and by him for whom it is made. Danilo Pizarro. as members of the AFP. Col. and in pursuance of such objective. in our view. employer and employee) relationship. it does not and cannot suspend their rights and causes of action for injuries suffered because of respondents' confiscation of their private belongings. Lt. the signing attorneys did so on behalf of all the plaintiff. dismissing for lack of cause of action the complaint against all the defendants. The complaint contained allegations against all the defendants which. does not exempt the respondents from responsibility. would be sufficient to establish a cause or causes of action against all of them under Article 32 of the Civil Code. It may be that the respondents. Pedro Tango. and no others. Ricardo Bacalso from the acts of their subordinates. 1986. high or low. we find it unnecessary to address the constitutional issue pressed upon us. 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. Romeo Ricardo and Lt. Col. responsible for the transgression joint tortfeasors. President Corazon C. rebellion and subversion" in accordance with Proclamation No. unless questioned or challenged by the adverse constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. 1755 which amended Article 1146 of the Civil Code by adding the following to its text: “However. is the language of Article 32. Bienvenido Balaba. it is difficult to justify the trial court's ruling. is amply set forth in the complaint. 2 . only the facts alleged in the complaint. The question therefore has become moot and academic. Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons who are directly. 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. -Be that as it may.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales seek release from detention through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his liberty.. 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.e. -Applying this test. Certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and cannot be sacrificed to the transient needs or imperious demands of the ruling power. detention and/or trial of the plaintiff. Aquino issued Proclamation No. the one directly responsible) who must answer for damages under Article 32. despite the lifting of martial law on January 27. 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. of liberty. They needed no specific authority to do that. as enumerated therein. Capt. Gerardo Lantoria. 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. . when the action (for injury to the rights of the plaintiff or for a quasi-delict) arises from or out of any act. or else liberty will perish. constitutional and legal safeguards must be observed. no man may seek to violate those sacred rights with impunity. -In filing the motion to set aside the resolution of November 8. activity or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law including the arrest. whether direct or indirect. Fidel Singson. 2054 of President Marcos. NO -A timely motion to set aside said order of November 8. but to all the lawyers of plaintiffs. . To determine the sufficiency of the cause of action. No such relationship exists between superior officers of the military and their subordinates.

pursuant to our Constitution which the people decisively ratified on February 2. If the government becomes the law breaker. For good or ill. 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. January 22. montisco. . Criminal Case No. However.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales party or the party concerned. 1984.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. appeal from the decision on the civil aspect which is deemed instituted with the criminal action and such appeal. Hudas. SC annuled and set aside the resolution of the respondent court. petitioner sought relief from the RTC. Aquino after her assumption of office in February. 2. at which petitioner.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. NO . Case remanded to the respondent court for further proceedings. 1986 was to file our government's ratification and access to all human rights instruments adopted under the auspices of the United Nations. as regards both civil and criminal actions.. prevents the decision on the civil liability from attaining finality. it breeds contempt for the law.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. traitor." . freely translated. WON petitioner is entitled to an award of damages HELD 1. Petitioner may. More than this. a2010 page 36 Prof. he assumed the risk that in the event he failed to recover damages he cannot appeal from the decision of the lower court. Judas" and other words and statements of similar import which caused great and irreparable damage and injury to his person and honor. defeat. publicly and maliciously uttering the following insulting words and statements: "Gago ikaw nga Barangay Captain. a crime has dual character: (1) as an offense against the state because of the disturbance of the social order. be they public officers or employees." in relation to Article 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict. Trial ensued. stand liable and may be sued in court for damages as provided in Art. timely taken. Costs against private respondents.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. 1984 and its resolution dated September 21." which. The right of either to appeal or not to appeal in the event of conviction of the accused is not dependent upon the other.Respondents’ Comment The decision of the trial court carries with it the final adjudication of her civil liability. 1717. 1983.No damages were awarded to petitioner. existence of the government be imperilled following it fails to observe the law scrupulously.All persons.Disagreeing. ignoramus. San Remigio — Belison. tyrant. The accused may seek a review of said judgment. its order dated May 11. Province of Antique.Brandeis:"In a government of laws. . a criminal complaint for Grave Oral Defamation against private respondent Cristina Vegafria for allegedly openly. it invites anarchy. YES . Coloma: from a judgment convicting the accused. . . malugus. It was only the unappealed criminal aspect of the case which has become final. including moral and exemplary. 1987. mean: "You are a foolish Barangay Captain. ISSUES 1.Petitioner Eulogio Occena instituted before the Second Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sibalom. it invites every man to become a law unto himself. Our government is the potent omnipresent teacher. the provisions for independent civil actions in the Chapter on Human Relations and the provisions regulating damages. and SEPARATE OPINION TEEHANKEE [concur] . 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. dated November 8. WON the decision of the MCTC constitutes the final adjudication on the merits of private respondent's civil liability 2. with his subordinates who committed such transgressions. without reserving his right to file a separate civil action for damages actively intervened thru a private prosecutor. traidor. To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means . OCCENA v ICAMINA 181 SCRA 328 FERNAN.Private respondent as accused therein entered a plea of not guilty. . also found in the Civil Code. . slander or any other form of defamation. Dispositive Petition granted. 32 of the Civil Code. accordingly. two (2) appeals may. Since petitioner chose to actively intervene in the criminal action without reserving his right to file a separate civil action for damages.After trial. . . 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. private respondent was convicted of the offense of Slight Oral Defamation and was sentenced to pay a fine of Fifty Pesos (P50.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.People vs. declaring thereby the government's commitment to observe the precepts of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. be taken. and Article 2219 of the New Civil Code providing that moral damages may be recovered in libel. either because the lower court has refused to award damages or because the award made is unsatisfactory to him. which was never done in this case. it teaches the whole people by example..It need only be pointed out that one of the first acts of the present government under President Corazon C. . as he did. would bring terrible retribution. which denied his petition. . 1990 NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the decision of RTC FACTS . violate or in any manner impede or impair the constitutional rights and civil liberties of another person. Crime is contagious. . or members of the military or police force or private individuals who directly or indirectly obstruct.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. while the complainant may appeal with respect only to the civil action.

e. the Bonite heirs have the right to file an independent civil action for damages despite the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case. 1988 .Article 2219. arising not from criminal negligence. tyrant and Judas is clearly an imputation of defects in petitioner's character sufficient to cause him embarrassment and social humiliation. The offended party is likewise allowed to recover punitive or exemplary damages. FACTS . J.000) as exemplary damages.00) as moral damages and the further sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10. par. private prosecutor Atty. Reasoning .In the course of the trial. the reservation of the right to file an independent civil action has been deleted from Section 2. in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10. . . espionage. a caminero of the Bureau of Public Highways was killed when he was hit by a truck driven by Abamonga. Dispositive The petition was granted. . .It has been held that Article 2176 of the Civil Code. (7) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case of libel. provided that the offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both scores. Zosa.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. fraud. III. 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. Calling petitioner who was a barangay captain an ignoramus.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. . 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.In the case at bar. in this case the Civil Code.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales (2) as an offense against the private person injured by the crime unless it involves the crime of treason.000.Aside from basing their action for damages in Article 29 of the Civil Code. is not a bar to a subsequent civil action for recovery of civil liability. has been declared as not in accordance with law. whether on reasonable doubt or not. the petitioners actively participated in the proceedings through their lawyer. the petitioners may also rely on Article 2176 which provides that acquittal of the accused from a charge of criminal negligence. or physical injuries were intentionally committed. whether done intentional or negligently and whether or not punishable by law. the accused was acquitted because there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed by the surviving heirs of Bonite but Abamonga was acquitted because of insufficient evidence. in consonance with the decisions of this Court declaring such requirement of a reservation as ineffective. Br. but from a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may still be instituted against him. 1968.. . In fact.00 as exemplary damages.The requirement in Section 2 of Rule 111 of the former Rules on Criminal Procedure. a2010 page 37 Prof.The respondent’s argument that the applicable provision is Article 33 is devoid of merit because of the abovementioned argument. Petitioner testified to the feelings of shame and anguish he suffered as a result of the incident complained of. The civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal of the accused. whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. 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. 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. traitor. Dispositive WHEREFORE.In the criminal case against Abamonga.September 24. Clearly. Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. BONITE v ZOSA 162 SCRA 180 PADILLA. In addition. 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.As a general rule. and only a preponderance of evidence is required to hold the accused liable. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. that there be a reservation in the criminal case of the right to institute an independent civil action. 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. . June 20. the orders of the respondent court are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. It is regarded as an unauthorized amendment to the substantive law. 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. ISSUE WON an independent civil action for damages. 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. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act. . where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt (based on Article 29 of the Civil Code).00 and a further sum of P5. 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. .December 28.000.There is here an offended party. . Dulalas. In the ultimate analysis. . 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. Article 33 assumes defamation. . rebellion. under Article 29 of the Civil Code. . 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. 2 PM – Bonite.000.Petitioner is entitled to moral damages in the sum of P5. in referring to "fault or negligence" covers acts "not punishable by law" as well as acts that may be criminal in character. 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.

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

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. 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. in violation of the provisions of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. considered by that court. 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. appears to have been allowed on account of the permanent diminution of Sternberg's ability to earn money. and that. 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. based on the alleged failure of PAL to carry safely Richard Parker from Daet.800. P48. of the Rules of Court. an injured person had the right to intervene in the prosecution of the accused for the purpose of having his damages ascertained. . the government would have had the right to meet it and be heard upon it in that court. the question of former jeopardy.. To permit the question to be raised here for the first time. That was not done in this case. Inc. 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. We have reached this conclusion after a most careful examination of all the testimony upon this point.CFI suspended the hearing until the final determination of the criminal case which was then pending appeal in the SC. The refusal of the trial court to allow the injured person to introduce evidence as to his damages is. which provides that no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered. Dispositive The award of damages is reduced to P1. 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. 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.There can be no objection to allowing the physicians' fees of P500 and P1. The trial court was required to include the amount of these damages in the judgment of conviction. expressly preserves this right to the injured person.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”. ISSUES 1.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. . and there is no showing that the lower court has abused its discretion is suspending the hearing. according to established rules and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. invoking (then) sec 1 Rule 107. the petition for certiorari must fail. 2. therefore. If it had been introduced as evidence. Rule 107. . Dispositive Petition denied introduced as evidence and was not. PAL presented an oral motion for the suspension of the hearing. . inasmuch as petitioner had failed to expressly reserve her right to institute the civil action separately. quoted supra. 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. Respondents’ Comments “When a criminal action is instituted. the remaining part of the record was not . The remainder.When the case was set for the continuation of the hearing.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. of the Rules of Court 2. a2010 page 39 Prof. 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.Asuncion Parker and her minor daughter Kathleen filed a complaint for damages against Philippine Air Lines. 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. NO . The plain provisions of section 107 of our criminal procedure. . To do so it must not only hold. WON CFI was correct in considering and applying Sec 1." . The evidence of record does not establish such disability with that degree of certainly which will justify an award for that purpose. Petitioners’ Claim It was a mistake on the part of respondent judge to consider and apply Sec 1. 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. Rule 107 of the Rules of Court. YES.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. unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately”. A criminal case was already filed in CFI Camarines Norte against the supposed guilty parties.700. March 5.Inasmuch as the power to grant or refuse continuances is inherent in all courts unless expressly limited by statute. 1952 NATURE Certiorari and mandamus FACTS . NO . WON respondent judge erred in suspending the hearing HELD 1. . therefore. the defendant to suffer subsidiary imprisonment.300 for the three months' salary.Under the Spanish criminal law. I am inclined to believe that this court should not take up and discuss. 2.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. . Camarines Norte to Manila. The plea of former conviction or once in jeopardy should. clearly prejudicial error. much less decide. impliedly instituted with the criminal action. Parker vehemently opposed. whereas the criminal case involves the civil liability of the accused. which in no event can exceed onethird of the principal penalty. in case of insolvency. being the time the injured party was incapacitated from performing the work in which he was then engaged. PARKER v PANLILIO and PHIL AIR LINES 91 PHIL 1 BAUTISTA ANGELO.

1984. as such. Reasoning . The RTC decided in favor of the Camaso’s and held the defendants (herein petitioners) jointly and severally liable for damages.Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code. dismissed the petition and the subsequent MFR.Under the aforecited provisions of the rule. their enforcement cannot be conditioned on a reservation to bring the action to enforce them separately. reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.Private respondent admits that he did not reserve the right to institute the present civil action against Andaya’s employer. Baguio City. Herminio Andaya. 1989. Inc. ** 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. ISSUE WON despite the absence of reservation. CA decision AFFIRMED.1982. 5. . otherwise they will be deemed to . with the consequence that the prosecution failed to prosecute its case. which then moved said defendants Yakult and Salvado to appeal the judgment. it was nevertheless instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action. Boado may nonetheless bring an action for damages against petitioner under the Art. based on the same accident. 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code are substantive rights and.One of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado along Loakan Road.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. YAKULT PHILIPPINES v CA [CAMASO] 190 SCRA 357 GANCAYCO. with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City . cannot be filed independently of the criminal action and that under Rule 111 Sec.CA dismissed his petition . But the trial court denied petitioner’s motion on the ground that pursuant to the Civil Code. and damages under Articles 32. 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.. 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 111.2176. herein petitioner Ruben Maniago. .There is no dispute that private respondent. Herminio Andaya. David) against Yakult and Salvado. however. that the rights provided in Arts. 1992 for failure of the prosecution to file a formal offer of its evidence. the dismissal of the criminal case brought with it the dismissal of the civil action. (The records show that while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals. Their argument was that the civil action for damages for injuries arising from alleged criminal negligence. .The CA on Nov.A month later. Dispositive petition DENIED. . He contends. as offended party in the criminal case. did not reserve the right to bring a separate civil action.Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments.An information was then filed on Jan.) .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales a2010 page 40 Prof. 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. Accordingly. Larry Salvado on Dec. 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 . . February 20. the action could proceed independently of the criminal action. a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed against petitioner’s driver. a complaint for damages was filed in the RTC of Manila by Roy Camaso (represented by his father. 2180 and 2177 of the Civil Code and Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. § 1.5 year old Roy Camaso (standing on a sidewalk) was sideswiped by a motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines and driven by its employee. 1996 FACTS .1983 against Salvado charging him with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries. Oct. citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. either against the driver. §1 quite clearly requires that a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery of civil liability. 33. it seems to be petitioner’s argument that since the civil action to recover damages was impliedly instituted with the criminal action. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. . 1990 NATURE Petition for review of decision of the CA FACTS . otherwise it should be dismissed.Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him.On Oct. They also filed a peitition for certiorari in the CA challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction in the civil case. there being no malice.1 of the 1985 Rules of Crim.Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal case. from Baguio City proper to its plant site at the Export Processing Authority in Loakan. . and the presiding judge handling the criminal action was duly informed thereof. such that no damages was awarded in the disposition of the criminal action. Pro. MANIAGO vCA (BOADO) 253 SCRA 674 MENDOZA. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action. or against the latter’s employer. Baguio City. . such a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly made. in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the criminal case. the criminal action was dismissed on July 10. As a result of the accident.

otherwise the action will be deemed to have been instituted with the criminal action. Jao and a passenger bus of herein petitioner San Ildefonso Lines. April 24. But if the right to bring a separate civil action (whether arising from the crime or from quasi-delict) is reserved. is waived. SILI) collided with each other at the intersection of Julia Vargas Avenue and Rodriguez Lanuza Avenue in Pasig. . P50. herein private respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (PISC). (hereafter. 1991 charging the driver of the bus.In Jarantilla v. 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. 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.00 as exemplary damages. .500. 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. except only (1) when such action a2010 page 41 Prof. arising from the same act or omission. . the requirement that before a separate civil action may be brought it must be reserved does not impair. on the basis of Rule 111. . INC. §§1-3. with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries. Any award made against the employer.” 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. whether based on his subsidiary civil liability under Art. 1992. totally wrecking the Toyota van and injuring Ms.In Garcia v. 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. .In Abellana v. one thing is clear: The change has been effected by this Court. a Toyota Lite Ace Van being driven by its owner Annie U. (2) the right to bring it separately is reserved or (3) such action has been instituted prior to the criminal action.00 (P454. 1998 NATURE Petition for review after a motion for reconsideration of respondent court judgment was denied FACTS . 2180 of the Civil Code. as insurer of the van and subrogee.000. as a general rule. 29 of the Civil Code. 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. . the criminal action was filed against the employee. This is because of Art. There is a practical reason for requiring that the right to bring an independent civil action under the Civil Code separately must be reserved. 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. . SAN ILDEFONSO LINES. 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action. 103 of the Revised Penal Code or his primary liability under Art. herein petitioner Eduardo Javier.000. as long as the right to bring or institute a separate action (whether arising from crime or from quasi delict) is not reserved. It is to avoid the filing of more than one action for the same act or omission against the same party.About four (4) months later. 2180 of the Civil Code. totaling P564. A careful examination of the cases. impliedly instituted with the criminal action.In the afternoon of June 24. . 1991.Contrary to private respondent’s contention. bus driver. 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.In the present case. or on January 13. .It is the conduct of the trial of the civil action . 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. Had the driver been convicted and found insolvent. v CA (PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION) 300 SCRA 484 MARTINEZ.Nor does it matter that the action is against the employer to enforce his vicarious liability under Art. There are statements in some cases implying that Rule 111. 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. diminish or defeat substantive rights. P50. Even if an action has not been reserved or it was brought before the institution of the criminal case. however. .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. a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. §§1 and 3 are beyond the rulemaking power of the Supreme Court under the Constitution. which is the subject of the criminal action.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales have been instituted with the criminal case. . the employer is very much a party.000. 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. Inc.00 as attorney's fees. Dispositive The decision appealed from is REVERSED and the complaint against petitioner is DISMISSED. The rule requiring reservation in the end serves to implement the prohibition against double recovery for the same act or omission. . B.the rulings in these cases are consistent with the proposition herein made that.which is allowed to proceed independently of the outcome of the criminal case.A criminal case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig on September 18. is ultimately recoverable from the accused. The new rules require reservation of the right to recover the civil liability.not its institution through the filing of a complaint . Metro Manila.00 as actual/compensatory damages. his employer would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. a civil action for the recovery of civil liability is. Reasoning A. 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. Though not an accused in the criminal case. seeking to recover the sums it paid the assured under a motor vehicle insurance policy as well as other damages. filed a case for damages against petitioner SILI with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. but only regulates their exercise in the general interest of orderly procedure. Jao and her two (2) passengers in the process.

1. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which reads: "Sec. 33. However. together with their respective parents. FACTS . against the Victory Liner.It should be noted that while it was ruled in Abella vs. at the fore is Section 3. 1995. upholding the assailed Manila Regional Trial Court Order. NO . The "manifestation and motion to suspend civil proceedings" filed by petitioners is granted. Without such reservation. 3. as subrogee. the criminal action proceeded in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. 34 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. . however. in short. 1957. . The accused Felardo Paje was convicted of the offense charged. Inc. the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action.Private respondent PISC. “the 1988 amendment expands the scope of the civil action which is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless waived. in the municipality of Lubao. whose learned explanation on the matter was aptly pointed out by petitioners.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales P10. This was denied by the Manila Regional Trial Court in its Order dated July 21." 2. he was acquitted with the CA holding that "CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is WANTING in this case.On January 23. 2. private respondent Felardo Paje. Peralta":"… to avoid multiplicity of suits. When civil action may proceed independently. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.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. -. 1983 NATURE Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. remedial law expert and a member of the committee which drafted the 1988 amendments. a decision adverse to petitioners once again was rendered by respondent court. 1993 . Hence. Jao (as owner of the insured Toyota van). 33. Jao ought to follow had she herself instituted the civil case. an information for homicide and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed against Felardo Paje in the CFI of Pampanga. petitioners filed on September 18. referred to public respondent Court of Appeals for disposition. then it MARCIA v CA (PAJE and VICTORY LINER) 120 SCRA 190 RELOVA.Far from altering substantive rights. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Dispositive The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 24.While said Civil Case was in progress in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. 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.According to Justice Jose Y. it is easily deducible from the present wording of Section 3 as brought about by the 1988 amendments to the Rules on Criminal Procedure -. and P500. January 27. this petition for review after a motion for reconsideration of said respondent court judgment was denied.On December 23.On the chief issue of "reservation". to prevent delays. petitioners elevated the matter to this Court via petition for certiorari which was. . ISSUES a2010 page 42 Prof. resulting in the latter's death and in physical injuries to herein petitioners. 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. the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants.00 as litigation expenses. NO . .1995 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof are reversed. on appeal to the Court of Appeals. 1995 and the Resolution dated April 3. Thereupon.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. and that appellant was NOT even guilty of CIVIL NEGLIGENCE.00 as appearance fees. On February 24. collided with a jeep driven by Clemente Marcia. 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. Under the present Rule as amended.In the cases provided for in Articles 32. an action for damages was filed in the CFI of Rizal by Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. alleging that the mishap was due to the reckless imprudence and negligence of the latter in driving the passenger bus. Feria.particularly the phrase "… which has been reserved" -. 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. but also damages under Article 2176 (quasi-delicts) of the said code. such a civil action includes not only recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code and damages under Articles 32. . unless previously waived or instituted.) . . such a reservation is necessary under the amended rule. to borrow the words of the Court in "Caños v. In other words. is bound to observe the procedural requirements which Ms. shall proceed independently of the criminal action. and Felardo Paje.After their motion for reconsideration of said July 21. Marave (57 SCRA 106) that a reservation of the right to file an independent civil action is not necessary. and driven by its employee. to guard against oppression and abuse. Inc. the primary purpose of the reservation is. 1993 Order was denied. Pampanga. to simplify the work of the trial court." . to clear congested dockets. the independent civil action which has been reserved may be brought by the offended party.that the "independent" character of these civil actions does not do away with the reservation requirement. reserved or previously instituted. 1956. Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. As private respondent PISC merely stepped into the shoes of Ms. 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. a passenger bus operated by private respondent Victory Liner.000.

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. bars the filing of an independent civil action if it is based on the crime. abducted her in the vicinity of San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City and brought her to a motel where she was raped. Independent civil action. 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. Plaintiff’s Claim Conrado Bunag Jr. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. 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. the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision dismissing plaintiffs' complaint against the defendants Victory Liner. As early as 1952. and his father Conrado Bunag Sr. 29. it is as good as saying as if he did not commit the crime charged. no civil liability arises. may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case. 33.The dismissal did not in any way affect the right of Zenaida Cirilo to institute a civil action arising from the offense. an acquittal based on the a2010 page 43 Prof. was absolved from any and all liability. from civil liability. civil action—preponderance of evidence) finding that the facts upon which civil liability did not exist.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.We do not agree.Also. after a few days.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Insofar as appellant was concerned. 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. herein private respondents. 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. 20ktemperate damages and 10k attorney’s fees) Bunag Sr. July 10. Cavite. 2. They are not one of the three (3) crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code and. 91 Phil. ISSUE WON the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting the accused in reckless imprudence on the ground that the incident was accidental. 1973. and Felardo Paje. should apply in the case at bar. . this recourse. Reasoning . Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. which basically affirmed the RTC decision. 1966. unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.It is the stand of herein petitioners that Section 2. therefore. There being no crime committed. 1973 Conrado Bunag Jr. We have held in the case of Tan vs. On August 10. However. moved for the dismissal of the complaint invoking the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting Felardo Paje and citing Section 1 (d). v CA (CIRILO) 211 SCRA 440 REGALADO.The Cirilo’s filed a complaint for damages against Conrado Bunag Jr. Since. -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). "Sec. 672. Also. provided the right is reserved as required in the preceding section. ISSUE WON the Fiscal’s dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction with rape extinguished the civil liability of Conrado Bunag Jr HELD NO . Standard Vacuum Oil Company. not Section 3 (c) thereof. there are different rules as to the competency of witnesses and the quantum of evidence in criminal and civil proceedings. Inc. Respondent’s Comment Conrado Bunag Jr. returned which humiliated Zenaida and compelled her to go back to her parents. assured them that the couple were to be married). 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.On Sept. Reasoning -Generally. left and never . .and Zenaida Cirilo had earlier made plans to elope and get married (same as first set of facts) . every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Rule 107 of the Rules of Court (now Section 3 (c). Hence. 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. to pay damages (80Kmoral damages. BUNAG JR. . no civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. Conrado filed an affidavit withdrawing his application for a marriage license. Rule 111 of the New Rules of Court). as he intended to marry her .CA affirmed in toto . However.despite the prior dismissal of the complaint therefore filed by Zenaida with the Pasay City Fiscal’s Office. so much so that she promised not to make any scandal and to marry him. The Trial Court ordered Bunag Jr. 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.In the cases provided for in Articles 31. 1992 NATURE Petition for review from the decision of the CA FACTS . the CA held that this was a case of PURE ACCIDENT. 8. Petitioners appealed the case to the CA." ." . Afterwhich he said that he would not let her go unless they get married.(criminal action – proof beyond reasonable doubt. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. 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.' this declaration fits well into the exception of the rule which exempts the accused. (Zenaida’s uncle claims that Bunag Sr. They filed their application for marriage license with the Local Civil Registral of Bacoor. 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." .As a consequence. the CA found that this case was of pure accident.20K-exemplary damages. defendants in Civil Case of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. They went to his gradmother’s house and lived together as husband and wife for 21 days until Bunag Jr. an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. 32.

1975. 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. L-40992. 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. the court below rendered judgment on May 23.. 47207 thereof. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. 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. They also . the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. assailing the aforesaid order of the trial court. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. 1971 in lznart Street. March 29. petion denied. . . 1975 an order of denial. that the two cases were anchored on two different causes of action..Under the present jurisprudential milieu. Dispositive Decision of CA affirmed. There is no declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil case might arise did not exist. Petitioner was acquitted in said criminal case "on reasonable doubt". .The aforecited case of Lontoc vs. and which civil action involved the same subject matter and act complained of in Criminal Case No. . is barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No.. Consequently. 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. additionally. prohibition and mandamus. 47027. Petitioner thereafter filed in this Court a petition for certiorari.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. March 21.Thereafter. The rules nowhere provide that if the court fails to determine the civil liability it becomes no longer enforceable. expressly declared that the failure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his right to file a separate civil case is not fatal. a2010 page 44 Prof.After trial. 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. 3 Rule 111. . said civil case may proceed as authorized by Article 29 of the Civil Code. private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the former Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Private respondent.The action is based on a quasi-delict. 9976. to recover damages on both scores. . et al. The Court. was then driven by petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street toward the direction of the provincial capitol. which was docketed as G.Private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swiped by a vehicle in the evening of July 7. docketed therein as Civil Case No. FACTS . especially considering that the accused therein was acquitted because his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. JARANTILLA v CA (SING) 171 SCRA 429 REGALADO. In his answer filed therein. ISSUE WON the private respondent. Hill that: . refers JIMENEZ v AVERIA 22 SCRA 380 DIZON.Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then City Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence 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. 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.On October 30. if he is also actually charged criminally.. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. and that in the judgment in the criminal case the aspect of civil liability was not passed upon and resolved. acting on a motion to dismiss of therein defendant. if any. 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 . Thus. and a motion for reconsideration thereof was denied for the same reason in a resolution of October 28. 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. 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. provided that the offended party is not allowed. and that private respondent sustained physical injuries as a consequence. (c) of Sec. as the complaining witness therein. favorable or unfavorable.000 received from Manuel Jimenez for the purchase of a fishing boat named Basnig. And that the failure of the court to make any pronouncement. a Volkswagen (Beetle type) car. In other words. 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. No. in arriving at the conclusion hereinbefore quoted. Said petition was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's resolution of July 23. involved virtually the same factual situation. 1974. the trial court issued on April 3. Branch IV. MD Transit & Taxi Co. . that the latter's cause of action.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales .R. the petitioner alleged as special and affirmative detenses that the private respondent had no cause of action and. 1977 in favor of the herein private respondent and ordering herein petitioner to pay damages. where the trial court acquits the accused on reasonable doubt. 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 . 1975.Ofelia V. The Court has also heretofore ruled in Elcano vs. Inc. that his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing a separate civil action for damages. Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday were charged with estafa in the CFI of Cavite with the information alleging that they misappropriated P20. 1968 FACTS . 1989 NATURE Appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the decision of the trial court awarding damages to the private respondent. .

and the further sum of P240. even supposing that both the civil and the criminal case involve the same question and one must precede the other. Reasoning: . thus giving lie to his express manifestation that the property was free from all liens and encumbrances. . ISSUE WON the is a prejudicial question.Applying these to the case. thus he could no longer be tried pending the termination of the civil suit. in turn. based . it will be readily seen that the alleged prejudicial question is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the a2010 page 45 Prof.00 as agent's commission. the questions must be determinative of the case before the court. Therefore.00 with which to purchase for him a fishing boat and its accessories. it should be the civil case which should be suspended rather than the criminal. which is the subject of the criminal case.After a few days. they misappropriated the money and refused or otherwise failed to return it to him upon demand. Reasoning . .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales have the obligation to return the money if they do not purchase the boat. In the present proceedings.000. determination of the charge of falsification would be based on the truth or falsity of the narration of facts in the affidavit of adjudication. (question ) is a logical antecedent of the issued involved in said case.The issue of fraud and deceit raised in the civil case does not constitute a prejudicial question. the resolution of which.A prejudicial question has been define to be one which arises in a case. to await the result of the latter. because even on the assumption that the execution of the receipt whose annulment they sought in the civil case was vitiated by fraud. After the criminal case was instituted.33 of CC. then the trial for the criminal case. v. The criminal court must now try the estafa case against the two accused.000. . the civil case parties charged with estafa. sale.It is indispensable then for this petition to succeed that the alleged prejudicial question must be determinative of the criminal case before respondent Judge. to the degree required by law.If the ruling were otherwise. * * *. and should have filed a mandamus to the SC instead – to compel the lower court to proceed with the case. and that jurisdiction to try and resolve said question must be lodged in another tribunal. entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. and prohibition against the order setting the trial. ISSUE WON the determination of the issue raised in the civil case mentioned heretofore is a prejudicial question.Pre-ratio: Jimenez erred in the filing of a certiorari petition.Before arraignment. and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. to return the aforesaid amounts on January 30. their guilt could still be established by other evidence showing. instead of doing so. in the sense that it must be first resolved before the proceedings in the criminal case for estafa may proceed HELD NO . 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.Dela Cruz v City Fiscal: Regardless of the outcome of the pending civil case for annulment of the affidavit of adjudication.CFI Judge Alikpala ordered the arraignment. is not present in this case. thus requiring the resolution of the civil action for the determination of the criminal case HELD NO Ratio: A prejudicial question. 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. . Rojas filed an action for certiorari against the arraignment order. which they did not do. 1963 in case they were unable to buy the fishing boat. 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.Rojas was charged w/ violation of Art. ROJAS v PEOPLE (ALIKPALA) 57 SCRA 243 FERNANDO.00 with which to buy for him a fishing boat.319 violation was the filing of 5 estafa cases against Rojas. But. fraud and physical injuries. . on the civil action for the revocation of the management contract. the cases could proceed independently pursuant to Art. May 31. the civil case does not involve a question prejudicial to the criminal case. there would hardly be a case for estafa that could be prosecuted speedily. . 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 . which provides: In cases of defamation. a civil action for damages. duress or intimidation. raising therein the issue that he had not received from the latter the amount alleged to have been misappropriated.Pisalbor. which is must be determinative of the case before the court. 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. Tesoro: CFI erred in holding that the criminal case should be suspended. and jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in another court.Judge Averia granted the motion and hence this certiorari petition . that they had actually received from the complaint the sum of P20.319 (Removal. He contended that a prejudicial question was involved. The respondents. and that. . with the obligation. contended that the resolution of the civil case will not determine the liability of Rojas in the criminal case (not a prejudicial question). It is not so in this case. 1962 wherein they acknowledged having received from him the sum of P20.Note: the trigger for the filing of information re: art. 1974 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS . and even granting that there was a prejudicial question. Simply put. for to whomsoever the land may be awarded after all the evidence has been presented in the civil case. . and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. may not affect the alleged crime committed by the notary public. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. 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 civil case was filed against him by the offended party (CMS Estate) for the termination of a management contract. on their part. 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.

RAS ANSWER > they never sold the property to Pichel > the signatures appearing in the deed of sale in favor of plaintiff Pichel were forgeries .If the first alleged sale in favor of Pichel is void or fictitious.there appears to be a prejudicial question in the case at bar. 1978 . . The invocation of the doctrine of prejudicial question is thus attended with futility. thus they are to proceed independently. . be passed upon by the court trying the criminal case.Moreover. . a Criminal Case (the Criminal Case) was filed against the respondents for theft RAS v RASUL 100 SCRA 125 TEEHANKEE. 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.Felipe Rivera died leaving certain properties in San Carlos.September 5. xxx.April 27.December 4. Guanteros.December 12. 1910-B. 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. for a period of ten agricultural crop years. Rufino leased the properties to Dr. 1978 is hereby set aside.33 explicitly provides that in cases of xxx fraud. and a901B which were all sugar lands. there’s realy no discussion. . 1982 NATURE Petition for certiorari to review Negros CFI order FACTS . Concepcion.while Civil Case was being TRIED before CFI Basilan. 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. September 18.On August 31. Reasoning . may be brought by the injured party. 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. Art. under the circumstances. . 1978 . puro citations. 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. 1978 . 1980 NATURE Petition to review and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated December 12. 1976 and was terminated on the basis of a Project of Partition among Rufino Rivera Damandaman. the petitioner. a2010 page 46 Prof.In the meantime. Negros Occidental.Isip v. . 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. . according to the petitioner. 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 . His estate was settled in a special proceeding on November 24.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. 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. Personal note: ang pangit ng case. JR.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales aforementioned does not involve a prejudicial question. Democrata Guantero. August 30. . it must appear not only that the civil case LIBRODO v COSCOLLUELA. and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.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 . Librodo. Dispositive Order of respondent judge in Criminal Case dated December 12.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.Rufino’s share of the estate comprise of lots designated as Lots 559-B. fraud is the basis for both the civil and criminal actions. On January 18.November 6. (GUANTERO) 116 SCRA 303 MELENCIO-HERRERA. > therefore the alleged deed of sale in Pichel's favor sought to be declared valid was fictitious and inexistent . . The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on May 16. involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is based. On August 10. then there would be no double sale and petitioner would be innocent of the offense charged. 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. harvested the sugar canes he planted on the land he leased from Rufino. 1978 . Dispositive Petition DENIED.in this case. 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. a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. that’s why this digest is also full of it. . private respondents. 1906-B. and Zosimo Guantero. 1978 .Benitez v. .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.Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed his opposition on . 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. 1978. 1977. Such civil action SHALL proceed independently of the criminal prosecution xxx. 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.

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. once the complaint or information is filed in court. for evident bad faith and manifest partiality in enforcing the writ of execution in Civil Case No. Reasoning . The Ejectment Case also does not constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Case. the plaintiff and prevailing party in Civil Case No. therefore. . BALGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN 176 SCRA 287 GANCAYCO. . It involves the issue of possession between co-owners.Despite the objections made by the petitioner. petitioners filed . it is actually the civil aspect of the Criminal Case as the two cases are of the same facts. August 10. 5307. 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. and the entitlement to damages being predicated on the unlawful taking treated of in the Criminal Case. 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.280.Lim. . the permission or consent of the court must be secured. determinative of their guilt in the criminal action and hence constitutive of a prejudicial question. 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.. 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. Before a re-investigation of the case may be conducted by the public prosecutor. 1977. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act. Democrata contended that Rufino could not execute the lease contracts without her conformity without her conformity as co-owner. . 1989 NATURE Petition to review the decision of Sandiganbayan FACTS . in an information that was filed with the Sandiganbayan by the Special Prosecutor which was approved by the Deputy 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. Dispositive In the absence of a prejudicial question. And if after such reinvestigation the prosecution finds a cogent basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause the dismissal of the case.120.In their answer. With regard the Damages case. On the same day. The Guanteros filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the Criminal Case on the ground of pendency of the Damages Case. 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. the order of the judge is set aside and he is instructed to proceed without delay with the trial of the criminal case. the lower court issued the order finding that a prejudicial question existed and suspending the Criminal case proceeding. .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. That said. Hence this appeal. the issues raised would not constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Case. which petitioner claims he planted in good faith by virtue of the valid lease agreement. such proposed course of action must be addressed to the sound discretion of the court. the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. Even if the Intestate Court should annul the division and uphold the co-ownership. hence. the Intestate Case. which spring from the lease contract.Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to withdraw the information against petitioners. This was denied. A decision therein in favor of Democrata would not affect the rights of Librodo. that would not be determinative of the criminal responsibility of private respondents for theft of the sugar cane. During the pendency of the Criminal Case. . 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). .00.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales demanding damages amounting to Pesos 15.In the case at bar. 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. as amended.While the public prosecutor has the sole direction and control in the prosecution of offenses. The said complaint was filed with the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya.Balgos et al were charged with violation of Section 3(c) of RA 3019. . and the ejectment case (the Ejectment Case) which was filed by Rufino against Democrata on January 13. . 11414 as soon as possible in the interest of justice. after a preliminary investigation. no necessity arises for that civil Case to be determined ahead of the Criminal Case. . HELD NO. 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 for it to suspend the criminal action.The Tanodbayan ordered to dismiss the case for lack of merit and to withdraw the Information filed in Criminal Case No. 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. .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. a motion for reinvestigation in the Tanodbayan. The same was granted. are not determinative juris et jure of guilt or innocence in the Criminal Case.Petitioners are public officers charged with having violated Section 3(c) of RA 3019. This was likewise denied by the Sandiganbayan.00.

5307 is well taken. it cannot be denied that at the time the acts complained of in the estafa case were committed. . their obligation to pay private respondents under the said deed would be extinguished. according to petitioners. . 8769 involves issues.Petitioners (Umali. the land is covered by the land reform program and that vast portions thereof are timber land. the resolution of which will determine whether or not petitioners are criminally liable in CR No. UMALI v IAC (EDANO) 219 SCRA 339 PADILLA. was set on September 4. It was reset to October 5. With the entry of a new counsel. with a Supplemental Motion To Suspend Proceedings. it does not necessarily follow that the seizure of the car was rightfully undertaken. 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. .00 was honored upon its presentment. the car was found in the possession of Alvin. Sometime on Sept. Arraignment .000. The contracts are thus voidable with the existence of fraud vitiating their consent.500 payable on 4 installments (P225. .000. hence. . he found evidence tending to show that the sale of said car to the complainant by Juanito Ang.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. allegedly indisposable public land. As a consequence of the dishonor of these checks. who admitted that the car belonged to his father by showing the receipt of its repair in the name of Juanito Ang. When the check for the second installment fell due. Manila Branch. A petition for certiorari is filed with CA and CA affirmed.The estafa case was again set for arraignment. 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. a deed of absolute sale in the name of Orosea Dev’t Corp. 1990 NATURE Review on certiorari FACTS . the judgment debtor. 1423-I. They further argue that. that is. Until the nullity of the sale is declared by the courts.Although at the reinvestigation. . the Edano spouses filed a complaint for estafa against petitioners. By arrangement the petitioners made with the Edano spouses.However.000. . OROSEA secured a loan of P1. petitioners filed a motion to quash the estafa case. 1981. 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. Resolving the motion to suspend.Upon reinvestigation of the criminal case by the Tanodbayan. The first check for P225.500. subject of the criminal case. 1981. was a sham intended to defraud his creditors. This was postponed. now under question. 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. that the certificate of registration of the car was issued to complainant only on June 13. this did not necessarily clear petitioners of the aforesaid Anti-Graft charge against them. 4. CFI of Zambales also denied the same motion. resulting in the dismissal of CR No. 7869 annuls the subject deed of sale. Dispositive The petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the restraining order dated June 6. Province of Queazon for P1. on ground of improper venue. and that upon the execution of the judgment. respondent Judge issued his orders. petitioners twice asked for deferment. if and when the court hearing CV No. 1984 which showed that the document of sale was actually executed only on or about the same date. was executed even of the full purchase price has not yet been fully paid.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales and giving unwarranted benefits to the judgment creditor in said case.The information was filed by the Provincial Fiscal against petitioners on May 21. 036.000) They issued for this purpose 4 checks drawn against the Chartered Bank. CV No. then. Therefore. 4047. the deed of sale they seek to be annulled. the Tanodbayan was persuaded that in fact the sale of the car to Leticia Ang was fraudulent.The denial of the motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of the pendency of a prejudicial question in Civil Case No.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. Thus. P 270. 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. Umali purchased from spoused Homorio and Solina Edano a lot in Mulanay.000. Ledesma) are officers of the Orosea Dev’t Corporation. 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. Petitioners then filed a 'Motion to Suspend Arraignment and Further Proceedings. Even if in the civil action it is ultimately resolved that the sale was null and void. thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the judgment creditor to the damage and prejudice of the complainant.CV No. No costs. 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. This was opposed by the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon. The car was registered in the name of Leticia Ang six months before the seizure.00 from the Philippine Veterans Bank using this property as security. 8769 involves a prejudicial question.The arraignment was again postponed thrice. because whatsoever the issue raised in the a2010 page 48 Prof.000. . June 21. 1981 but this was postponed upon motion of petitioners.On October 14. 1981 but petitioners failed to appear. but this motion was withdrawn by petitioners before it could be resolved. P271. was still binding to the parties. The checks they have issued were dishonored. ISSUE WON proceedings should be suspended until the civil case is disposed of. 1989 is hereby lifted. Thereafter. since CV No. . civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. HELD NO. P270. and it was docketed as Criminal Case No. the same is presumptively valid. Calleja. seven days after Juanito Ang received copy of the adverse decision in Civil Case No. 1979. This is the basis of the motion for withdrawal of the information of the Tanodbayan. All these. denying the motion. when in truth and fact. . . 1423-I. 1423-I. and that it is not tenanted. the son of Juanito Ang.

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

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

2. and the MCTC in the following cases: B. . of the Municipality of Rodriguez. 1990 and the information was filed with the MTC of Rodriguez. "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. Scope. even if the court where the complaint or information is filed can not try the case on its merits. But when the information was filed. Although the RTC retains subject-matter jurisdiction to try and decide the refiled case under PD 818. Jr. . Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (RCP). should the information be refiled with the RTC. JR. falling well within the jurisdiction of the City Court. In all cases such institution interrupts the period of prescription of the offense charged.000 or both. Dispositive WHEREFORE. the RTC of Rizal affirmed the denial of the motion.Petitioner also invokes Act No. . a2010 page 51 Prof. The SolGen invokes Section 1. Series of 1988. -At the time of the commission of the crime. the lower penalty provided in Art 315 (otherwise within the jurisdiction of the City Court) should be imposed. or a complaint with the fiscal's office. unless otherwise provided in such acts.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. the MTC. and does.The petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed. This rule shall govern the procedure in the MetTC. 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. and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. Even if the court where the complaint or information is filed may only PEOPLE v LAGON 185 SCRA 442 FELICIANO. On appeal. 1990. PD 818 had increased the imposable penalty to prision mayor in its medium period. 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.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales imprisonment under the conditions laid down in article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. including those falling under the RSP. the imposable penalty under Art 315 of the RPC was arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional it is minimum period. . even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation. ISSUE WON the City Court had jurisdiction over the case HELD NO . How Instituted For offenses not subject to the rule on summary procedure in special cases. the institution of criminal action shall be as follows: …b) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the MTC and MCTC. should. It has been repeatedly held that in criminal prosecutions. Petitioner’s claims In this petition. the Court resolved to DENY the petition ZALDIVIA V REYES. 2. given the date of the commission of the crime (before effectivity of PD 818). Section 2. and if the same be not known at the time. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. However on Dec. Prosecution’s position The prosecution contends that the prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing of the complaint against her with the OPP. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months. -In the instant case. the petitioner argues that the charge against her is governed by the following provisions of the Rule on Summary Procedure (RSP): Section 1. Violations of municipal or city ordinances.: May 18. 1990. 211 SCRA 277 CRUZ. interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility. providing as follows: Section 1. the complaint may be filed only with the office of the fiscal. allegedly committed on May 11. Criminal Cases: 3. the charge against her should have been dismissed on the ground prescription. “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.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 Metropolitan Manila and other chartered cities. in which penalties provided do not exceed prision correccional or fines no exceeding P6. Hence this petition for review. but the motion was denied.The filing of the complaint in the MTC. -The real question raised by petitioner is whether the said doctrine disregards the rule against retroactivity of penal laws. Violations penalized by special acts shall. July 3. 3326. . The referral-complaint of the police was received by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Rizal on May 30. without distinction. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the Court in which the information is filed. . in the Province of Rizal. 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. 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." reading as follows: Section 1.. the court may not impose a more onerous penalty upon Lagon. on October 2. However. . -Under Sec 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.232 check as payment for goods knowing she had insufficient funds. 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. ISSUE WON the offense has prescribed HELD YES . by filing the complaint directly with the said courts. as the trial commenced. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law. presided by Judge Andres Reyes. from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. 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. prescribe in accordance with the following rules: .

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

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

Bautista. . AGBAYANI v SAYO 89 SCRA 699 AQUINO. Pascual and Dugay with having maliciously made defamatory imputations against Mahinan on or about February 17. the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city SEPARATE OPINION TEEHANKEE [concurring] . was the manager of the Cagayan Valley Branch of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) stationed at Cauayan. a lawyer.Before article 360 was amended. It also imports on the part of the accused a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information. 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. -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 in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila. reads as follows: ART. Among his subordinates were Wilson Agbayani. Isabela when the alleged libel was committed and. "The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter.Persons responsible. 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. 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. would meet the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law. meaning complaints filed in remote municipal courts -The rules on venue in article 360 may be restated thus: 1. Under that rule.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales basis of the averments in the informations alone is not ripe. the provincial fiscal of Nueva Vizcaya filed in the Court of First Instance of that province an information for libel charging Agbayani. -Quoted in the information were the affidavits of Pascual and Bautista signed at Cauayan. As GSIS branch manager. . spendthrift of GSIS funds. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person. the rule was that a criminal action for libel may be instituted in any jurisdiction where the libelous article was published or circulated. 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. chronic falsifier". and thereafter. inveterate gambler. the trial on the merits to proceed immediately. the criminal action is transitory and the injured party has a choice of venue. Mahinan filed with the fiscal's office at Bayombong. 1289 and 4363) . Mahinan. however. -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. the point of resolution is whether the facts alleged. 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. under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. 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 offense charged comes within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Isabela. they filed in this Court the instant petition. April 30. Pascual. and Renato Romeo P. all those documents allegedly depicted Mahinan "as an incorrigible managerial misfit. 1976 in Bambang. and an "unreformed ex-convict". -Republic Act No. 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. -After petitioners' motion for the reconsideration of that order was denied. Dugay. 360. . Arraignment of the private respondents in the criminal cases should be set at the earliest date." (As amended by Republic Act Nos. Facts alleged should be taken as they are. Nueva Vizcaya. irrespective of where it was written or printed.The motion to quash on the ground of improper venue must yield to the express allegations of the informations. . 1976. he is unquestionably a public officer. a2010 page 54 Prof. Pascual and Dugay. . -According to the information. Bautista's undated letter asking for Mahinan's dismissal. -On July 23. Carmelo N. 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. Pablo R. Dispositive Appealed orders ordering the quashal of the estafa informations against the two private respondents are reversed and set aside. 1976. Nueva Vizcaya a complaint for written defamation against Agbayani. . They argued that the provincial fiscal of Nueva Vizcaya had no authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and to file the information. -Article 360. -On March 8. Bautista. ". 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. YES Reasoning In considering a motion to quash based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. -It was denied by the trial court in its order of April 25. . 3. 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. 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. if hypothetically admitted. Bautista. Isabela. despoiler of public office. 1979 NATURE Instant petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS -Conrado B.

The checks were received at the SMC Bulacan branch. the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Isabela and the alleged libel was committed when he was (as he still) in the public service.” -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.SMC Finance Officer deposited the check in BPI San Fernando. . MELENCIO-HERRERA . . January 20. March 25. -Catingub. 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. -The information in this case is defective or deficient because it does not show that the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya. As such.Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court. Manila. 509. or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such action may be instituted. since as a GSIS branch manager. however. to settle his shortages by making monthly payments in the amount of at least P200. which proposal was. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila. -Applying the foregoing rules.80) that were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Cagayan de Oro branch. 2.20 and P11. the provincial capital. Dispositive Decision of CA Affirmed. 1983.Manuel Parulan is a wholesale dealer of San Miguel Corp (SMC). -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.(Parulan’s bank is Planters Development Bank in Bulacan) . or by the municipal judge of Ilagan. Manila. He could also be charged in the City of Manila since the final accounting must be rendered in the Central Office. His services were terminated without prejudice to whatever court action the PCSO will take for the recovery of the amount involved. If the offended party is a private individual." He contended that "on the basis of the prosecution's evidence. the offense charged.45. It is directed to dismiss Criminal Case No.307. Cagayan de Oro Branch that he has been found short of P12. He failed to do so. Place where action is to be instituted. 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. 1988 FACTS . -TC and CA dismissed motion hence this petition before the SC ISSUE PEOPLE v GROSPE 157 SCRA 154. or by the Court of First Instance of the same province. Sec. 38698-R entitled "PEDRITO L. Petitioner. . CATINGUB. NATURE This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. without prejudice to the filing of another criminal action for written defamation in the Court of First Instance of Isabela a2010 page 55 Prof. -As a corollary.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales where the libelous article is printed and first published. he received sweepstakes tickets on consignment. -Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction Dispositive Petition granted. versus HON. GUERRERO.00. Pampanga. No. Branch 24. This is therefore. the proper venue of Mahinan's criminal action for written defamation against the petitioners is the Court of First Instance of Isabela.R. — (a) In all criminal prosecutions. and the PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE. the libel case against the petitioners. RICARDO C. In a letter. The trial court's order denying petitioners' motion to quash is set aside. he was informed by the Auditing Examiner of the PCSO." FACTS . then forwarded to the SMC Regional Office in San Fernando. 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.071. Pampanga 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 preliminary investigation of the complaint should have been conducted by the provincial fiscal of Isabela. Judge of the CFI Manila. Remand to the trial court for further proceedings in the ordinary course of law CATINGUB v CA (PCSO) 121 SCRA 106. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense.918. He filed motion to dismiss after arraignment on the sole ground that "the prosecution made a wrong choice of jurisdiction. with the express obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sales of these tickets to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. a case of concurrent jurisdiction by the proper court of the place wherein "anyone of the essential ingredients thereof took place. The essential ingredient of receiving the sweepstakes tickets took place in Cagayan de Oro City. PUNO." But the choice of venue lies with the prosecuting officer and not with the accused. 3. . 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. Later. 14. He issued two checks in favor of SMC (P86.Catingub was designated Temporary Sales Supervisor of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) assigned at the Cagayan de Oro Branch. in Cagayan de Oro. denied by the General Manager (there was already an admission in this letter). Respondents. he was a public official stationed at Cauayan. together with all its essential ingredients occurred and the consummation thereof (was) completed. where it was filed. 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. 14(a) provides: "Sec. petitioner proposed to the General Manager of the PCSO. Petitioner was ordered to explain the shortage in writing and to produce the missing amount. the preliminary investigation of the criminal action for written defamation shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city. 4.

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

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

In case of doubt. Bulacan.October 25.000. -After hearing part of the testimony of Anastacia de Jesus.) . 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." a2010 page 58 Prof. 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. PEOPLE v FELICIANO GOROSPE and RUFINO BULANADI 129 SCRA 233 ABAD SANTOS. neither Bulanadi or Gorospe appeared for which reason. But justice. and declared to be without force and effect. the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity. -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. 1974 with the Municipal Court of Pulilan. 1974 to September 25." . and to pay the costs. but on that day. . . May 15. Gorospe and Alvaran and fixed their bail at P15.Municipal Judge Alfredo V.Bail was granted to the accused without hearing the prosecution -Justice Cardozo: "The law. Exec. -But Judge Purisima inhibited himself from deciding the case because J. all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. he issued an order for the arrest of Bulanadi. it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue. there need not be a petition of this character filed before this Court." Thus. -The date when the crime was said to have been committed was changed from September 30. 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.00 for actual exemplary and moral damages.In a verified Complaint filed on October 8. That fact did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character. there would be a violation of procedural due process. ISSUES . . 1984 FACTS . the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present. As a matter of fact.000. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. But said information was later on amended. 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. The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in mind. Such a plea could have been done administratively. 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. No costs. first stage.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales approved leave of absence covering the period from January 12 to March 12. as we have seen. there is justification for the procedure followed in view of the fact that along with the change of venue. Dispositive The assailed order of Judge Gasataya granting bail to private respondents is nullified. Alvaran remained at large. and to betray the very purpose for which courts have been established." It may be added that there may be cases where the fear. the complainant. within a reasonable time. . however. 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. This decision is immediately executory. 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. 70 of the RPC. with the prosecution being duly heard on the question of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the respondents is strong. without prejudice to the public officials concerned taking the necessary measures to assure the safety of the witnesses of the prosecution. (People v San Diego) Reasoning . with all the accessory penalty of the law.It does not suffice that the questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was granted could be characterized as searching. If. 1975: Provincial Fiscal Pascual C. On change of venue . -The second stage of the preliminary investigation was set on February 5. the cancellation of the bail bonds was also sought. and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground. -Bulanadi and Gorospe posted the requisite bail.Again Judge Granados conducted a preliminary investigation and on November 18. Granados of the Municipal Court of Pulilan received the complaint and conducted a preliminary investigation. as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil action.00 each. though due to the accused. is due to the accuser also.Rufino Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe were again named but Gerardo Fajardo was dropped and Oscar Alvaran was named instead. however crushing may be the pressure of incriminating proof. to indemnify de Jesus in the amount of P40. 1974. Purisima who finished the trial. We are to keep the balance true. Bulacan. In this particular case. sentenced each of the accused to suffer 2 perpetual penalties of reclusion perpetua to be served in accordance with Art. Romero Valdellon started the trial of the case on October 15. set aside. .The crime was said to have been committed on September 30. thru Pulilan. objectively viewed. but the question must always be the effect it has on the witnesses who will testify. Judge Granados declared that they had waived their right thereto and elevated the case to the CFI of Bulacan. 1974: the Complaint was amended. -Judge Nelly L. the issue of a change of venue has become moot and academic. is sedulous in maintaining for a defendant charged with crime whatever forms of procedure are of the essence of an opportunity to defend. Rufino Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape.People v. Nueva Ecija (in a hut where she was detained for 9 days and sexually abused during the night. to some individuals. 1975. be less than terrifying. .March 19. 1975. 1974.1973 Constitution: The Supreme Court could order "a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Judge Valdellon was transferred to Metro Manila and she was replaced by Judge Fidel P. and thence to Talavera. Kliatchko filed with the CFI of Bulacan an Information for forcible Abduction with Rape against Gorospe and Bulanadi. Anastacia de Jesus (14 yrs old) accused Gerardo Fajardo. 1974. Judge Alfonso Baguio of the CFI of Negros Occidental. to whose sala the cases had been transferred is directed forthwith to hear the petitions for bail of private respondents. may. starting in Plaridel.

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

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

1938 NATURE . not to be brought to trial except in pursuance of like proceeding or the proceeding substituted by law. Reasoning The accused was brought to trial. over the objection of the a2010 page 61 Prof. . with costs de oficio.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales together with subsidiary destierro as prescribed by law on failure to pay this fine and to pay the costs. 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. 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. The justice of the peace who held the preliminary investigation dismissed the original complaint against the accused. is a substantial one. This is an appeal by the offended party. as prayed.Marfori’s counsel then exempted to the ruling and insisted on the right to a preliminary trial. The complaining witness renewed the complaint in the CFI. and before the provincial fiscal has filed the necessary information. 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. accused is prejudicial error.The trial judge overruled the objections of counsel.The order of the justice of the peace discharging the accused did not operate as a final acquittal. . when Marfori was called upon to plead. The provincial fiscal of Laguna complied with all these requirements before asking for the dismissal of the present case. his counsel declined to proceed on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to bring Marfori to trial. . (Act 1627. Its denial. thereby keeping within the powers conferred upon him by section 1687 of the Revised Administrative Code. If the fiscal was not satisfied with the action of the justice of the peace. in that it subjects the accused to the loss of life. or the trial judge. Petra Flores. as a result of which the accused was discharged. 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." 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. the fiscal believes that the evidence is not sufficient to establish prima facie the guilt of the accused. over his objection without having been committed or remanded for trial by an investigating magistrate. ISSUE WON the trial court erred in bringing the accused to trial. add case is hereby dismissed.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. 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. June 27. . that the justice of the peace had erred in discharging the accused. 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. PEOPLE v OVILLA 65 Phil 722 VILLA-REAL. Sec. and the bond filed for the temporary release of the accused is hereby ordered cancelled. liberty or property without due process of law. An information was filed in that court and Marfori was brought to trial without further proceedings. 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. . he could have secured the arrest of the accused upon a new complaint. over his objection. . within the city of Manila.ORDER OF CFI:"The provincial fiscal having filed a motion in the above entitled case praying for the dismissal of the case. no order remanding him for trial having been issued by a competent magistrate as a result of a preliminary trial (old term for PI. and that he should have remanded the accused for trial." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. FACTS . being of opinion that there was no probable cause to believe him guilty of the offense.Upon arraignment. he should submit to the court before which the case is pending the corresponding motion for dismissal. 37) .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. 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. and although a so-called “report of the proceedings” was forwarded to the fiscal and doubtless submitted to the trial judge. 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. It is so ordered. I think) held in accordance with law. 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. and was not a bar to re-arrest and prosecution for the offense originally charged. If after he has done all this and considering all the circumstances of the case. and the court having found meritorious the reasons alleged therein. from the order of the Court of First Instance of Laguna.A report of the proceedings was forwarded to the provincial fiscal by the justice of the peace.

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

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

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

while constituting a denial of the appropriate and full measure of the statutory process of criminal justice. . After such reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. . GRIÑO-AQUINO [dissenting] . GUTIERREZ [concurring] .After 4 witnesses have already testified. The petitioner was virtually compelled to go to trial.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. Dispositive ACCORDINGLY. Go did ask for a preliminary investigation on the very day that the information was filed without such preliminary investigation. . Mogul. and that the trial court was 5 days later apprised of the desire of the petitioner for such preliminary investigation. Trial on the merits should be suspended or held in abeyance and a preliminary investigation should accorded to petitioner. 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. still entitles the accused to preliminary investigation. and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 September 1991 hereby REVERSED. 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.However. 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.There was no waiver of the right to preliminary investigation because Go had vigorously insisted on his right to preliminary investigation before his arraignment. a2010 page 65 Prof.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. in the case at bar. On the day the information for murder was filed. . The point is that Go was not accorded his proper rights.In the case at bar.The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is hereby ORDERED to conduct forthwith a preliminary investigation of the charge of murder against petitioner Go. 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.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales .The need for a trial court to follow the Rules and to be fair. it is a substantive right. at such stage. remembering instead that its only guide was the mandate of the law. even if eventually.According to Crespo vs. 2. At the time of his arraignment. Nevertheless. > This. the Court Resolved to GRANT the Petition for Review on Certiorari. if he is one of those unfortunates who seem to spend more time behind bars than outside. 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. prohibition and mandamus precisely asking for a preliminary investigation before being forced to stand trial. the failure to accord preliminary investigation.Go’s act of posting bail cannot be deemed to be a waiver of his right to preliminary investigation. the bail can then be cancelled.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. Go did ask for a preliminary investigation from the start. The Prosecutor also filed a MOTION for LEAVE TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION so the omnibus motion of Go was. Obiter . a trial for merits had already commenced and the prosecution had already presented 4 witnesses. however. .The nature of the crime demanded that a preliminary investigation be conducted. and to complete such preliminary investigation within a period of fifteen (15) days from commencement thereof. the prosecutor may or may not find probable cause. > 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.000.When Go walked into the police station 6 days after Maguan was shot. . 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. the permission of the Court must be secured. Go is still entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right. Go asked for release on recognizance or on bail and for preliminary investigation in one omnibus motion. The Order of the trial court dated 17 July 1991 is hereby SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED. he also filed an OMNIBUS MOTION for IMMEDIATE RELEASE and PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. petitioner was already before the Court of Appeals on certiorari. impartial. The petitioner as portrayed by the media is not exactly a popular person. Reasoning . Should the evidence against the accused be strong. 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. NO. petitioner is hereby ORDERED released forthwith upon posting of a cash bail bond of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100. more so.00). did not impair the validity of the information for murder nor affect the jurisdiction of the trial court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case. is not a mere formal or technical right. filed in the trial court. . . in effect.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. the trial court should not have been influenced by this irrelevant consideration. 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 . 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. .Meantime. contrary to petitioner's contention. > As for bail.However. Such compulsion and the unjustified denial of a clear statutory right of the petitioner vitiated the proceedings as violative of procedural due process. Go’s omnibus motion asked for a PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION not REINVESTIGATION as discussed in Crespo vs. This release shall be without prejudice to issue. . He had thus claimed his right to preliminary investigation before respondent Judge approved the cash bond posted by petitioner and ordered his release. Go had not waived his right to preliminary investigation. SEPARATE OPINION CRUZ [concurring] .

The petitioner's motion for a preliminary investigation is not more important than his application for release on bail. Since the right belongs to the accused. and on the basis of an alleged extrajudicial confession of a security guard (Umbal). May 5. just as the conduct of such preliminary investigation is not more important than the hearing of the application for bail. but more importantly (b) whether or not the evidence of his guilt is strong. If he demands it. 1989 NATURE Petition for Certiorari FACTS . . nor constitute an infringement of the right of the accused to confront witnesses. 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. led to the identification of the suspect who. 2. His approved leave of absence should not be a bar to his preventive suspension for. University of the Philippines. or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest a2010 page 66 Prof.October 1987. 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. Its absence is not a ground to quash the information. the Special Prosecutor sought clearance from the Ombudsman to refile it .Upon the annulment of the information against the petitioner. However. 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. 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. 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. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested. 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. ISSUES 1. YES . Mendoza. . . However. Moreover. . There witnesses identified him to be the assailant. 1994 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order FACTS . by filing the information against him. with ample media coverage.The Special Prosecutor filed a motion to suspend accused pendente lite. liberty.This case did not suffer from a lack of previous investigation. the SC annulled the information . presumably believed to be so).A new information was filed in the Sandiganbayan . . and approved leave. as the absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash the complaint or information. Hernandez and Allado. 7 days after the shooting.June 30.Since the petitioner is an incumbent public official charged in a valid information with an offense punishable under the Constitution and the laws. the State may not withhold it.The Ombudsman granted clearance but advised that some changes be made in the information previously filed . 1988. are partners of the Law Firm of Salonga. it should now be lifted. the charge against him had been changed as directed by the ALLADO v DIOKNO 232 SCRA 192 BELLOSILLO. WON the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the information 2. 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. 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.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. . . Diligent police work. 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. he alone may waive it.It should be remembered that as important as is the right of the accused to a preliminary investigation. . or property without due process of law.Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. the Special Prosecution Officer conducted a preliminary investigation of the charge . It does not affect the court's jurisdiction. In the practice of their profession. appeared at the San Juan police station to verify news reports that he was the object of a police manhunt. Special Prosecution Officer filed in the Sandiganbayan an information against petitioner.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. whether it be for a fixed of indefinite period may be cancelled or shortened at will by the incumbent. alumni of the College of Law.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. September 7. Ombudsman. it is not a constitutional right. Quintin Doromal.Go was indeed arrested by the police. as indicated by the Solicitor General. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales (which the prosecutor. Dispositive Petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted. against petitioner. nor impair the validity of the information. The court's hearing of the application for bail should not be subordinated to the preliminary investigation of the charge.The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash . 1988.January 25. 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. NO . The hearing should not be suspended. the law’s command that he “shall be suspended from office” pendent lite must be obeyed.

. JR. 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. issue a warrant of arrest.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. the affidavits. a warrant of arrest should be issued.In Soliven v. For. he merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed. finds that no probable cause exists. They contended therein that respondent Judge Asuncion had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the . It merely assists him in making the determination of probable cause. . ." . the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. the transcript of stenographic notes (if any). there should be no confusion about their objectives. otherwise. Petitioners likewise assail the prosecutors' "clear sign of bias and partiality. This is a2010 page 67 Prof. on the basis thereof.ALLADO DOCTRINE: If upon the filing of the information in court. Even crematoria use entirely closed incinerators where the corpse is subjected to intense heat. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents to him." However. The determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. if not ridiculous. and. preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released. 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. A human body cannot be pulverized into ashes by simply burning it with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an open field. we discern a number of reasons why we consider the evidence submitted to be insufficient for a finding of probable cause against petitioners. his counsel continued to represent him before judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. it is expressly stated that "[t]his court after careful evaluation of the evidence on record. (b) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. he would have found out that the evidence thus far presented was utterly insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioners.In the Order of respondent judge. he must either call for the complainant and the witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case. we emphasized the important features of the constitutional mandate: (a) The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge. after Van Twest's reported abduction which culminated in his decimation by cremation. (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.The petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for a temporary restraining order. Hence. . Thereafter. or. there is serious doubt on Van Twest's reported death since the corpus delicti has not been established. the remains undergo a process where the bones are completely ground to dust. On the contrary. Solicitor General Estoesta believes that counsel of Van Twest doubted the latter's death. . We have painstakingly examined the records and we cannot find any support for his conclusion. 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. (b) The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. 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. believes and rules that probable cause exists.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales (PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by respondent judge. Dispositive Petition granted highly improbable. we are unable to see how respondent judge arrived at such ruling.Verily. Only the judge and the judge alone makes this determination.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. it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. and therefore.In People v. 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. 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.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. whether or not he should be subjected to the expense. .Strangely. even Asst.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. . Inting. and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge in his determination of probable cause. Instead." and in "relying on the Resolution of the Panel and their certification that probable cause exists when the certification is flawed." 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.On the other hand. 1996 FACTS . It is the report. Makasiar. . . Even if the two inquiries be conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding. March 5. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore. 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 . if not awkwardly. nor have his remains been recovered. For one. rigors and embarrassment of trial is a function of the prosecutor. By itself.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. the trial judge. after reviewing the information and the document attached thereto. . 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.

The Court of Appeals then issued a resolution denying the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. nothing accompanied the information upon its filing with the trial court.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. CA.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. for the filing of the information. conjecture. he made no specific finding of probable cause. 1997. without having before him any other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause. . would suffice in the judicial determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. the prosecution filed an amended information including Billy Cerbo in the murder case. and stress of defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial. It is an executive function. . . However. 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.An information for murder was filed against Jonathan Cerbo. however.Private Respondent Jonathan Cerbo shot. if the information is valid on its face. which is a judicial function. . .The teachings of the cases of Soliven3. Hence this petition. He did not have the records or evidence supporting the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. Allado. And strangely enough.Corrollarily. Clearly.The petition is meritorious. . 4 The supporting documents may consist of. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taking of the evidence. The Judge does not have to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. .Section 2. . and there is no showing of manifest error.The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free respondent from the inconvenience. there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscal’s bare certification. . among other things. A warrant for his arrest was later issued. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor the Election Supervisor to ascertain. All of these should be before the Judge. “the affidavits. on the ground that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest warrant was insufficient. as in the present case. is null and void. . grave abuse of discretion and prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor. ..The determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor. or even convincing logic.The determination of probable cause is a function of the Judge. the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any). . HELD YES . the issuance of warrants of arrest. It merely assists him to make the determination of probable cause. 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. .The daughter of the victim executed an affidavitcomplaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of conspiracy in the killing. and Joint Resolution as bases thereof. But then compliance with a constitutional requirement for the protection of individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition. the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any). January 21. the trial court should respect such determination. the affidavits. . ignominy.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales aforementioned order. the judge should not override the public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause to hold an accused for trial. It may. 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. he had only the information.6 . . Lim5. and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s certification which are material in assisting the Judge to make his 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. 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. It is the report. 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.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.The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. 1999 NATURE Petition for Review FACTS . HELD YES. Inting4. . Sept. . or groundless charges. expense. . Id.7 .Therefore. when respondent Judge Asuncion issued the assailed order directing. 278 SCRA 657.In the present case. amended information. 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. be argued that the directive presupposes a finding of probable cause.The respondent judge issued an order dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo and recalling the warrant for his arrest..Secondarily. By itself. viz. 5. frivolous. Only the Judge and the Judge alone makes this determination. at pointblank range. CASTILLO v VILLALUZ 6 7 Ledesma v. .The public prosecutor has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court. the Prosecutor’s certification of probable cause is ineffectual. Dispositive Reversed. 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.Billy Cerbo filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest arguing that the same was issued without probable cause.Accordingly. he merely directed the issuance of warrants of arrest. Rosalinda Dy in the presence and at the office of his father private respondent Billy Cerbo. or both.

That power is his alone.A. . Dispositive: Petition GRANTED. Challenged Orders annulled and set aside. [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. March 8. 5179. The fiscal has the duty to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. PAGE 34] RODIL v GARCIA 104 SCRA 362 . Hence. YES Ratio: The conduct of a preliminary investigation is not a judicial function but part of the fiscal’s job. 1989 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS . -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. but also that bail be granted petitioner. 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. Preliminary investigation (now in question) was conducted by respondent Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court. this petition for certiorari and prohibition was presented by petitioner Fiscal. -Respondents were required to comment and the Court likewise issued a temporary restraining order. FERNANDO. SEPARATE OPINION CRUZ [concurring] . and to require him to show cause for not filing the information within 24 hours. and the fact that a certain power is granted does not necessarily mean that it should be indiscriminately exercised. Cruz. BALGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN [SUPRA. This task is executive. YES The power to conduct PI is lodged in the fiscal. The complaint charged the latter with estafa in the amount of P1K. 37 of BP. whether or not counsel for petitioner could recall witnesses for the prosecution for the purpose of asking clarificatory questions. courts were to leave that job which is essentially executive to them. May 13. courts are counseled to leave this job which is essentially executive to them. This task is judicial. on. -What is prayed for is not only that such order denying counsel's request to recall government witnesses be set aside and nullified.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. The findings of fiscal in the PI do not control or foreclose the exercise of the power conferred personally on the judge under Sec. Under the present state of the law. 2 the Bill of Rights. 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.WON respondent judge had no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations. in whom that function is principally and more logically lodged. as well as the pertinent doctrines. and the consequent policy. R. 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. and could not shirk or be made to evade it by an unreasoning and indiscriminate reliance on the judge's investigation. did not confer on said courts the power to conduct preliminary investigations 2. or at any time thereafter. 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. Consequently. 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. 2. it cannot be said that the right to cross-examine is guaranteed an accused at the stage of preliminary investigation. WON judge erred in compelling fiscal under sanction of contempt. Garcia of Sta. 1981 NATURE Writ of Certiorari FACTS -Counsel for Reynaldo Rodil who was charged with murder. Reasoning: [a] Sec. a petition to that effect having been denied with a subsequent motion for reconsideration still undecided.In July 1971. seeking annulment of the aforesaid orders. 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.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.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 171 SCRA 39 NARVASA. Marinduque. on the sole basis of the Judge's conclusions. 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." Fiscal filed a MFR. to file an information in court without conducting his own preliminary investigation HELD 1. Wherever there are enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigations. was that wherever there were enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigations. That he could very well do when they testify to prove evidence of guilt is strong. asks to recall witnesses for the prosecution to enable such counsel to cross-examine them. ISSUES 1. and thereafter issued a warrant of arrest. . "clarificatory and amplificatory matters" which was denied by Municipal Judge Segundo M. -An examination of the record. a complaint and a Joint Affidavit were filed directly by Renato Montes and Jose de Silva against Manuel Laconico. but was denied.Provincial Fiscal failed to file the information required within the time appointed. makes evident that the jurisdictional issue posed arises from the failure to accord petitioner a hearing on his application for bail. because the law creating Circuit Criminal Courts.

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

.Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigation upon a complaint for robbery. another security escort of Congressman Espinosa. he did not believe that the accused should be immediately placed under custody. Ratio 3 conditions must concur for the issuance of the warrant of arrest. The rule is and has always been that such issuance need only await a finding of probable cause. and (c) that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. 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. the Judge may conduct a hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses questions on matters that. and his security escorts. 1991 NATURE Review for certiorari. in his view. namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes. Sr. FACTS . as regards its unidentified subjects.This second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint. Hence. which shall be transmitted. The RTC dismissed the petition but nevertheless ordered Judge Samulde to issue a warrant of arrest. together with the records of the case. Dante Siblante. survived the assassination plot. since the robbery charge was the offshoot of a boundary dispute between two property owners. February 19.March 17. or (2) that the complaint and the supporting documents show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry and this ushers in the second phase. be voided. " implying that. and Artemio Fuentes were attacked and killed by a lone assassin. it is of the nature of a general warrant. Judge Samulde appealed to this Court. . as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would Identify. need to be clarified. Judge Samulde sent back the records to Fiscal Salvani. Dispositive The appealed decision is SET ASIDE. 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. The investigating judge must: (a) have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers. warrants against John Does denied a2010 page 71 Prof. After making a preliminary investigation based on the affidavits of the complainant and her witnesses and counter-affidavits of the respondent and his witnesses.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. he found no need to place him under immediate custody. In this particular case. 58 down to Rule 112 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court. . to the provincial fiscal." Unconvinced. The second phase concludes with the Judge rendering his resolution. the warrant must. in which case he dismisses the complaint and transmits the order of dismissal. 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. Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.The argument. 1989: at the vicinity of the airport road of the Masbate Domestic Airport (Masbate. 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. not the completion of the entire procedure of preliminary investigation . to the provincial fiscal for appropriate action. 1988 NATURE Appeal from the decision of the RTC FACTS . either for dismissal of the complaint or holding the respondent for trial. and to transmit the warrant to the Provincial Fiscal for appropriate action. SAMULDE v SALVANI 165 SCRA 734 GRIÑO-AQUINO: September 26. although. is absent in Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. but merely discretionary.Insofar. although he found that a probable cause existed. Dispositive Warrants against petitioners upheld. one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the subject. he refused to issue a warrant of arrest.m. however. together with the record.m. . And it ends with the determination by the Judge either: (1) that there is no ground to continue with the inquiry. the benefit of the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. access to the complainant's evidence and an opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting documents. PAGE 43] LIM vFELIX 194 SCRA 292 GUTIERREZ. He pointed out that under Sec 6. Gaspar Amaro. besides." Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized. he himself suffered a gunshot wound. 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. It is not obligatory. Sr. (b) be satisfied that a probable cause exists. therefore. Masbate). is left to his sound judgment or discretion. . Rule 112. found in all previous rules of criminal procedure. Congressman Moises Espinosa. upon the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. Nothing in the record before this Court belies or discredits those affirmations which have. 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". At this stage also. 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.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. from General Orders No. to 1:00 p. hence.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales and other documents offered in support thereof. 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. 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.

rigors and embarrassment of trial .July 31. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and.What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. . The Judge commits a grave abuse of discretion. 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. He could not possibly have known what transpired in Masbate as he had nothing but a certification . The extent of the reliance depends on the circumstances of each case and is subject to the Judge's sound discretion. HELD NO Ratio A Judge is not precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible officers.August 29. STONEHILL v DIOKNO 20 SCRA 383 CONCEPCION. Reasoning . Following established doctrine and procedures. Florencio T. Fernandez.whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and.For the purpose of preliminary investigation. 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. .Lims then prayed for the following: 1. Dispositive Petition is granted.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . . The constitutional requirement has not been satisfied. thereby placing it beyond the competence of mere Court Rule or Statute to revoke. . Fernandez. . Court granted the petition. 1967 .In another manifestation. June 19. 1989: records of the case were transmitted to Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate.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. Bagalihog. 2. 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. III. 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. . Tantiado.The problem lies with warrants of arrest especially in metropolitan or highly urban areas. 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.Respondents Lims filed a verified petition for a change of venue.. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. whether or not he should be subjected to the expense. 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.The determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge. The determination is made by the Provincial Prosecutor. among others. Respondent Acting Fiscal Antonio C. the 1973 and the present [1987] Constitutions securing the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. 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. . 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. Movants be given ample opportunity to file their motion for preliminary investigation as a matter of right. he or she may have no more time for his or her more important judicial functions. . 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. Jolly T.Respondent Judge committed a grave error when he relied solely on the Prosecutor's certification and issued the questioned Order dated July 5. In doing so. Mayor Susana Lim of Masbate. on the basis thereof. the Judge abuses that discretion when having no evidence before him. Nonilon A. . he or she has not personally determined probable cause. Mayor Nestor C. houses. Vicente Lim. issue a warrant of arrest. TSg (Legaspi) filed an amended complaint with the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate accusing. The respondent court issued an order denying for lack of merit.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. However. Fiscal Alfane filed with the Regional Trial Court of Masbate.is the function of the Prosecutor. The case was raffled to Judge Nemesio Felix. Sec. (Constitution) The right of the people to be secure in their persons.Sound policy dictates this procedure. therefore. he issues a warrant of arrest. Harry O. the designated investigator. 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. Lim and Mayor Antonio Kho of the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder in connection with the airport incident. a2010 page 72 Prof. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. 1990 without having before him any other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause. Jr.Art. . 1989. Alfane was designated to review the case. 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. 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. The preliminary investigation proper . and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. . four (4) separate informations of murder against the twelve (12) accused with a recommendation of no bail.. 2. with serious physical injuries). Sr. On September 22.

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

petitioners further alleged possession of and control over the records. The three warrants excepted named three corporate defendants." -An examination of the search warrants in this case will readily show that. Candido Patosa. in this case are admittedly general. Whether or not the petitioners possess legal standing the said warrants are void and remain void. that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice. all were directed against the petitioners personally. may be summarized as follows: (a) ownership of documents. (b) ownership and/or control or possession – actual or constructive -. praiseworthy as they are. the petitioners have the requisite legal standing to move for the suppression and return of the documents. without exception. papers and effects seized in the places other than the three residences adverted to above. Our decision. papers and effects which are the fruits of an unlawful search and seizure. SEPARATE OPINION . should order the return to the petitioners all personal and private papers and effects seized. excepting three. especially the Federal Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. -SC disposed of them by saying that this new theory was advanced. our courts have invariably regarded as doctrinal the pronouncement made on the Fourth Amendment by federal courts. and the searches and seizures made were therefore unlawful. papers and things which where the objects of the unlawful searches and seizures. the petitioners were named personally. by that same authority. no matter where these were seized. Weeks v US (1914): “The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment. inadmissible in a State court. Obiter -In their MFR. -He insists that. papers and effects gives "standing. PC investigator against Simon Luna. 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. but in the MR. and the searches and seizures were illegal and remain illegal. upon the pleadings submitted to SC. November 29. knows that it cannot profit by their wrong will that wrong be repressed. alter or otherwise modify the intrinsic nullity of the search warrants and the intrinsic illegality of the searches and seizures made thereunder. in the name of law enforcement itself." -It is with this position that Justice Castro is not in accord. -If there should be any categorization of the documents. not in their petition or amended petition. Dispositive Writs granted in part and denied in part." gives "standing. Mapp v Ohio (1961): “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is. 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. at all events. by filing with respondent Municipal Judge Lorenzo M. in the many years of judicial construction and interpretation of the said constitutional provision. papers and effects that were seized from places other than their family residences. Judge Learned Hand: “Only in case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials. founded on reason and truth. it is best to leave the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future. 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. MR denied. "the President and/or General Manager" of the particular corporation.of premises searched gives "standing".” 2.A criminal action was commenced by T-Sgt. followed by the designation.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Foreign references cited to support this contention 1. -Thus. a2010 page 74 Prof. -The U. *The purpose of the exclusionary rule to "is to deter -. 1968 FACTS .to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way -. blanket and roving warrants and are therefore admittedly and indisputably outlawed by the Constitution. and the alleged "personal" nature thereof." *We can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise. At any rate. 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. 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. chooses to suspend its enjoyment. -He says that All the search warrants. to be revocable at the whim of any police officer who. 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. 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. papers and effects found in the offices of the corporation. things and effects seized from places other than their residences. I submit that the grouping should be: (a) personal or private papers of the petitioners. -Since our constitutional provision on searches and seizures was derived almost verbatim from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. -He argues that assuming that the petitioners have no legal standing to ask for the suppression of the papers. -SC. and (b) purely corporate papers belonging to corporations. 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.by removing the incentive to disregard it. In some of them." LUNA v PLAZA 26 SCRA 310 ZALDIVAR.” 3. and. this cannot in any manner affect. and leaves "the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future. 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. doctrines and pertinent cases on standing to move for the suppression or return of documents. The uncontradicted sworn statements of the petitioners in their. whether from their residences or corporate offices or any other place or places.” *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.S. *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. to the courts.

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

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

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

PEOPLE v BURGOS 144 SCRA 1 GUTIERREZ. mauled and subjected to physical agony. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed. but after questioning the accused’s wife. He was forced to admit possession or ownership of the gun. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. He later attended an NPA seminar where Burgos.When asked about the firearm. WON there is enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law. Masamlok testified that accused came to his house and told him to join the NPA or his family will be killed along with him. . accused-appellants claims that he was taken to the PC barracks and when he denied ownership of the gun. stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. The police. "machinery. Urbana claimed that it was Masamlok who left the firearm there. This being the case. 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. 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 126.4. enumerates the personal properties that may be seized under a search warrant. Mere generalization will not suffice. 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. and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized. The threat to his life and family forced . 2. because the purpose a2010 page 80 Prof. . tortured. therefore.III Sec. buried in the ground below their house. 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. . the police were able to locate and retrieve the said firearm. . 12. 2 witnesses as well as Ruben’s wife Urbana. Dispositive Search Warrants Nos. SC ruled that "the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses.As a consequence of the search and seizure. the first speaker. a team was dispatched the following day to arrest Burgos. Ownership. . To prove illegal possession.2 of the Constitution safeguards against wanton and unreasonable invasion of the privacy thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. a . Through the help of Pedro Burgos. 6(a) of Rule 113 and applicable jurisprudence on the matter. were presented by the defense in support of the accused’s denial of the charge against him. 20-82[a] and 2082[b] issued by respondent judge on December 7. In Alvarez v. “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. Masamlok to join the NPA. NO . All articles seized thereunder are ordered released to petitioners. NO . after accused pointed them to the location. CFI. That he encouraged the group to overthrow the government. .6 of the Rules of Court. even without judicial warrant. 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. and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print. with the further result that the printing and publication of said newspapers were discontinued.Section 2. the accused denied possession of it.On the other hand. NO Art. Sec. under Rule 113 Sec. is of no consequence. receptables." . Sept. of the existence of probable cause. to assure the unity of the civilian. YES . And when the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials. said very distinctly that he is an NPA together with his companions.38 caliber S & W. 3. It stated that even if there was no warrant for the arrest of Burgos. 4. who was plowing his field at the time. he was beaten. 1986 NATURE Appeal from RTC decision convicting Ruben Burgos of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion FACTS . The RTC justified the warrantless arrest as falling under one of the circumstances when arrests may be validly made without a warrant.” If the arrest is valid.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. HELD 1. 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.Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code . 1982 are null and void. It may or may not be owned by him.Prosecution version: Upon obtaining information from one Cesar Masamlok.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. were also able to retrieve alleged subversive documents (a notebook and a pamphlet) hidden underground a few meters away from the house. the premises were padlocked and sealed. the team was able to locate Ruben Burgos. The rule does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. . the machineries in question. . while in fact bolted to the ground remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant." 2. the brother of accused.To prove accused’s subversive activities.In mandating that "no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge.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. as in the case at bar.the search warrants are in the nature of general warrants. is lawfully within the ambit of 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 .” ISSUES 1.

surrendered to the military. the arrest was made without warrant and since it does not fall within the exceptions of arrests that can be made without a warrant. the SC is not necessarily bound by the credibility which the trial court attaches to a particular witness. . one M14 rifle. The military also inventoried and confiscated nine M16 rifles. If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made. Accused Burgos is ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt. Neither was he committing any act which could be described as subversive. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. . it must appear first that the right exists. and the alleged subversive documents are inadmissible in evidence. secondly. There is no such personal knowledge in this case. or that consent was given by the accused to be searched simply because he failed to object. 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. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. In this case. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted. 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. We find no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. The location of the firearm was given by Burgos’ wife. the search and seizure which transpired afterwards could not likewise be deemed legal as being mere incidents to a valid arrest. the only remaining proof to sustain the charge is the testimony of Masamlok. . The arrest being unlawful. 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. that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. papers and effects. But We have also said that this rule is not absolute for otherwise there would be no reversals of convictions upon appeal. plowing his field at the time.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. and several rounds of ammunition found in the premises. Masamlok’s testimony was totally uncorroborated. Otherwise. arresting the persons fingered by a hooded informer. 1984.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales and liberty of a citizen as to his person. He was. is committing. . Zamboanga City. the officer arresting a person who has just committed. 1987 NATURE Petition for prohibition and mandamus preliminary injunction and restraining order with FACTS . he would also be charged with subversion. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. .6 (a) of Rule 113.16 male occupants were arrested. or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. the firearm. The soldiers returned fire and a bloody shoot-out ensued.6(b) using the test of reasonableness. In arrests without a warrant under Sec. Since the extra-judicial confession. the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report.The initial reaction of the people inside the compound was to resist the invasion with a burst of gunfire. paraffin-tested and photographed over their objection. 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. and executing them outright (although the last part is not included in the modern refinement).6(b). Reasoning Although it is true that the trial court found Masamlok’s testimony credible and convincing. it came in its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. Dispositive Judgment of conviction is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. . the need to go through the process of securing a search warrant and a warrant of arrest becomes even more clear. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest. it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime. actuations and deportment of the witnesses during the trial. Likewise. Neither can it be presumed that there was a waiver. Considering that Masamlok ALIH v CASTRO 151 SCRA 279 CRUZ. 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. of the existence of such a right. More important. resulting in a number of casualties. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. however. in search of loose firearms. actual or constructive. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful. which is inadequate to convict Burgos beyond reasonable doubt. certainly his fate depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the authorities. 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 military operation was commonly known and dreaded as a "zona. ammunition and other explosives. 2. Alvarez street. later to be fingerprinted. Consequently. nine rifle grenades. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. Burgos was not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document. June 23. NO. if indeed a2010 page 81 Prof. Moreover. To constitute a waiver. that the person involved had knowledge. The arrest of the accused while he was plowing his field is illegal. In this case. in fact. and lastly. In the instant case. Masamlok may be considered as an interested witness. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. it is unlawful and therefore. Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers. Reasoning Under Sec. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed." which was like the feared practice of the kempeitai during the Japanese Occupation of rounding up the people in a locality. There was no compulsion for him to state truthfully his charges under pain of criminal prosecution.The SolGen believes that the arrest may still be considered lawful under Sec. 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. the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies. there is no showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. At the time of arrest. the prosecution never presented any other witness.On November 25.

Ratio Even if were assumed for the sake of argument that they were guilty.It follows that as the search of the petitioners' premises was violative of the Constitution. which covers both the innocent and the guilty. . If they were worried that the weapons inside the compound would be spirited away.He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. There was no state of hostilities in the area to justify. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge. photographing and paraffin-testing as violative of their right against self-incrimination. ISSUE WON the search of petitioners’ premises was illegal. -The respondents. ranged against the rest of the people who would condemn him outright. to protect them. all the firearms and ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in any of the proceedings against the petitioners. under the Bill of Rights.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. 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 113.22 caliber gun. 2). 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. or just committed. it may be observed that under the Revised Rule 113. . and to challenge their finger-printing. However. Section 5(b). These articles are "fruits of the poisonous tree. Didoy the officer then on duty. Parenthetically. countermand the Constitution. 770196 two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a . to prevent these from being used as evidence against them.Superior orders" cannot. August 2. and two (2) live ammunitions for a .Conceding that the search was truly warrantless. ." they were merely suspected of the mayor's slaying and had not in fact even been investigated for it. It is no exaggeration that the basest criminal. Reasoning Article IV. They knew where the petitioners were. while admitting the absence of the required such warrant. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance.The respondents cannot even plead the urgency of the raid because it was in fact not urgent. what was that crime? There is no allegation in the record of such a justification.lacking the shield of innocence. Section 3. Every person is entitled to due process. the guilty need the armor of the Constitution.The record does not disclose that the petitioners were wanted criminals or fugitives from justice. searches and seizures. They brought the petitioner to the police station for further investigation. Section 4(2): Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. HELD YES. a majority of one. Dispositive WHEREFORE. then we might as well delete the Bill of Rights as a fussy redundancy. Umbra Umpar. houses. . they would not have been any less entitled to the protection of the Constitution. . 1984. At the time of the "zona. papers.38 caliber gun a smoke (tear gas) grenade. This is confirmed by the said report and in fact admitted by the respondents. . They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber . hereby declared ILLEGAL and all the articles seized as a result thereof are inadmissible in evidence against the petitioners in any proceedings. they were presumed innocent and not guilty as summarily pronounced by the military. is POSADAS v CA (PEOPLE) 188 SCRA 288 GANCAYCO. assuming it could.On December 21.Pat. the officer making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the ground therefor. were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes Street. 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. or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. . the search of the petitioners' premises on November 25. and particularly describing the place to be searched. par. . . They had every opportunity to get a search warrant before making the raid. Article IV. 1987 finding petitioner guilty of the offense. not from a deserved sentence. 1990 NATURE Petition for review FACTS . 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. he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) . is still. "but with avoidance. sought to justify their act on the ground that they were acting under superior orders. 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. In the course of the same. Section 5. as a preventive measure. the petitioners came to this Court.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . As mere suspects. both members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task Force. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated. of the Rules of Court in connection with a crime about to be committed. of course. the repressions committed therein against the petitioners. being committed. 1986 at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning. 68. and the persons or things to be seized. 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. . Davao City on October 16.38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. might not the search and seizure be nonetheless considered valid because it was incidental to a legal arrest? Surely not. but from arbitrary punishment.Zamboanga City at the time in question certainly did not excuse the non-observance of the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable a2010 page 82 Prof. 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. 1984. Their purpose was to recover the articles seized from them. 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. they could have surrounded the premises in the meantime.

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

Respondent Court of Appeals rendered judgment. unless there are really compelling reasons for the authorities to do so. the validity of which warrant was upheld. as it undeniably is. writs and processes of the then courts of first instance were enforceable throughout the Philippines. Nor are we swayed by the professed apprehension that the law enforcement authorities may resort to what could be a permutation of forum shopping. Furthermore. 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.On September 21. existent or known shall be raised in the original or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant. while. where the place to be searched is located. 2. The Court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case. 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. 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. 1990. we are unaware of any instance wherein a search warrant was struck down on objections based on territorial jurisdiction. a further well-founded precaution. under the Interim or a2010 page 84 Prof. consolidating subject cases but denying the prayer for the quashal of the search warrant under attack. certain specified writs issued by a regional trial court are now enforceable only within its judicial region." . with the attendant risk. within the contemplation of paragraphs 3(b) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines. within the region. danger and expense. political or financial in nature. Besides. witnesses to and their examination in said places. formerly. 3. opining that the same falls under the category of Writs and Processes. once detected. 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. not only property and privacy. Also. the respondent Quezon City Judge issued the challenged order. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act. 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.A bit of legal history on his contestation will be helpful. THE SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING POLICY GUIDELINES. 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. Quashal of Search Warrant and Exclusion of evidence Illegally Obtained'. This judgment of respondent court is now impugned in and sought to be reversed through the present recourse before us. On the other hand. a motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall be resolved by said court. 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. in the same manner that no such restriction is provided for warrants of arrest. 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. . in effect affirming that of the trial court. in the absence of statutory restrictions. but persons and liberty.No law or rule imposes such a limitation on search warrants. 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. without prejudice to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. A contrary interpretation on whatever pretext should not be countenanced. otherwise they shall be deemed waived. 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). by filing an application for the warrant with a "friendly" court.PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS The Court cannot be blind to the fact that it is extremely difficult. It need merely be recalled that a search warrant is only a process. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by the issuing court. 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. . together with the ten-day lifetime of the warrant would discourage resort to a court in another judicial region.The foregoing situations may also have obtained and were taken into account in the foreign judicial pronouncement that.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. . . and a 'Supplemental Motion to the Motion for Consolidation. . For that matter. 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. . When the latter court issues the search warrant. All grounds and objections then available.On the other hand. Said requirements.NONETHELESS. not only because of the distance but also the contingencies of travel and the danger involved. TO PUT DOUBTS TO REST.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales before the Quezon City court. In the present state of our law on the matter. is articulated by the court a quo. . 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. not an action. 1. the enforcement of such writs and processes no longer needs the approval of the regional trial court. Nor should we overlook the fact that to do so will necessitate the transportation of applicant's . to detect or elicit information regarding the existence and location of illegally possessed or prohibited articles. and all these have to be observed regardless of whatever court in whichever region is importuned for or actually issues a search warrant. more onerous if not impossible by imposing further niceties of procedure or substantive rules of jurisdiction through decisional dicta. and so pervasive as to render foolhardy any attempt to obtain a search warrant in the very locale under their sphere of control. 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. obviously born of experience and verifiable data. HELD YES .

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

executed an affidavit-complaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of conspiracy in the killing .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.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales PEOPLE v CA (CERBO) 301 SCRA 475 PANGANIBAN. 1999 NATURE Petition for Review under Rule 45. on the antipodal theory that the evidence is in truth inadequate.' because evidentiary matters should be presented and heard during the trial. FACTS . .Rosalinda Dy was shot at pointblank range by Jonathan Cerbo in the presence and at the office of his father. . courts should not dismiss it for 'want of evidence. in his opinion. 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.After an information for murder was filed against Jonathan Cerbo. Diokno.If the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of manifest error. the formal commencement of a criminal action. Court of Appeals : xxxthe Court is being asked to examine and assess such evidence as has thus far been submitted by the parties and. indeed.Crespo v. as far as crimes cognizable by a Regional Trial Court are concerned. to said executive officer.The Separate (Concurring) Opinion of former Chief Justice Andres R. the public prosecutor. Whether . The proceedings before a public prosecutor. . 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. daughter of the victim Rosalinda Dy. and notwithstanding that it involves an adjudicative process of a sort. 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. by law. It is an executive function. Inting and Lim. Davao. 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. supported by a supplemental affidavit of Elsa B. prefatorily to.Elsa B.The rulings in Soliven. . The judicial determination of probable cause in the issuance of arrest warrants has been emphasized in numerous cases. follow or not follow that presented by the offended party.It is a function that this Court should not be called upon to perform. according to whether the evidence. where we explained again what probable cause means. .Private respondent Billy Cerbo then filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest arguing that the same was issued without probable cause. 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. one that. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor. 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. Sr. Narvasa in Roberts v. January 21. petitioner Alynn Plezette Dy. It is not for instance permitted for an accused. such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case list be filed in court. Reasoning: Executive Determination of Probable Cause . is supposed to be performed at the very genesis of. 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. upon the filing of the information against him by the public prosecutor. xxx xxx xxx . 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. 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. Otherwise stated. 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. . it may well be stressed. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. 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 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.The 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of NabunturanMawab. It is moreover a function that in the established scheme of things. 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. A warrant for his arrest was later issued.Private Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the respondent judge. Nor is it permitted. the correctness of the exercise of which is matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon. Gumban (eyewitness) identified Jonathan Cerbo as the assailant. definite and authoritative adjudgment of the guilt or innocence of the persons charged with a felony or crime. . Judicial Determination of Probable Cause . . because the evidence presented thus far did not substantiate such charge. were iterated in Allado v. on the basis thereof. Gumban. Davao. exclusively pertains. He may or may not file the complaint or information. after a preliminary investigation.Indeed. prefatory and cannot lead to a final." . Billy Cerbo . are essentially preliminary. a2010 page 86 Prof. which is a judicial function..

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

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

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.

This was not the first time the police received reports of petitioner’s activities. 2000 FACTS . his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited. . 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.In the case of an application for bail. discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond. assailing the trial court’s orders. His arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the police.000.00. III. petitioner had sexual intercourse with complainants who had been "exploited in prostitution and . subject to the conditions and the "hold-departure" order. . had been contacted by petitioner for an assignation that night at petitioner’s room at the Metropolitan Hotel. c) The hold-departure Order of this Court dated April 10. . He then filed a motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to P40. ." . Otherwise the petition should be denied.With respect to the denial of petitioner’s motion to quash the informations against him. the same will be considered defective in form and substance which cannot be sustained or be given a semblance of validity. the court’s order granting or denying bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution.A.Trial court granted the right to post bail in the amount of P80. . 1997 stands. III. and by three other minor children. He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases.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. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution 4. who was wearing only a shirt and an underwear. 7610. bringing the total number of cases against him to 12. 2.Petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause. 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. and to suspend arraignment. given money [by petitioner] as payment for the said [acts of] sexual intercourse." . an information for violation of Art.CA: a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these cases. whereupon they arrested him. Dispositive Grant of bail is declared void. that when arraigned. his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited. trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. the duties of the judge are as follows: 1. It noted "that petitioner has posted the cash bonds.00 for each case or a total of P800." CA thought that the aforesaid conditions in the May 16. CA held that petitioner could not question the same in a petition SEPARATE OPINION VITUG [dissenting] . The pretrial conference was set. Jennifer Catarman. Otherwise. it was alleged that. §14(2) of the Constitution which provides that "[a]fter arraignment." .Trial court denied petitioner’s motions to reduce bail bonds.A. . a2010 page 92 Prof. d) Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment to enable this Court to immediately acquire jurisdiction over the accused. . warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia. .000. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation. and . The police saw him with Lorelie.Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in CA. and that he has already been released from detention. . warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia. b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so. An entrapment operation was therefore set in motion.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. HENCE. February 1. .CA invalidated the first two conditions imposed in the May 16. .Petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations against him. . two more informations were filed against petitioner. The Lower court cannot exercise judicial discretion as to what pieces of evidence should be included in the summary. then 16 years old. on various dates mentioned in the informations. (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest. Lorelie San Miguel.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. 7610 was filed. In all the cases. represented by lawyers.Lavides was arrested for child abuse under R. THE SUMMARY SHOULD NECESSARILY BE A COMPLETE COMPILATION OR RESTATEMENT OF ALL THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING PROPER. Pending resolution of his motion.000.Nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner by the same complainant. to quash the informations. and (3) In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above Incident. If the guilt of the accused is not strong. The court should issue a warrant of arrest of Odiamar if his bail bond has been approved. petitioner filed separate applications for bail in the nine cases. b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so.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.00 for each case and that the same be done prior to his arraignment. . Nonetheless. Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged.Parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police that their daughter.While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals. which were all consolidated. Based on the sworn statement of complainant and the affidavits of the arresting officers.Based on the duties.No bail was recommended. and Annalyn Talingting. He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases. which were submitted at the inquest. A summary is defined as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or digest of a test or statement. LAVIDES v CA (PISON and PEOPLE) 324 SCRA 321 MENDOZA. Mary Ann Tardesilla. 1997 order were contrary to Art. 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.000. he pleaded not guilty to each offense. §5(b) of R. he asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment scheduled.] .

the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action. RTC grantes the motion of Jimenez. 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 the second place.Finding no more legal obstacle. .Before the RTC could act on the Petition. 1997 of the Regional Trial Court. It held that Jimenez was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.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. the cancellation of the bond.R. Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion. III. Branch 107." . §6. represented by the Philippine DOJ. The condition imposed in the trial court’s order of May 16. filed with the RTC the appropriate Petition for Extradition. . The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit certain offenses.Art. and (5) illegal campaign contributions. 7610. Initially. Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of Manila. such as arraignment. which prohibited the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. Under Rule 114. Dispositive The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and another one is RENDERED declaring the orders dated May 16. whether of innocence or of guilt. For another condition of bail under Rule 114. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents.Bail should be granted before arraignment.. For if the information is quashed and the case is dismissed. the arraignment did not emanate from the invalid condition that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment.] . 1997 order of the trial court that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after arraignment."which prayed that application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. §1(b)] (b) during trial whenever necessary for identification purposes. [Under Art.] At such stages of the proceedings. although the condition for the grant of bail to petitioner is invalid. 1997 (making arraignment a prerequisite to the grant of bail to petitioner). the arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted." Even without such a condition. However. in which case the accused may appear by counsel or representative. After the hearing. 1999. it reversed its earlier decision. and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. of Justice. §1(b) the presence of the accused at the arraignment is required.It is the condition in the May 16." while under Rule 116. . In that hearing.A. trial shall proceed in absentia. 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. which is hereby declared void.9 [Rule 116. also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. PEOPLE v MARK JIMENEZ G. the US gov’t. the offenses with which petitioner is charged are punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. (3) wire fraud (4) false statements.Upon learning of the request for his extradition. §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. and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody FACTS . The TRO was assailed byt the Sec.In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez. . 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. . No. unless it is for a light offense. 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. his arraignment and the subsequent proceedings against him are valid. III. to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea. 1997 for the grant of bail. his arraignment cannot be held. 1997 for the grant of bail because petitioner’s contention is that his arraignment was held in pursuance of these conditions for bail. . 2002 NATURE Petition for certiorari praying for the lifting of the bail Order. Jimenez. Contrary to petitioner’s contention. 1069 . 148571 PANGANIBAN. (2) tax evasion." which CA should instead have declared void. he argues that this case should be treated as an exception. pursuant to Section 5 of the Extradition Law. In such case. and (c) at the promulgation of sentence. 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. .The US gov’t through diplomatic channels sent to the Phil. it does not follow that the arraignment of petitioner on May 23. there would then be no need for the arraignment of the accused. 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. §5 of R. HELD YES . §2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. 1997 that the a2010 page 93 Prof. the court dismissed the petition but after acting upon the motion for reconsideration. . 1997 was also invalid. the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his "immediate arrest" pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. In sum.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales for certiorari before it. otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. 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. §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. 1997 and May 23.CA should have determined the validity of the conditions imposed in the trial court’s order of May 16. ISSUE WON CA erred in not determining the validity of the conditions imposed in the trial court’s order of May 16. 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. Quezon City to be valid. gov’t a note requesting the extradition of Mark B. with the exception of condition (d) in the second paragraph of the order of May 16. his presence is required and cannot be waived.On the other hand.11 [Rule 120.Although this condition is invalid. 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. September 24.

. 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 Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it.Also. and by the use of drugs willfully. PEOPLE v FITZGERALD 505 SCRA 573 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. “…said Fitzgerald. To stress. subpar (5) of RA 7610 and sentenced to an indeterminate term of prision mayor min (8Y 1D) to prision temporal max (17Y 4M 1D)." It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition. with the violation of Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse. Upon completion of his sentence. Excessive bail shall not be required. In the absence of any provision -. unlawfully and feloniously induced complainant “AAA”. It stated that although the evidence of guilt is strong.The people filed a petition fro review on certiorari.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. he shall be deported immediately and forever barred from entry to the Philippines. The bail bond posted by private respondent is CANCELLED. this Petition. modifying the penalty to imprisonment of prision temporal (14Y 8M 1D) to reclusion perpetua (20Y 1D) . 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. instead of facing the consequences of their actions. extradition proceedings are separate and a2010 page 94 Prof. Likewise. but on substantial justice and considering new trial was granted in the case. 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. 8 distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. a minor. 2001 Order.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales quo required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. humanitarian or compelling circumstances. cowards and weaklings who. it would not be good policy to increase the risk of violating our treaty obligations if. ISSUE WON he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending HELD NO Ratio. Sec. and (b) there exist special. be bailable by sufficient sureties. where the presumption of innocence is not at issue. clothes and food and thereafter having carnal knowledge of her in violation of the aforesaid law and to her damage and prejudice. through overprotection or excessively liberal treatment. 13.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. the court below issued its questioned July 3.On appeal. the law or the treaty -. unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In extradition cases. subpar (5) of RA 7610 8 stating that.RTC rendered a decision finding respondent Guilty of Sec 5.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. it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case. potential extraditees may apply for bail. The maximum penalty imposable in accordance with RA 7610 is reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong.III Sec 5.7 Rule 114 ROC. On the basis of the evidence adduced. which was also directed to receive new evidence. choose to run and hide. Art. par (a). Section 13 of the Constitution. actuated by lust. directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. In his Memorandum. He was acquitted on the case of rape. to engage in prostitution by then and there showering said “AAA” with gifts. The motion to transfer the respondent to the National Penitentiary was denied. CA affirmed the conviction. Since the applicants have a history of absconding. . 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.” . we cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives. adopting the practice of not granting them bail. All persons. The bail application was denied pursuant to Sec. . FACTS . Fitzgerald is of old age and not in the best of health. . Dispositive the Petition is GRANTED. Thereafter. Article III. Bail was granted premised not on the grounds stated in the motion for bail. October 27. III.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. since this practice would encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the requesting state to cut short their detention here. > . they have the burden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger to the community. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.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. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond. Hence. The grounds used by the highest court in the requesting state for the grant of bail therein may be considered. Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue. under the principle of reciprocity as a special circumstance. before conviction. Both motions were denied by CA. is worded as follows: Art.The people file a MFR. Jimenez was granted provisional liberty. CA issued the assailed resolution granting bail.000. if released on bail pending appeal. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. It was dismissed which became final and executory. CA granted the motion for new trial. 13 years of age. The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing. The original records of the case were remanded to the RTC.expressly guaranteeing the right to bail in extradition proceedings. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. After being taken into custody. Exploitation and Discrimination Act . He should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him. while Fitzgerald filed a Motion to fix bail with Manifestation. bail is not a matter of right.in the Constitution. . par (a)." . . as a general rule.An information was filed in the RTC charging Fitzgerald. persons sought to be extradited are able to evade arrest or escape from our custody. shall. would be a step towards deterring fugitives from coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their prosecutors. an Australian citizen. he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100. not before the extradition court. Hence.

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

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

Pat. Ratio It may be true that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the information. pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against him. 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. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victims is hereby increased to P30. 1996. to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal. -On August 27. -The record shows that at his arraignment on July 23. . Oleby and Maricris. assisted by a neighbor.Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: Sec. but merely agents of a person in authority. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office. 2000 NATURE Automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro FACTS -On April 28. Gelera and PC Constable Canela to Murder. on June 6. or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. they went to the police authorities of Naujan and filed a complaint against accused-appellant -After preliminary examination. and he did not see the accused shoot Pat. For this reason. or where the houses are a great distance apart. WON a plea of guilt is always binding upon the accused for all the contents of the information 2. full significance and consequences of his plea. Pat.According to the RPC. Oriental Mindoro. (c) In order that commission of a crime in an uninhabited place may be considered. the crimes may only be punished as Homicide. Fesalbon. Lita Macalalad. NO. for each homicide committed by him. but that the said deceased disregarded the warning. it is necessary that the place of occurrence be where there are no houses at all.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales to suffer the death penalty in each case. 3. . which would qualify the killing of Pat. PEOPLE v NADERA 324 SCRA 490 . four informations charging accused-appellant with rape on various dates were filed in the Regional TrialCourt. Reasoning The norm that should be followed where a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant. on August 5. Manolo A. Gelera was already dead when the other witness saw him. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. WON the killing was qualified by treachery 3. after the prosecution had presented Dr. (d) Abuse of superior strength must also be ruled out since there is no direct evidence that the accused employed it. a considerable distance from the village or town. Thereupon. WON the conviction must be set aside HELD 1. (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. accused-appellant. 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.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. about 15 meters away from the municipal building when the accused Rudy Tiongson and his companions escaped from prison. mere presumptions or deductions from hypothetical facts not being sufficient to consider them justified. reception of evidence. 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. February 2. the execution of which was preceded by deliberate thought and reflection. 1996." a2010 page 97 Prof. they should be disallowed in the judgment. especially in cases where the capital penalty may be imposed. 1997. NO. "there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person. WON there were aggravating circumstances present HELD 1. including the aggravating circumstances listed therein. -Accused-appellant did not present any evidence in his defense. where the penalty may be death. -However. the prosecution formally offered its documentary evidence and rested its case thereafter. ISSUES 1. YES . as stated by the trial judge. 1997. . When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense.000.00 in each case. accusedappellant pleaded guilty to the crime charged in all the informations. herein accusedappellant.Since treachery. assisted by Atty. the trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of four counts of rape against his daughters. In the instant case. 1997. -On August 12. methods. as minimum. 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. Cynthia S. yet where there has been a hearing and such circumstances are disproven by the evidence. Garcia of the Bulalacao police force merely declared that he was in his house. MENDOZA. -Nadera appealed ISSUES 1. . employing means. 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. Gelera. Reasoning (a) Evident premeditation must be ruled out in view of the absence of sufficient proof that a plan to kill the victims existed. NO. told their mother that they had been raped by their father. Plea of guilty to capital offense.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. Reasoning The circumstances qualifying or aggravating the act of killing a human being must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner. as maximum. 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 . 2. and to indemnify the heirs of the victims. Calapan. was not present. 1996. the Court requires that in every case under a plea of guilty. 3.

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

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

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

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

Diolito dela Cruz died. notwithstanding that the airport was ringed by airtight security of close to 2. deliberately and in conspiracy with one another. Aquino" and that "the SWAT troopers who gunned down Galman and the soldiers who escorted Sen.As the accused were tried in the Sandiganbayan. it was technically impossible to get inside such a cordon. respondent Gen. pleaded guilty and sentenced accordingly. mother and son. was tainted by fraud. Arturo Custodio who picked him up from his house on August 17. 1972: the City Court of Manila. records are inadequate to show that the arraignment. September 12. the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. or other form of chicanery sufficient to sustain a finding that the State was denied due process . outstanding members of the Philippine Bar and solid after the accident and the arrest of the respondent Gapay" and that on October 20. respectively. which held that Article 365 of the Penal Code punishes the negligent state of mind and not the resulting injury. GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN 144 SCRA 43 TEEHANKEE. Dispositive Order of dismissal of lower court affirmed. in turn.At any rate. 1972. together with the facts existing at the time. 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. jeopardy had attached and no new fact supervened after the arraignment and conviction of the accused. although he was the personal friend of accused Col. the accused was arraigned.In his memorandum. a former AFP Chief of Staff. Aquino down the service stairs. It based its decision on the ruling in People v Buan. the fact remains that the victim Diolito dela Cruz died on October 18 "one (1) day a2010 page 102 Prof.However.] . and that the military escorts gunned him down in turn. 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. a military viewpoint.000 soldiers and "from . 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. His brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into the back of his head by a murderous assassin. . 1972: An information for homicide thru reckless imprudence was filed against Gapay . driver of the truck. He pleaded guilty. 1972: Gapay was arraigned on the charge of serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. the Solicitor General made mention of the fact that on October 21. The accused does not appear to have been a detention prisoner necessitating his immediate arraignment right after the filing of the information. In such a case.October 24. composed of three former Justices of this Court. while hasty and surrounded by seemingly suspicious circumstances. On the same day. constitutes a new and distinct offense." They were in agreement that "only the soldiers in the staircase with Sen." .Be that as it may. it is most surprising that the accused could have been arraigned for the charge of serious physical injuries only 3 days after the incident. gave a perjured story to us regarding the alleged shooting by Galman of Sen. the military's "fall guy" was "not the assassin of Sen.Respondent court held that above rule does not apply in this case.Saturnina Galman and Reynaldo Galman.October 20. the accused cannot again be prosecuted for the same negligence although for a different resulting injury. Olivas. and commenced serving sentence. .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales against Francisco Gapay y Mallares.November 17.Knowing the volume of the caseload in the City Court of Manila and the inevitably slow pace of work. the victim Diolito de la Cruz died. five incumbent and former university presidents. 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. 2 days after the filing of the information and the death of the victim. . of the late Rolando Galman. and 29 other petitioners. was sentenced to 1 month and 1 day of arresto mayor. upon motion of private respondent. where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible. Reasoning . However. which changes the character of the offense and. Aquino and the mowing down. issued an order dismissing the homicide thru reckless imprudence case on the ground of double jeopardy. 1986 FACTS . not a communist plot. stating that "the evidence shows [to the contrary] that Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations.Marcos was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board to investigate. Aquino could have shot him." that Galman." . The trial court concluded that once prosecuted for and convicted of negligence. . Both majority and minority reports were one in rejecting the military version as propounded by the chief investigator. 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. 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. 1983) was a communist-hired gunman. collusion. that Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy. 1972. Thus. . that Rolando Galman was the NPA-hired assassin. of Galman himself." in short. SEPARATE OPINION GUTIERREZ [concurring] . [Note: His private acts in trying to control the outcome of the case were to be known much later after he was already deposed. 1983. and the information would have to be amended. 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." 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.Ninoy Aquino was cold-bloodedly killed while under escort from his plane that had just landed at the Manila International Airport on August 21.

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. They would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice. the Commission is of the considered thinking and belief. and retired IAC Justices Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa as members. the . 10010 and 10011 entitled 'People vs. 1986. 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. the same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. On February 4. .' be granted. The courts of the land under its aegis are courts of law and justice and equity. [Note that EDSA I happened before the month ended. 1986. then the entire proceedings would be null and void. YES Reasoning . 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. 1985. as scheduled. on December 2. Petitioners prayed that the Sandiganbayan be restrained from promulgating their decision as scheduled anew on December 2. subject to the better opinion and judgment of this Honorable Court. WON the petition for a declaration of a mistrial in Sandiganbayan Cases Nos. 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. 1985. with counsels for respondents Ver and Tigas. the Court required the respondents to comment on the motion for reconsideration but issued no restraining order. . But ten days later on November 28. and that their acts "clouded with the gravest doubts the sincerity of government to find out the truth about the Aquino assassination. 1985.On December 5. WON a retrial would constitute double jeopardy HELD 1. to hear and receive evidence. 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. 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. and to submit their findings to this Court for proper disposition. 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. Answering Respondents would not interpose any objection to the reopening of those cases. upon prior notice to all parties. remedy is a direct action to annul the judgment where the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff to establish by clear. petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for reconsideration.' be granted 2. the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse. et al. without fear or favor and removed from the pressures of Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the accused of the crime charged.The Supreme Court resolved by nine-to-two votes to issue the restraining order prayed for.. further arguing that assuming that the judgment of acquittal is void for any reason.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. competent and convincing evidence the cause of the nullity. 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. 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. if only to allow justice to take its course. Chief of the Prosecution Panel. .. but also predetermined the final outcome of the case. 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." 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.] . were pressured into suppressing vital evidence which would probably alter the result of the trial. 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.Tanodbayan Fernandez claimed he never succumbed to any alleged attempts to influence his actuations in the premises. respondent a2010 page 103 Prof. and which not only prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its position and to offer all the evidences which it could have otherwise presented. [Note: the word used by the Sandiganbayan was “innocent” instead of “not guilty”!] Respondents submitted that with the Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal. 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. and hereby respectfully recommends that the prayer in the petition for a declaration of a mistrial in Sandiganbayan Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 entitled 'People vs. Luther Custodio. Luther Custodio.Respondents-accused opposed the second motion for reconsideration and prayed for its denial. resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the temporary restraining order issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales citizens of the community." 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. prejudiced and partial in favor of the accused. declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil liability. 1985. et al. that the proceedings in the said case have been vitiated by lack of due process.The Supreme Court appointed a three-member commission composed of retired SC Justice Conrado Vasquez. the instant case had become moot and academic. 1985. deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth." ISSUES 1. but manifested that "if it is true that the former Tanodbayan and the Deputy Tanodbayan. ." . The accused-respondents raised the issue of double jeopardy.The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and travesty of justice to stand unrectified. Respondents Justices of the Sandiganbayan First Division in their collective comment of April 9.On March 20. of the charges of collusion and pressures and relevant matters. Thus. chairman. as well as Olivas. testimonial and documentary. [Hmmm… tsk] .

A dictated. thereof. Series of 1974. Batangas City . he invites anarchy. . 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. without the necessary authority from the city government. harass. intimidate and threaten its witnesses. Such a judgment is "a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw". RELOVA 148 SCRA 292 FELICIANO." During the subsequent investigation. 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. judgment is hereby rendered nullifying the proceedings in respondent Sandiganbayan and its judgment of acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. It is a terrible and unspeakable affront to the society and the people. to suppress its evidence. 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. 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. Herrera likewise complained of being "cajoled into producing witnesses and pressed on making assurances that if given a certain period. 2. (d) a valid plea having been entered. The resolutions of November 28. they will be able to produce their witnesses. searched and examined the premises of the Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold Storage owned and operated by the private respondent Manuel Opulencia. the first jeopardy was never terminated. The lower court was not competent as it was ousted of its jurisdiction when it violated the right of the prosecution to due process. More so. and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. equipped with a search warrant issued by a city judge of Batangas City. and "architecturally concealed inside the walls of the building" owned by the private respondent. 10010 and 10011 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. 1987 NATURE Petition for certiorari and mandamus.CIRCUMSTANCES: On 1 February 1975. courts are ousted of their jurisdiction." 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. et al.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales politics and prejudice. 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. coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal such as that in the case at bar is a void judgment.CASE: On 24 November 1975. 1986 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside and in lieu PEOPLE V. Gen. The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights. In legal contemplation. 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." 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. its right to due process is thereby violated. they could not cope with the misuse and abuse of the overwhelming powers of the authoritarian President to weaken the case of the prosecution. (c) after arraignment. The prosecution complained of "the Presiding Justice's seemingly hostile attitude towards (it)" and their being the subject of warnings. 1985 dismissing the petition and of February 4. Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent. 1. Fully aware of the prosecution's difficulties in locating witnesses and overcoming their natural fear and reluctance to appear and testify. and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy. it is no judgment at all. the People seek to set aside the orders of the respondent Judge of the CFI of Batangas in a criminal case. In life. 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. 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. so that the truth may be finally known and justice done to all. Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case. On 2 February 1976. pursuant to the scripted scenario. 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. To paraphrase Brandeis: If the authoritarian head of the government becomes the lawbreaker. devices and contraptions had been installed.Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment. a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction. Thus. the violation of the State's right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Batangas City. It neither binds nor bars anyone. Manifestly. he breeds contempt for the law. 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. he invites every man to become a law unto himself. (b) before a competent court. . In effect. March 6. Reasoning . Luther Custodio. Notwithstanding the laudable efforts of Justice Herrera which saw him near the end "deactivating" himself from the case. FACTS . as it was his belief that its eventual resolution was already a foregone conclusion.the non-trial of the century and that the predetermined judgment of acquittal was unlawful and void ab initio. total absolution as innocent of all the respondentsaccused. an information against Manuel Opulencia for violation of Ordinance No. reprimand and contempt proceedings as compared to the nil situation for the defense. 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. These electric devices and contraptions were.More so does the rule against the invoking of double jeopardy hold in the cases at bar where as we have held. Dispositive Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration is granted. 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. The police discovered that electric wiring. The Court is constrained to declare the sham trial a mock trial . members of the Batangas City Police together with personnel of the Batangas Electric Light System. In death. secure their recantation or prevent them from testifying. Manuel Opulencia pleaded not guilty.

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

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

Cruz and Vergara were given reduced penalties. it a2010 page 107 Prof. 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor. 1987 and November 27. 1988 is SET ASIDE.Samson.11 in each of the two cases . 2) a court of competent jurisdiction. 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. they were sentenced to indemnify the Philip-pine Ryukyus Command. 1958 NATURE Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS .On appeal before the CA. 1987 as null and void and to prohibit respondent from further proceeding with the criminal case. as found by the Court of Appeals constitute gross imprudence 2.Paras didn’t know how to write so she instead placed her thumbmark at the back of the check while Samson signed as witness. Angel Yu. 1948 Amado L. In addition.R. and ordinary prudence required that he should satisfy himself by all proper and adequate means of the identity of the persons claiming said amounts. . Lorenzo Coloso also asked for at least two (2) postponements.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. 83114 is GRANTED and the questioned orders of Judge Cosico dated May 22. or must have been aware that the claim was for a sizeable amount. Samson reported the incident to an officer. ISSUE WON the reinstatement of the criminal case placed the accused in double jeopardy. Considering the two (2) postponements requested by Atty. 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. since they we personally unknown to him. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 22..R. Upon knowing of this. He could have easily granted or denied the motion. Here Samson received P300 supposedly to pay the officers who helped them and P10 for taxi money. 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. 1978 are AFFIRMED.they then proceeded to Aristocrat to eat lunch. Coloso is not therefore coming to this court with clean hands. SAMSON v CA 103 PHIL 277 BAUTISTA ANGELO. to wit: 1) a valid complaint or information.Appellant was. 1987: . Atty.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. . The petition docketed as G. WON the acts done by him. Samson accompanied by Cruz and the supposed claimants went to talk to Lt. As noted by Judge Cosico in his order dated November 27. This he was able to verify.G. in the sum of P5. with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of two checks of the Philippine National Bank and were found guilty.417. R. giving sound reasons for his ruling. 81861 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. the accused in effect waived their right to speedy trial. was then present and ready to testify." Dispositive WHEREFORE. the petition docketed as G. There were no oppressive delays on the part of the prosecution.two days after. it appears that on November 10. In invoking the right of the accused to speedy trial. Moreover. 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. 1987 and November 27. 1986. It bears the earmarks of bias and prejudice. 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. mate would certainly not be a satisfactory identification to justify disbursement of such a large amount . . On the other hand. Coloso. 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.acting on the assurance of Samson. principal witness for the prosecution. No. YES .On October 2. He could have required that the motion be submitted formally. Mr. Lascano placed his signature while Samson signed as last endorser. The case was dismissed upon motion and with the express consent of the accused. .appellant as a Lieutenant of the Army is sufficiently intelligent and educated to foresee the possibility that the certificates could be forged or stolen . The mere assurance of a former class. 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. Cruz and Vergara and two others whose names are unknown in two separate informations . there would be no reason to exculpate him from liability 2.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. It was on their oral motion that the lower court ordered the case to be dismissed. 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. 81861 . the payee of the checks. Valencia helped them secure checks in the name of Rosalinda Perez and Espiridion Lascano. ISSUES 1.. Samson was informed of the possibility that the people who claimed the checks weren’t the real people who they claimed to be. . HELD Ratio the requisites that must concur for legal jeopardy to attach are. The two (2) postponements requested by the prosecution appear to be reasonable.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . No.500 and the costs. totalling over twelve thousand pesos. Hese were encashed by Mallari again believing Samson. to pay a fine of P2. YES . especially his precipitate dismissal of the case shows that his reaction was not mere impetuousness or pique. The prosecution's insistence that Judge Suplico rule on the motion to inhibit before further proceedings in the case was not dilatory. The accused Bernabe Que. The subsequent behavior of the former Judge. After being assured twice of the identity of the supposed claimants and after examining their residence certificates attached to the claim papers. Manuel Valencia and requested him to act as guarantor to secure the claimants check. Reasoning The fourth requisite is lacking in the instant case. and this being a fact. MARCH 31. WON he was correctly found guilty of the offense estafa through (falsification by) negligence HELD 1.

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

01-101102 to 01-101112 as mere revivals of the same.Before the accused could be arraigned.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.The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration of the transfer. their constitutional right against double jeopardy. State Prosecutors Ong and Zacarias. the Sandiganbayan ordered the cases transferred to the Regional Trial Court . Corazon de la Cruz. Only prosecution witness Corazon de la Cruz testified to affirm her affidavit. 01-101102 to 01-101112. . or in discharge of.On April 17. On November 20. . On the strength of this indorsement. . It characterized the termination of Criminal Cases Nos. .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales investigation of the murder charges. 1995. 1995. invoking. No. 1995. against respondent Panfilo M. . Wenceslao Agnir.On March 29. to dismiss the cases outright.On the other hand.The plea for temporary restraining order was denied .On March 27. 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. and the People of the Philippines. 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. Abelardo Ramos regarding the Kuratong Baleleng incident for preliminary investigation. Amended Informations were filed against the same twenty-six (26) suspects but the participation of respondent Lacson was downgraded from principal to accessory. The criminal cases were assigned to Judge Ma. Respondent Lacson. prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes.Upon motion of the respondent. Armando Capili and Jane Gomez. 7975. a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and in the absence thereof. Theresa Yadao).On August 24. the amendatory law deleted the word “principal” in Section 2 of R. On March 1. The said petition was amended to implead as additional party-respondents State Prosecutor Claro Arellano and the RTC. .On June 6. 2001.Ombudsman Desierto referred the resolution for review. Godwin Valdez testified that he assisted them in preparing their affidavits of desistance and that he signed said affidavits as witness. Applying Section 8. filed a Manifestation and Motion dated June 13.” and considered Criminal Cases Nos. as required by R. Mendoza indorsed to the Department of Justice the new affidavits of P/Insp. whether principal. R. the PNP Chief. Judge Agnir issued a Resolution dismissing the Criminal Cases . 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. Branch 81 . it dismissed the criminal cases against the respondent ISSUE WON Section 8. respondent Lacson. Aurora Bautista of the Philippine Lawyer’s League presented the affidavits of recantation of prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes. 2001. Ysmael S. 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 . now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. Secretary of Justice Hernando B. the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan eleven (11) Informations for MURDER. the Secretary of Justice. . among others. Executive Secretary. is a government official of Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher. 1997. . 8249.In Lacson v.The records of the case before us are not clear whether the private offended parties were notified of the hearing on March 22. . primarily to enjoin the State prosecutors from conducting the preliminary investigation. Yadao. . Atty. . 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Jamolin.In the meantime.Due to these developments. In particular. A. 1996. On October 20. In their stead. while dismissing the constitutional challenge. amending R. Arraignment then followed and respondent entered a plea of not guilty. however.The Criminal Cases were raffled off to Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. . A. Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. citing Section 2 of R. accomplice or accessory. . Q-99-81679 to Q99-81689 as “provisional dismissal. A. Pending resolution of the motion. This Court. . Jr.During the said hearing. Atty.On May 28. 7975. 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. the private offended parties who desisted do not appear to have been presented on the witness stand. private complainants also executed their respective affidavits of desistance declaring that they were no longer interested to prosecute these cases. 8249 took effect on February 23. All twenty-six (26) of them were charged as principals. including respondent Lacson. No. Quezon City. . the twenty-six (26) accused. A. Rule 117 bars the filing of the eleven (11) informations against the respondent Lacson committed in relation to. respondent Lacson challenged the constitutionality of the amendment and contended that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the criminal cases. 2001. On the other hand. 1999 held by Judge Agnir to resolve the motions filed by respondent Lacson and the other accused.With the downgrading of charges against him. Accordingly. .On the same day. Lacson and twenty-five (25) other accused. A. filed a petition for prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. respondent Lacson filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari against Judge Pasamba. . the respondent was subpoenaed . 2001. thereby expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to include all cases where at least one of the accused. 2001 seeking the suspension of the proceedings before the trial court. including respondent Lacson and his twenty-five (25) other co-accused in the original informations. docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. the official functions of the respondent. Armando Capili and Jane Gomez recanted their affidavits which implicated respondent Lacson in the murder of the KBG members. PNP Director Leandro R. Theresa L. respondent Lacson also filed with the RTC-QC Branch 81 (presided by Judge Ma. Yu and P/S Insp. et al. No. 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. 7975 then prevailing. 2001. 23047 to 23057.. 1999. the panel issued a resolution recommending the dismissal of the charges for lack of probable cause. No. then presided by Judge. to attend the investigation of said Criminal Cases . on June 8. No.On November 2. Perez formed a panel to investigate the matter. the Court of Appeals rendered the now assailed Decision.The new Informations charged as principals thirtyfour (34) people. 2001. the criminal cases were remanded to the Ombudsman for reinvestigation.

There was hardly any proceeding conducted in the case for respondent Lacson immediately filed a petition for certiorari in the appellate court challenging.The applicability of Section 8. Rule 117 was never considered in the trial court. 149453 April 3. But even then. it is not fair to expect the element of notice to be litigated before then Judge Agnir for Section 8. They involve disputed facts and arguable questions of law. Provisional dismissal. The reception of evidence on these various issues cannot be done in this Court but before the trial court. Rule 117 was yet inexistent at that time.. there is still a need to determine whether the requirements for its application are attendant. Rule 117 bars the revival of the multiple murder cases against him. 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. . the Court cannot rule on this issue due to the lack of sufficient factual bases. hence. or both. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount. . (3) whether the 2-year period to revive it has already lapsed. among others.Like any other favorable procedural rule. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. Rule 117 was not tackled by the litigants. 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. (4) whether there is any justification for the filing of the cases beyond . . To be sure. the authority of Judge Yadao to entertain the revived informations for multiple murder against him. the issue of whether or not the reinvestigation is barred by Section 8.A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. Thus. No. however..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.R. . Their affidavits of desistance were only presented by Atty. . the State must be given the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with said timeline. 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..In light of the lack of or the conflicting evidence on the various requirements to determine the applicability of Section 8. It also appears that only seven (7) persons submitted their affidavits of desistance. Godwin Valdez who testified that he assisted the private complainants in preparing their affidavits and he signed them as a witness. The same records do not show whether they were notified of the hearing or had knowledge thereof. . (2) whether it was ordered by the court after notice to the offended party. this new rule can be given retroactive effect. (3) whether the 2year period to revive has already lapsed. It was respondent Lacson himself who moved to dismiss the subject cases for lack of probable cause before then Judge Agnir. 2003 NATURE Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 28. (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the accused.If the cases were revived only after the 2-year bar. (2) whether it was ordered by the court after notice to the offended party. . Rule 117. From the records of the case before us. It was in the Court of Appeals where respondent Lacson raised for the first time the argument that Section 8. 8.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. 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. Thus.There is no uncertainty with respect to the fact that the provisional dismissal of the cases against respondent Lacson bears his express consent. It can therefore present compelling reasons PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON G. .Indeed.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales involving the killing of some members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. Dispositive Case remanded desistance executed by the relatives of the three other victims. it cannot be determined whether there were affidavits of a2010 page 110 Prof. there is need of proof of the following facts: (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the accused. 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. to enjoin the prosecutors from reinvestigating the said cases against him. 2000 provides: “SEC. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure could be given retroactive effect. .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.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. and (4) whether there is any justification for the filing of the cases beyond the 2-year period.This rule which took effect on December 1.” . The new rule fixes a timeline to penalize the State for its inexcusable delay in prosecuting cases already filed in courts.. 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. their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. The trial court was thus directed to resolve the following: . HELD . The only question raised in said petition is whether the reinvestigation will violate the right of respondent Lacson against double jeopardy. The reckoning date of the 2-year bar has to be first determined .The records of the case. 2002 FACTS . it is beyond argument that their dismissal bears his express consent. shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived.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. to justify the revival of cases beyond the 2-year bar. The Court also held therein that although Section 8. However.

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.Section 8. Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel of prosecutors and before the Court of Appeals. provisional or otherwise of the Criminal Cases. On the other hand. (6) whether there were affidavits of desistance executed by the relatives of the three (3) other victims. issued his resolution of March 29. or even agree to a provisional dismissal thereof. . Provisional dismissal. the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally. Jr. the writing amounts to express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case. or both the prosecution and the accused move for a provisional dismissal of the case. Jr. Jr. . impliedly or expressly. However. the State must be given the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with the said time-bar. reduce. ISSUES 1. 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 . if the cases were revived only after the two-year bar. of the Criminal Cases. 4. for the same offense or for an offense necessarily included therein. If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused. WON Section 8. A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. the case may be revived only within the periods provided in the new rule.Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given either viva voce or in writing. YES . Section and not retroactively against the State. shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived.. 2. the State is not precluded from presenting compelling reasons to justify the revival of cases beyond the two-year bar. or from the dates of receipt thereof by the various offended parties. 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. dismissed the Criminal Cases. (5) whether notices to the offended parties were given before the cases of respondent Lacson were dismissed by then Judge Agnir.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. 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. Neither did he ever agree.In this case.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the 2-year period. 1999.The petitioners aver that Section 8. their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning. The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order of dismissal. or from the date of effectivity of the new rule. 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 two-year bar in Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should be applied prospectively a2010 page 111 Prof. 8. . (7) 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 is applicable to the Criminal Cases 2.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. WON the time-bar in said rule should be applied retroactively HELD 1. if a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without the express consent of the accused or over his objection. Jr. 3. direct. . to a mere provisional dismissal of the cases. and unduly impair. the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case. . 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 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. . or both. the prosecution did not file any motion for the provisional dismissal of the said criminal cases. namely: 1. Jr. According to the petitioners. the heirs of the victims were allegedly not given prior notices of the dismissal of the said cases by Judge Agnir. Irrefragably. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case. 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 respondent did not pray for the dismissal. According to the Court. Where the accused writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a provisional dismissal of the case No objection or With my conformity. Jr. The petitioners maintain that the respondent did not give his express consent to the dismissal by Judge Agnir. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reads: Sec. dismissing the eleven cases. A motion of the accused for a provisional dismissal of a case is an express consent to such provisional dismissal. dismissing the cases. 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. 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. It is a positive. the respondent is burdened to establish the essential requisites of the first paragraph thereof. . The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount. and diminish the State’s substantive right to prosecute the accused for multiple murder. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case. Moreover. the new rule would not apply.The foregoing requirements are conditions sine qua non to the application of the time-bar in the second paragraph of the new rule.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. 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.

with preliminary injunction. 1985. The complainant .The assistant city fiscal filed an opposition to the motion to quash filed by petitioners. however. If the Court applied the new timebar retroactively. he should prospectively. the accused is entitled to justice and fairness. the heirs of the victims were not notified thereof prior to the hearing on said motion on March 22.Since the conditions sine qua non for the application of the new rule were not present when Judge Agnir. 2002 within which to revive the cases. Such notice may be served on the offended party or the heirs of the victim through the private prosecutor. Jr. the reply-affidavit belongs to the class of absolutely privileged communications . dismissed the Criminal Cases on March 29. 1984. 1990 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA FACTS . and thereafter. Judge Agnir. Rule 117 of the ROC provides that. Jr.Petitioners moved to quash the Information on the ff. The new rule took effect on December 1. 2001 within which to revive these criminal cases. RTC of Pasay City denied the motion to quash. 1. January 30. Instead of giving the State two years to revive provisionally dismissed cases. The said information was later amended on. It must be stressed that the respondent filed his motion only on March 17. 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.In Jan. The said cases were consolidated and are pending trial. 1999 and set it for hearing on March 22. injurious.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 4 of the Rules of Court. 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. Vistan also filed a complaint against Bulaong for rescission of contract with damages. 1999 when the public prosecutor received his copy of the resolution of Judge Agnir. 2. It must be borne in mind that in crimes involving private interests. prohibition. 1999 to November 30. The latter conducted an investigation. . . an adverse decision is rendered. The period is short of the two-year period fixed under the new rule. without pleading. and the motion is withdrawn or overruled. 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. Later. the State had considerably less than two years to do so. Dispositive Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON October 2003 BULAONG v CA (PEOPLE) 181 SCRA 618 MEDIALDEA. 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. Petitioners filed MFR but was denied. 1999. and 2) that the fiscal has no authority to file the Information. and the defendants filed their affidavit and counteraffidavits respectively. Maria. to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law Reasoning: [a] Sec. 2000. issued his resolution. the State would have only one year and three months or until March 31. or do both and that.In March 1984. dismissing the criminal cases is inconsistent with the intendment of the new rule. defendant shall immediately either move to quash the complaint or information or plead thereto. 1999 or barely five days from the filing thereof. This would be a rank denial of justice. Hence. if after trial on the merits. so is the State. if the defendant moves to quash. 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. if there is one. mandamus. 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. Buenaventura and Sta.On the other hand. petitioner Bulaong filed with the RTC of Zambales an action for sum of money against Vistan. Although the public prosecutor was served with a copy of the motion. Although in criminal cases. unreasonable. oppressive. Jr. Vistan and Buenaventura filed a complaint for libel against Bulaong and his counsel de Guzman with the City Fiscal. go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and. NO . 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. petitioners Bulaong and his counsel de Guzman submitted to City Fiscal of Pasay a replyaffidavit containing statements which are alleged to be libelous. The State must be given a period of one year or two years as the case may be from December 1.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. 1999. The period from April 1. . The defendant should instead. CA dismissed petition for lack of merit. Hence. 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. . 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. Petitioners filed with CA a petition for certiorari. the State would have two years from December 1. 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 . and wrongful results in the administration of justice. 2000 or until December 1. . 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. filed an information for libel against petitioners. upon arraignment. if the time limit is applied a2010 page 112 Prof. Bulaong filed a criminal complaint for estafa with the City Fiscal of Pasay against Vicente Vistan and Leonardo Buenaventura.In the case at bar. 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.In Nov. grounds: (1) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. Thus.

after the denial of his MTQ. 1 ISSUE WON CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC convicting the petitioner of the offense charged. in his memorandum. which was not signed by the petitioner. under the circumstances obtaining in this case. the ends of justice require that evidence be presented to determine the culpability of the accused. 3 informations was filed against him for the illegal sale of 5. 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.When arraigned. duly opposed by the prosecution. The Trial Court convicted petitioner-appellant. penal statutes whether substantive and remedial or procedural are. for further reception of evidence. not appealable. a2010 page 113 Prof. 1985. 1985. . Pre-trial agreements must be signed. is properly denied. If. -The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. they could still raise the same on appeal. 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. like an order denying a motion to acquit. and. The MTQ the information for libel on the ground of qualified privilege.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales immediately plead. WON Uy agreed to waive the testimony of the Forensic Chemist during the pre-trial HELD 1. by consecrated rule. should have proceeded with the trial of the case in the court below." and possession of 401 grams of the same drug. Yatco.8564 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu. 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.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. which became effective on January 1. 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. Such order of denial may only be reviewed. to be strictly applied against the government and liberally in favor of the accused (People vs. Uy claimed that he was merely framed. When a judgment has been entered by consent of an attorney without special authority. as mandatorily required by the Rules. -Only the prosecution presented its evidence. present the questions which he sought to be decided by the appellate court in a petition for certiorari. after trial. During the pre-trial. provides: "SEC. as required by Rule 118. Bravo. if that defense should fail. is interlocutory and not a final order." (Rule 118) The Rule is mandatory. CA decision is AFFIRMED. March 7. respondent Appellate Court upheld the Stipulation of Facts and affirmed the judgment of conviction. after trial on the merits. nor by his counsel HELD YES. negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory (McGee vs. moreover in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant. Petitioner-appellant waived the right to present evidence and submitted a Memorandum confirming . that the omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel. 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. RAMON pleaded not guilty in each case. And more importantly. What the prosecution should have done. and thus. Dispositive WHEREFORE. is a defense which petitioners could raise upon the trial on the merits. Neither can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari.During the trial. -The conclusion is inevitable. 2000 FACTS . . -On appeal. the guilt of the PEOPLE v UY 327 SCRA 335 DAVIDE. renders the Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in evidence.As has been repeatedly held. the presumption of FULE v CA 162 SCRA 446 MELENCIO-HERRERA . The CA committed a mistake. the Stipulation of Facts. 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. and if final judgment is rendered against him. SO ORDERED. therefore. The use of the term "shall" further emphasizes its mandatory character and means that it is imperative. Salvador). The fact that the lawyer of the accused. by an appeal from the judgment. Republic). They also agreed on the marking of the exhibits for the prosecution. WON there was a legitimate buy bust 2. .Ramon Uy was caught by the PNP in a buy bust operation. YES. accused cannot be deemed established beyond reasonable doubt. . he could then appeal. -Consequently. 4. it will sometimes be set aside or reopened (Natividad vs. the parties agreed on a joint trial and to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. ISSUE 1. in the ordinary course of law. which means that trial must proceed. Terrado). was to submit evidence to establish the elements of the crime. applicable to this case since the pre-trial was held on August 8. and upon such appeal. [c] In Collins vs. 1985. Natividad). upon discovering that the accused did not sign the Stipulation of Facts. Without said evidence independent of the admission. instead of relying solely on the supposed admission of the accused in the Stipulation of Facts.[d] Whether or not the alleged libelous statements in the reply-affidavit are covered within the mantle of absolutely privileged communications. operating to impose a duty which may be enforced (Bersabal vs. June 22. Under the rule of statutory construction. unless there be evidence to the contrary. 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. Wolfe and reiterated in Mill vs. the accused. [b] An order denying a MTQ. judgment is rendered adversely to the movant in the MTQ. 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.

August 31. the imposable penalty on James Andrew. instead of filing a brief for appellee. . Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. but always in the proper period. thereby dispensing will the testimony of Forensic chemist Loreto E. The Uy brothers claim that James Andrew was only 17 years and 262 days old at the time the crimes were committed. 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. Strictly. it is clear that Uy and his counsel merely agreed to the marking of the exhibits. . 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. as maximum. Uy cannot now raise it for the first time on appeal.During the pre-trial. both of them being residents thereof and bound for San Jose City. conducted immediately after the arraignment on 21 November 1995. the court required the SolGen to secure a clear and legible copy from the Civil Registrar of Cotabato as well as the NSO.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. . Dispositive Decision affirmed in toto PEOPLE v LARRAÑAGA PER CURIAM.Even granting for the sake of argument that Uy admitted during the pre-trial that the plastic bags contained shabu . to 17 years of reclusion temporal in its medium period. prosecution and defense agreed to stipulate on the markings of the following prosecution’s exhibits. Mendoza.The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape being death. Reasoning .Judgment of lower court convicted Antonio Quiazon of abduction with rape. Virginia was quite friendly. and agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. For the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape. . NO. . He begs leave and pleads that we admit at this stage of the proceedings his Certificate of Live Birth issued by the NSO. Bravo. They did not object when the prosecution presented the plastic bags and said that it contained shabu. For the crime of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention. as minimum. is 1 degree lower than the statutory penalty. Acting Solicitor General Vicente V. shall prevail over appellant’s self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed . Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. 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. The documents showed that James Andrew was indeed a minor when the crimes were committed. as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses. and the clause "thereby dispensing with the testimony of forensic Chemist Loreto E. There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance. and appellant while they were passengers in a Baliuag Transit bus. 40. the records disclose that during the pre-trial.Since the entry in the birth certificate was not legible.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. penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed. the penalty of 12 years of prision mayor in its maximum period. by reason of his minority. . the admission cannot be used in evidence against him because the Joint Order was not signed by Uy and his counsel.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. 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. FACTS . Nueva Ecija. doubt on the conformity of the accused to the facts agreed upon. like alibi. Uy cannot take advantage of the absence of his and his counsel’s signatures on the pre trial order. Thus. January 31. the defense of denial or frame-up. He prays that his penalty be reduced.The Uy brothers were convicted of the crimes of special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape. . 2006 NATURE MFR filed by brothers James Anthony and James Andrew. one degree lower therefrom is reclusion perpetua. Dispositive The MFR is GRANTED.Nevertheless.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales regularity in the performance of official duty. FACTS . and the prosecution stipulated on the markings of the prosecution’s exhibits. as he may have waived his presence at the pre-trial conference. James Andrew Uy is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. both surnamed Uy." Indeed. 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. and Baptismal Certificate. as in the case of his brother James Anthony. Bravo. One degree lower therefrom is reclusion temporal. eliminate any a2010 page 114 Prof. On the other hand. from the tenor of the aforequoted portion of the Joint Order. Uy. Gerardo Alberto. he should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of 12 years of prision mayor in its maximum period. The SolGen recommended that the penalty imposed be reduced. duly represented by counsel de parte Atty. . Virginia Salazar de la Cruz (Virginia). Section 4 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court expressly provides: SEC. and simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention. the need for a thorough study of the record became evident. the penalty to be imposed on James Andrew is reclusion temporal in its medium period. and thereafter to file a comment on the issue of James Andrew's minority. as maximum. as minimum.Moreover. 1977 NATURE Plea of Acting Solicitor Vicente Mendoza to acquit the accused. to 17 years of reclusion temporal in its medium period. the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion perpetua to death. 2. Bravo" must be understood in that context.Events started in a chance encounter between complainant. and during the trip was . submitted a Manifestation recommending that the judgment of the lower court be reversed and another be entered acquitting him.

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

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

the court should ascertain that the accused voluntarily entered into the plea and fully comprehends the ramifications of such a plea and. whether express or implied. Khazie’s slippers were recovered from Alicando’s home along with a stained T-shirt and pillow. Rebada then told the Penecillas what she knew." There is no doubt that it could be waived. > With regard to comprehension. were inadmissible. Respondent considered the appeal taken by the petitioner as waiver of the defects in the proceedings in the respondent City Court. 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. . Reasoning PEOPLE v ALICANDO 251 SCRA 293 PUNO. . socio-economic status and educational background of the accused were not examined. the trial court ordered the prosecution to present its evidence.Alicando was charged of rape with homicide for the death of Khazie Penecilla on June 12. 1994 – Alicando was arraigned and pleaded guilty. Reasoning . At around 4:30 PM. another neighbor. 1995 NATURE Automatic review FACTS . > Khazie’s father Romeo was having a drink with two friends in Romeo’s house. 2. commentaries and the rules to bolster his position. Thus: "However. 1994 – The trial court sentenced Alicando to death by electric chair or.The appeal to the Court of First Instance presided by respondent Judge Mendoza did not possess any curative aspect. the Memorandum in support of the appeal unmistakably raised as error the absence of petitioner at the arraignment and cited jurisprudence. whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same illegal act. The plea of guilt was null and void. but here there was no such waiver. Sec. 1994 in Iloilo City. Reasoning . . .The information was written in English and it was unknown whether or not the accused could understand English well. The searching inquiry of the trial court must be focused on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea. and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. > In the morning. 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. 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." . offered independently of the plea of guilt of the appellant. 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. 3. Specifically. Its language is clear and explicit. Some prosecution evidence. In fact.Precisely. if the penal facilities would be available by then. After the plea of guilt. . it is mandatory. the indispensable requisite for trial in absentia is that it should come "after arraignment. > Khazie did not come home so Romeo and his wife looked for her. > With regard to voluntariness. . .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. illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act. ISSUE WON the accused was properly meted the sentence of death HELD NO 1. > Alicando was arrested and her verbally confessed his guilt to PO3 Tan without the assistance of counsel. In the process of raping Khazie. December 12. In other words. yet were considered by the trial court convicting the appellant. What is more. 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.The provision in the present Constitution allowing trial to be held in absentia is unavailing. 3 provides that in a plea of guilt. Dispositive The petition was granted. the appeal itself is tantamount to questioning those defects. spotted Khazie by the window of Alicando’s house. Rebada did not tell them what she saw.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.June 29. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence. Sec. It cannot justify the actuation of respondent Judge Senining. he choked her thus causing her death. Khazie offered to buy yemas from Rebada but Alicando closed the window. by gas poisoning.Without the accused having been arraigned.July 20. Khazie’s corpse was found under the house of Santiago.The trial judge failed to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 116 of the RoC.This rule is a restatement of the doctrine laid down in People vs. Based on his confession and follow-up interrogations. . > At around 5:30 PM. Apduhan. Ratio Rule 116. the complaint or the information should be read in a language or dialect which the accused understands. Rule 116. trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified.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. but it is equally inadmissible. Romeo’s friends left. in addition. . Such "constitutional right is inviolate. after arraignment.It is the constitutional right of the accused to be heard in his defense before sentence is pronounced on him. Ratio “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine: once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained. It could not be said with certainty that the accused was informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. one of Penecilla’s neighbors. 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. Alicando eventually joined them." As pointed out then by the Solicitor General. . the prosecution should also be required to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. a2010 page 117 Prof. Rebada. > The age.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . Arraignment of the accused was null and void Ratio During arraignment. > The records do not clearly illustrate the personality profile of the accused.

+ 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. 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 . . > The records fail to indicate that appellant questioned his plea of guilty at any stage of the trial. Sec. free from signs of impropriety or falsehood. It does not affect the requirement compelling the prosecution to prove SEPARATE OPINION KAPUNAN [dissent] . 1972). Silence is assent as well as consent. And yet. + Under one of the recognized exceptions of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.and that his guilty plea has not therefore been given improvidently . May 9. . There is no rule on conducting inquiry except that in People vs. 1972. > 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. the appellant was clearly assisted by counsel. > 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. > When the appellant pleaded guilty in open court. 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. 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. > There was no testimony that the shirt in question was worn by the accused when he committed the crime. > The trial court.. He was asked a number of times if he was sure of the plea he was making. they are still insufficient as evidence.The Court admitted as evidence the things seized in Alicando’s house. . pursuant to General Order No. intimidating robes.Even if the evidence gathered were admissible. where a direct and specific accusation of crime is made. a2010 page 118 Prof.. . 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. on its own. Dayot.The physical evidence objected to falls under the exclusionary rule. be regarded under some circumstances as a quasi-confession. The testimony of a lone witness. 3. It was not unnatural for him to have a shirt with bloodstains because he was a butcher. one observes AQUINO v MILITARY COMMISSION 2 63 SCRA 546 ANTONIO. that the bulk of proceedings in our trial courts.This is in violation of Art. > The absence of an extra-judicial confession does not detract from the efficacy or validity of appellant's plea of guilty.There is adequate legal evidence to sustain the trial court’s conviction with moral certainty." 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. 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. the Judge's. 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. Benigno Aquino Jr. particularly in those areas where the victim was last seen. > The doctrine is not without its exceptions. the lower court should require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability 3. . compels the judge to content himself reasonably that the accused has not been coerced or placed under a state of duress .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. + Another exception refuses to treat the doctrine as absolutely sacred if the evidence in question would have been inevitably discovered under normal conditions. and the evidence in dispute in the instant case falls within those exceptions. A violation of this provision renders the evidence gathered inadmissible.After Martial Law was proclaimed. which have all been complied with in this case: 1. Nowhere in the rules does it state that an extra-judicial confession is a prerequisite for a conviction based on a plea of guilty. is sufficient to convict an accused even if uncorroborated. 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. . 1975 FACTS . it was held that “a searching inquiry .There was substantial compliance with the requirements for arraignment and plea. 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. 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. even in Metro Manila alone. 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.The plea of guilt was not improvident. was arrested (on Sept 22. > The alleged bloodstains on the pillow and shirt were never proven with laboratory tests. 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. and may.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . > 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. > The accused’s silence can counter the assertion of the Court that the plea of guilt was improvident. An innocent person will defend himself so silence can be understood as a person deferring to do just that. . the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability. the court should conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the accused's plea.On September 25.other by actual threats of physical harm from malevolent quarters or simply because of his.” 2.

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

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

ISSUES 1. particularly Section 1 (c) of Rule 115 clearly reflects the intention of the framers of our Constitution. Hon. Alex Potot. To capsulize the foregoing discussion. 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. He was also informed of the scheduled hearings set on September 18 and 19. all the above conditions were attendant calling for a trial in absentia. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution..In this case..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. failed to appear in court. Nazareno. this was denied by the lower court in an Order dated November 22. Hence. What the Constitution guarantees him is a fair trial. A judgment of conviction must still be based upon the evidence presented in court. were charged with the crime of murder on August 3. 19. for both society and the offended party have a legitimate interest in seeing to it that crime should not go unpunished. Such voluntary appearance is accomplished by appearing for arraignment as what accused-private respondent did in this case. 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. NO . Ramon E. .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 22.1973 and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. . On November 16. 3. and public trial. April 15 1988 NATURE Petition for certiorari and mandamus FACTS . the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. a2010 page 123 Prof. escapes from the custody of the law 2. the respondent judge. YES . suffice it to say that where the accused appears at the arraignment and pleads not guilty to the crime charged.1973. 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. Following the arraignment. and (3) that he fails to appear and his failure to do so is unjustified. All the acused including private respondent. In cases criminal. 1973 and this is evidenced by his signature on the notice issued by the lower Court. 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 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. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of parties but continues until the case is terminated. 2. 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. August 22. such an abuse could be remedied. this petition. jurisdiction is acquired by the court over his person and this continues until the termination of the case.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. jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired either by his arrest for voluntary appearance in court. On August 22. In all criminal prosecution. Even the trial court considered his absence unjustified . 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. No explanation for his failure to appear in court in any of the scheduled hearings was given. not continued enjoyment of his freedom even if his guilt could be proved. However. and to have compulsory process to the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. After due trial. there can be no violation of due process since the accused was given the opportunity to be heard. or on November 6. were duly informed of this. Also. 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. As the facts show. Fernando Cargando.The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. to meet the witnesses face to face. Such evidence must prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 1973 at 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Rogelio Baguio and the herein private respondent Teodoro de la Vega Jr. 1973. WON under Section 19.appearance. the private respondent was arraigned on . 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. He is still presumed innocent. 1973 and in the said arraignment he pleaded not guilty. impartial. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. However. 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..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. Jr.Before the scheduled date of the first hearing the private respondent escaped from his detention center and on the said date.Pursuant to the above-written provision. . . notwithstanding his escape from the custody of the law.Going to the second part of Section 19. the lower court rendered a decision dismissing the case against the five accused while holding in abeyance the proceedings against the private respondent.. When an accused under custody had been notified of the date of the trail and escapes.Accused Samson Suan. That is the way it should be. to wit: . WON a court loses jurisdiction over an accused who after being arraigned... set the hearing of the case for September 18. 1973. be tried in absentia invoking the application of Section 19. 1973 all the above-named. NO . accused were arraigned and each of them pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. (2) that the accused has been notified. WON trial in absentia is warranted 3. Rogelio Mula. INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE: . Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which provides: SEC. to have a speedy. It was also proved by a certified copy of the Police Blotter that private respondent escaped from his detention center.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. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. .

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

Where a defendant. January 23. March 22.C. 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.. the burden of proof rests upon him to establish that he did not competently and intelligently waive his constitutional right to assistance of Counsel. True.' ." . They were bound over to await action of the United States Grand July. of his constitutional right under the provision of the Sixth Amendment. without counsel. charged with feloniously uttering and passing four counterfeit twenty-dollar Federal Reserve notes and possessing twenty-one such notes. and sentenced. 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. they were taken to court and there first give notice of the indictment. 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. 1935.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. however. S. The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void. a more searching investigation. '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. the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his life or his liberty. his conviction to a sufficient extent to test the jurisdiction of the state court to proceed to judgment against him. said that they had no lawyer.' . upon determining the actual facts. 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. however. without assistance of counsel.. . on leave. immediately were arraigned. that a judgment cannot be lightly set aside by collateral attack.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . chap. but were kept in jail due to inability to give bail. however. he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive. Both were then enlisted men in the United States Marine Corps..It must be remembered. and the court.' . both pleaded not guilty. November 21. 1950 FACTS .If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not complied with. the record. When collaterally attacked. being a private person.. the judgment of a court carries with it a presumption of regularity. and the 'writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error. 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. effect is to substitute for the bare legal review that seems to have been the limit of judicial authority under the common-law practice. 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. They were then tried.'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.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.the accused shall enjoy the right . .. and-in response to an inquiry of the court-stated that they were ready for trial. but that they constituted trial errors or irregularities which could only be corrected on appeal. convicted. and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas corpus. the accused were unable to employ counsel for their trial. If in a habeas corpus hearing. 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. either in respect to the subject-matter or to the person. upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus. to look beyond forms and inquiry into the very substance of the matter . and under the act of 31 Car. 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. conviction and sentence.' . it is open to the courts of the United States. must be construed and applied so as to preserve-not destroy-constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty. II. in the trial court. although it may become necessary to look behind and beyond the record of PEOPLE v HOLGADO 85 PHIL 752 MORAN. the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed.. and January 25.. tried. that..Petitioner and one Bridwell were arrested in Charleston. If court finds for petitioner the decision of the district court convicting petitioner must be declared void..' Congress has expanded the rights of a petitioner for habeas corpus and the '. is to 'dispose of the party as law and justice require. January 21. even on habeas corpus. and sentenced that day to four and one-half years in the penitentiary.' These principles. The scope of inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings has been broadened-not narrowed-since the adoption of the Sixth Amendment. they were indicted. 2. When this right is properly waived. it is the duty of the court to grant the writ. the sixth amendment HELD YES . 'In all criminal prosecutions. acquiesces in a trial resulting in his conviction and later seeks release by the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus.. 1934.Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court of First Instance of Romblon with slight illegal detention because according to the information. but not inconsistent with. in which the applicant is put upon his oath to set forth the truth of the matter respecting the causes of his detention..' However. If the accused. In such a proceeding. convicted. is not represented by counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right. even if such inquiry involves an examination of facts outside of. 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.. to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. 1935. '.It appears from the opinion of the District Judge denying habeas corpus that he believed petitioner was deprived. 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. were transported to the Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta. the assistance of counsel is no longer a necessary element of the court's jurisdiction to proceed to a2010 page 125 Prof. Upon arraignment.

in the instant case. .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. 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.. particularly the qualified plea given by the accused who was unaided by counsel. without absolute any evidence to determine and clarify the true facts of the case. . ISSUE WON the conviction of the lower court is valid HELD NO. The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of Patrolman Joves. we immediately nabbed said suspect and . and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty. 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." 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. 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. and 4 — If a2010 page 126 Prof. what is worse. as well as marijuana flowering top. 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. . the trial judge must have deduced the capital offense from the facts pleaded in the information. particularly in the rules of procedure. and upon delivery of 4 sticks of marijuana cigarettes.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. Not one of these duties had been complied with by the trial court. but. . to say the least. he plead guilty as he was without a lawyer. one of the officers who conducted the entrapment.Allegedly. that the accused who was unaided by counsel pleaded guilty but with the following qualification: "but I was instructed by one Mr. Apparently the court became satisfied with the fiscal's information that he had investigated Mr. upon being investigated and after having been duly apprised of her constitutional rights. without counsel.rules of Court. the informant asked to buy marijuana from Nicandro. it was not prudent. the WPD conducted surveillance and organized an “entrapment with the confidential informant acting as the buyer of marijuana. Ocampo and found that the same had nothing to do with this case. 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. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney.Under the circumstances. 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." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. February 11. . he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned." The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of this qualification. 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." In the formation filed by the provincial fiscal it is said that he "accuses Frisco Holgado of the crime of slight illegal detention. . the record does not show whether the supposed instructions was real PEOPLE v NICANDRO 141 SCRA 295 PLANA.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. Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law. And this is a denial of fair hearing in violation of the due process clause contained in our Constitution.It must be noticed that in the caption of the case as it appears in the judgment above quoted. The marked bills were recovered from her pockets. and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. 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.Pursuant to information regarding the illegal sale of prohibited drugs by Nicandro. . . section 3.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney. Rule 112. but refused to reduce her confession to writing. The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel.IN THE CASE. for the trial court to render such a serious judgment finding the accused guilty of a capital offense. 3 — If he desires and is unable to employ attorney. . that – If the defendant appears without attorney. and that a certain Numeriano Ocampo told Holgado to plead guilty. the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court must grant him a reasonable time therefor. 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.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". and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. the court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. It is invalid. the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. But above all. the police nabbed Nicandro.” With marked money. Nicandro orally admitted having sold the marijuana. The trial court failed to inquire whether or not the accused was to employ an attorney. 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 .During the trial. Ocampo. Since the accused-appellant pleaded guilty and no evidence appears to have been presented by either party. and imposing upon him such a heavy penalty as ten years and one day of prision mayor to twenty years. 1986 NATURE Appeal from judgment of CFI Manila FACTS . 2 — After giving him such information the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an attorney. and. he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. So ordered. to grant him reasonable time to procure or assign an attorney de oficio.

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

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

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

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

separate trials for the accused Basilio and Talino and Macadangdang. 1946 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 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. NO . 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. The cases were tried jointly for all the accused until Genaro Basilio.The right of confrontation is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the person facing criminal prosecution who should know. when the Act took effect. has taken up arms against the Government. in deciding these cases as against them. 1957. Javier  confrontation is essential because cross-examination is essential. . the court made the ff remarks: The peculiarity of the trial of these cases is the fact that We allowed. Dispositive UPON THE FOREGOING. there must be a public uprising and the taking of arms against the Government. where the appellant was captured along with his wife. since the appellant is prosecuted for violation of Republic Act No. such as the one encountered and regretted by the respondent court.Violation of Republic Act No." but that was not the respondent court speaking. 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 same is not specific as to the period covered by it. when the appellant was captured. with costs. In rebellion. since November 20. and. as in this case. it is sought after the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution. 1960. Evidence offered by the other accused can not be taken up. in subversion.In its decision. March 16. being a member or officer of said subversive association. Besides. 1700 it is deducible that the period covered is that from June 20. TALINO v SANDIGANBAYAN 148 SCRA 598 CRUZ. ISSUE WON the decision of the court violates Talino’s right of confrontation as guaranteed by the Constitution HELD NO . In United States v. in according the accused the right of confrontation. At one of the proceedings. as a matter of fact. Pio Ulat gave damaging testimony against Talino. especially where. 1960. 4. upon their petition.Talino. without having renounced his membership in said organizations. they were not even required to be present when the other accused were presenting their defenses. and committed serious violence during the period from May 28. Inasmuch as the rebellion case covered the period up to June 19. Alejandro Macadangdang and petitioner Talino asked for separate trials. while the Anti-Subversion Act punishes affiliation or membership in a subversive organization as defined therein. Macadangdang Ulat and Renato Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged while absolving the other defendants for insufficient evidence. 1957. mere membership in a subversive association is sufficient. But. whereas. 1700. the evidence for the. representing the cost of repairs claimed to have been undertaken. The rule in every case is that the trial court should exercise the utmost circumspection in granting a motion for separate trial. Talino and Macadangdang were granted separate trials and they did not cross examine Ulat because. 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.In the rebellion case. .00. 1957 and the period covered in the instant case is from June 20. as in poison pen letters sent by persons who cannot stand by their libels and must shroud their spite in secrecy. up to June 21. . on four government vehicles. A second reason for the prohibition is that a tribunal may have before it the deportment and appearance of the witness while testifying. 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. because Basilio. the latter's testimonies can not now be considered against said three accused. .Although the information charges the appellant with having taken up arms against the Government. This being the case. That twice in jeopardy for the same act cannot be sustained. in fairness. destroyed property.The records show that he had been confined at Fort Bonifacio (then known as Fort William Mckinley). if only to avoid the serious difficulties that may arise. along with several others. . as it is. and in furtherance thereof. or subversion. appellant admitted in court that he was a member of the "Hukbalahap" and the HMB and fought against the government. 1962 and continued to be detained therein during the continuation of the trial. is a crime distinct from that of actual rebellion. from January.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales his men had with the Philippine Constabulary and police forces. The Sandiganbayan rendered its decision in all the four cases finding Talino. through falsification of the supporting papers to authorize the illegal payments.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. . Basilio. the claim of having been put a2010 page 131 Prof. but actually not needed and never made. 3. 1960. Makati. 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. But .523. prosecution as wen as their own evidence. the decision appealed from should be. This decision is now challenged by Talino on the ground that it violates his right of confrontation as guaranteed by the Constitution. Rizal.The accused is prosecuted under RA 1700 for having remained a high ranking member of the CPP and its military arm. . who his accusers are and must be given a chance to cross-examine them on their charges. NO . We can only consider. 1987 FACTS . up to its termination. 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. allowing the same only after a thorough study of the claimed justification therefor. the territory of the Philippines. 1957 to June 21. 1946 to June 19. which were allowed. the HMB. hereby affirmed.The grant of a separate trial rests in the sound discretion of the court and is not a matter of right to the accused. engaged in combat against the forces of the Government. 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.

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

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

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

Nor does it change matters. but taken from that portion of the bar more considerably attuned to the pulse of public life. To the extent then that the conclusion reached by him was motivated by an apprehension that there was an evasion of a constitutional command. in the courtroom and a calendar of what cases are to be heard is posted. without objection on the part of respondent policemen. TC just sent back the records to CA . WON the right of the petitioners to a speedy trial has been accorded HELD NO Ratio. it is not to be rationally expected that an accused would be denied whatever solace and comfort may come a2010 page 135 Prof. It the usual course of events that individuals desirous of being present are free to do so. they could contend that they had not been accorded their right to be tried as promptly as circumstances permit. 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. Thus. within a period of course compatible with his opportunity to present any valid defense. . An objective appraisal of conditions in municipal or city courts would have gone far in dispelling such misgivings. it suffices to satisfy the requirement of a trial being public if the accused could "have his friends. as did happen here. irrespective of the nature of the offense or the manner in which it is authorized to be commenced. civil as well as criminal. 1974 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS . And when the offended party took the witness stand. Conde v. capricious and oppressive delays [Acebedo v. the trial itself is necessarily delayed. The constitutional right to a speedy trial means one free from vexatious.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.December 1955: the 2 petitioners filed a notice of appeal . -"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. it was in the latter's air-conditioned chambers that the trial was held. nor is its presence unwelcome. Moreover. just because. It is at times unavoidable that appellate tribunals cannot. it was in the air-conditioned chambers of a city court judge rather than in the usual place that the trial took place. Such a fact though is not indicative of any transgression of this right. unfair. [Mercado v. CA taking all the steps necessary to complete the transcript of stenographic notes of the original trial. 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.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. would run the risk of being unjust.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales embraced in procedural due process. . . invoking constitutional right to a speedy trial . FLORES v PEOPLE 61 SCRA 331 FERNANDO.An accused person is entitled to a trial at the earliest opportunity.What did occasion difficulty in this suit was that for the convenience of the parties. Sarmiento.May 1965: petitioners sought the dismissal of their case due to the inordinate delay in their disposition (for almost 10 yrs). 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. even with due diligence. As a result the attendance of the general public is much more in evidence. he may within the shortest time possible be spared from anxiety and apprehension arising from a prosecution." [People v. he is entitled to a speedy trial. the relaxed attitude on procedural rules not being strictly adhered to all make for a less tense atmosphere. no problem arises. with the eyes of the alert court alert to his demeanor and his rulings. or mandamus for the final dismissal of the case. Where a trial takes place. Further reflection ought to have convinced him though that such a fear was unjustified. Thus. December 10. 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. Rivera]. as admitted by Justice Black in his masterly In re Oliver opinion. he certainly lived up to what is expected of a man of the robe. when they moved to dismiss in the CA.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. and of the city court Judge. the stage of trial has not been completed. When it is remembered further that the occupants of such courts are not chosen primarily for their legal acumen. prohibition. the nature of the cases handled. If the proceedings pending trial are deferred. such a right could be reduced to a barren form of words. and that a new decision be rendered. and if culpable. Where once a person is prosecuted criminally. Courtrooms are not of uniform dimensions. The crowded daily calendar.November 1955: TC found them guilty of robbery . Castañeda] . He cannot be oppressed by delaying the commencement of trial for an unreasonable length of time. he could no longer remember the details of the crime. no matter with what offense he may be charged. There is no showing that the public was thereby excluded. Some are smaller than others. or arbitrary. as is quite usual. Dispositive Writ of certiorari is granted. Santos] .December 1951: Francisco Flores and Francisco Angel were accused for robbery . 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. It was not the pendency in the Court of Appeals of their cases that should be deemed material. ISSUE . [Acebedo v. Sarmiento] Reasoning ." .January 1966: CA denied motion for reconsideration Respondent’s defense: (1) case was not properly captioned. . if the person accused were innocent. If it were otherwise. he will not be kept long in suspense as to the fate in store for him. even failed to identify the 2 petitioners. put an end to suits elevated to from the knowledge that a judge.It is an undisputed fact that at least fourteen hearings had been held in chambers of the city court Judge." . relatives and counsel present. or by certiorari.In the absence of any valid decision. It does not exclude from its operation cases commenced by private individuals.

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

00. and burned his house . his wife Eduarda." as used in the said article in reference to the defense. March 29. Ramon was with Jesus Limen when the latter was killed and his house burned.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. 473 (1185) for Robbery in Band with Multiple Homicide.000. nor who actually burned the house.In the main.penalty of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen (17) years. as he is only 18 years old.Vicente Orsal is one of four accused in four separate cases filed in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City . and burned his house *On April 14. the single decision rendered for all the four (4) cases is before the SC for automatic review. not to be reckoned with in determining whether there has been a denial of the right to speedy trial. Roberto Bejic He was however candid enough to admit that he did not see who actually killed the rest of his relatives. and to pay ¼ of the costs of this suit (3) Criminal Case No. only appellant Vicente Orsal and Ramon Gutierrez stood trial .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. WON the appellant has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial 2.00. particularly on appellant's complicity in the commission of the four (4) crimes. As correctly set forth by the Solicitor General. owing to the fact that he is a youthful offender.Supreme penalty of 'DEATH'. two paltik shotguns and a hand grenade.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. Four (4) months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum. . particularly in the manner he was Identified as one of the alleged perpetrators of the four (4) crimes herein charged. to indemnify Francisco Limen the amount of P8. the same accused ransacked the house of Jesus Limen. 432 (1157). which was heard jointly with the other three (3) cases. That he was taken along by appellant apparently as a hostage to prevent him from reporting to the authorities. Ramon Gutierrez and Romeo Flores. ISSUES 1. He would then argue that such weakness of the state evidence would commensurately strengthen his defense of alibi which. namely.The three (3) other accused are Ramon Gutierrez. Generoso Abapo and Romeo Flores. in a zealous effort to show their want of credibility with the inconsistencies. that the crimes were committed at nighttime and by a band. Roberto Bejic and Atanasia Legazpi the total amount of P48. . Moreover.The sentence of death having been imposed in Criminal Case No.000. PEOPLE v ORSAL 113 SCRA 226 PER CURIAM.There was no such denial. The delay in the filing of the information. as he claims. "each side. 472 (1184) for Arson. Antonio also testified having seen appellant stab his cousin.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales determinant. should be construed to mean each accused person. a2010 page 137 Prof. He Categorically stated that he recognized the voice that shouted: "Hoy". killed Crisanto Bejic. but the two (2) last named accused having gone at large. which in the instant case has not been without reasonable cause.000. 1974 appellant. not before the filing. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Cristino Bejic. 471 (1183) for Arson-penalty of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen (17) years. therefore. and to pay ¼ of the costs of this suit (2) Criminal Case No. as well as his grandchildren Atanacia Legazpi and Roberto Bejic. killed Jesus Limen. Eduarda Bejic. Dispositive Subject to our pronouncement that each of the 23 petitioners is entitled to one separate peremptory challenge. appellant's contention in this appeal is that the evidence of the prosecution is weak and insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.00. 1974. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jesus Limen the amount of P12. . Four (4) months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum. taking his shoes and clothes. the trial court erroneously rejected. (c) A perceptive analysis of the companion articles convinces us that the word.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. 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. the present petition is DENIED. together with Generoso Abapo. . one circumstance strongly lending credence to all that Ramon Jimenez testified to. improbabilities and contradictions they supposedly contained. without any mitigating circumstances to offset the same. Zamboanga City . 432 (1157) for Robbery in Band with Homicide. 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. and to pay one fourth of the costs in each of these four cases . .00 and to pay ¼ of the costs of this suit in each of these four cases (4) Criminal Case No. attended by two (2) aggravating circumstances. NO .In the case of Gutierrez. This fact would tend to negate appellant's claims that the testimony of the state witnesses were scripted and merely rehearsed.000. to indemnify Francisco Limen the amount of P8. and so he was arrested with appellant together is. and sentenced them accordingly: (1) Criminal Case No. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court is hereby lifted.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. 1982 NATURE Automatic review FACTS . YES . is. WON the evidence is sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt HELD 1. .First to Identify appellant was Antonio Bejic the lone survivor in the carnage against the Bejic family and household. 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. one paltik revolver.The cases stemmed from the ff acts: *On April 13. 2. the Court ordered his commitment to the Department of Social Services and Development. undeniably.The court found Orsal and Gutierrez guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crimes. Region IX.

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

and the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila declared final and executory. 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. 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. the trial court found her guilty as charged and imposed on her the death penalty. He was duly notified to appear before the trial court for the reading of the sentence. The law will not allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong. execution. Court of Appeals acquired no jurisdiction of the appeal filed by him. ***But if ma’am wants details. and such declaration cannot after the lapse of nearly thirteen years be controverted by proof aliunde. he will be deemed to have waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him. Whether or not he escaped to China is immaterial for our present purpose. but failed to do so. He was. PEOPLE v ESPARAS 260 SCRA 539 PUNO. This concern cannot be diluted. 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. This principle is implicit in our Constitution which recognizes that an accused. he was allowed to file a bond for his temporary release. The record shows that upon his failure to appear for the reading of the sentence.The cases were consolidated on Dec 10.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 provide means for guilty parties to escape punishment. right and this is not one of those fundamental rights which cannot be waived. while the majority. 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. 6425 as amended by RA No. . . This action of the court amounted to a judicial declaration that Ang Gioc was a fugitive from justice. This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. has no right to be wrong. ISSUE WON the Court will proceed to automatically review her death sentence HELD YES . PAGE 82] CAES v IAC 179 SCRA 54 CRUZ.Joel Caes was charged in 2 separate informations with ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA before the CFI of Rizal. except to dismiss it. We reject it without the least hesitation by declaring that Ang Gioc had waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him. 1981. read on!) . This enlightened policy ought to continue as our beacon light for the taking of life ends all rights. the warrant could not be served on him because he could not be found. against the objection of the Solicitor General. August 20. finally arrested after nearly thirteen years from the date fixed for the reading of the sentence. from which he appealed to the Court of Appeals where. a matter of societal value that transcends the personal interest of a convict. . The importance of this societal value should not be blurred by the escape of a convict which is a problem of law enforcement. After arraignment. 94-5897 before the RTC of Pasay City.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 accused has rights. Br. 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. 1996 FACTS . the accused escaped from jail and was tried in absentia. the trial court declared the confiscation of the bond filed by Ang Gioc. 1995. The fact remains that he succeeded in evading arrest for nearly thirteen years. In this situation. and later issued the corresponding order of a2010 page 139 Prof. He may avail of it or not. not a constitutional. . Ang Gioc petitioned the Court of Appeals to remand the cause to the court below for a new trial. however. The accused remains at large up to the present time. On March 13. A contrary view would encourage accused persons to trifle with the administration of justice. PAGE 72] GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN [SUPRA. Let us not for a moment forget that an accused does not cease to have rights just because of his conviction. When the accused flees after the case has been submitted to the court for decision. SAMSON v CA [SUPRA. Such was the situation with reference to the the respondent Ang Gioc. .Ang Gioc has waived his right of appeal. 1989 FACTS . Ours is not only the power but the duty to review all death penalty cases. but this is a purely statutory.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the sentence. 114. and when an order was issued for his arrest. PAGE 84] PEOPLE v CITY COURT OF MANILA [SUPRA. in crimes that shock the conscience.CA remanded for new trial ISSUE WON the CA acquired jurisdiction of the appeal filed by him HELD NO . He may waive it either expressly or by implication. He was subsequently brought before the court and the sentence was read to him. (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.Accused Esparas was charged with violation of RA No. November 6. effective hedge against an erroneous judgment of a one-judge trial court.We have always reviewed the imposition of the death penalty regardless of the will of the convict. even if overwhelming. 759 for importing into the country 20 kilograms of "shabu" in Criminal Case No. 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. No litigant can repudiate this power which is bestowed by the Constitution.All attempts to arrest him proved futile. . as he pleases. to be right.

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. Gorgonio -Caes filed a MR but was denied and the revived cases were set from hearing on Nov. YES . 1982: the trial was again postponed because the prosecution witnesses were absent. . 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. 1982. 1983.Jan 9.e. Agloro: Such consent must be express. Reasoning .The other exception is where the dismissal is made.On the same date. because of the denial of his right to a speedy trial. . Solis v. Capt. Obsania ~ To constitute double jeopardy. . This consent cannot be presumed nor may it be merely implied from the defendant's silence or his failure to object. the plaintiff is represented by the government prosecutor.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.April 19. . Judge Gorgonio ordered the case Provisionally Dismissed .Sept 6.IAC dismissed it for lack of merit on May 20. ." the right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of a person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or convicted. a sheriffs return informed the trial court that the prosecution witnesses. 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.Caes questioned the judge's order on certiorari with this Court. -The prosecutor should have initiated the motion himself if he thought it proper. 2. secures ISSUES 1. . WON the revival of the cases would place the petitioner double jeopardy in violation of the Bill of Rights HELD 1.The fact that he was not so informed made the irregularity even more serious. he was entitled to their final dismissal under the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. also on motion of the accused. . 1984.People v. . Although they may ask for the filing of the case.Feb 21. and by no one else. par.June 3. there must be: (a) a valid complaint or information. People v.In a criminal prosecution.August 31. Such a dismissal is correctly denominated provisional. It is curious that the . namely. 1983: trial was reset for lack of material time. the dismissal will be regarded as final. . .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.Herrero v. .July 12. Such dismissal has the effect of a judgment on the merits and operates as an acquittal. 1982. Carlos Dacanay and Sgt. 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. Hinaut.Copy of the motion was furnished the City Fiscal of Caloocan City but not the petitioner. 1983. with prejudice to the refiling of the case. 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. . .Rule 110. . . Otherwise. .Nov 15. so as to leave no doubt as to the defendant's conformity. 1983: the trial was reset once more. 1984: a motion to revive the cases was filed by Maj. and (d) of which he had been previously acquitted or convicted or which was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. Caes having been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. 1983: the trial was reset to November 14. The presumption that he approved of the motion is not enough.. DISMISSAL? . and ex parte at that and without hearing. Lustado who alleged that they could not attend the hearing scheduled on November 14. Almeda Lopez.SC said that this case is similar to Conde v. It was reset because the prosecution witnesses were again absent. Said motion was granted by J. for lack of notice. 1982: the trial was again postponed for reasons that do not appear in the record. or one acting under his authority. . Mendoza v.The witnesses. this time because there was no trial fiscal. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE PROV. Aragon. because witnesses being absent. . cannot act for the prosecutor in the handling of the case. and the petitioner's subsequent objection was brushed aside. . .Dec 20. 1986.Nov 14. i. 1983: The trial was once more reset by agree-judgment of the parties. which referred his petition to the IAC. People v. The purpose is to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at rest. See. Rivera (so this doctrine applies in this case too) where a prosecuting officer. (c) to which the defendant had pleaded. . and not having expressly consented to the "provisional" dismissal of the cases against him.March 21. YES . again because the prosecution witnesses were absent. 1982. Dacanay (he had been promoted in the meantime) and Sgt. . . 5. Their only function is to testify. 1983. . 1983. .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.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . but was for some reason postponed.Arraignment was originally scheduled on January 11. 1983: the trial was again postponed. 19.Trial was scheduled for October 13. This is in effect a failure to prosecute. 1983: the trial of the case had not yet started. and reconsideration was denied on June 17. Bonifacio Lustado had been personally served with subpoena to appear and testify at the hearing scheduled on June 6. even if they are the complaining witnesses. 1983: the prosecution moved for the provisional dismissal of the case because its witnesses had not appeared.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.June 6. 1983: no trial could be held again. motion was granted just the same.Pendatum v.Jan 19. without good cause. Ylagan. . a2010 page 140 Prof.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. 1983: the third resetting of the case was also canceled. Caes was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.The trial judge erred in ordering the revival of the cases against Caes and that CFI also erred in affirming that order. (b) filed before a competent court.The first is where the dismissal is based on a demurrer to the evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested. 1986.There is no question that the first three requisites are present in the case at bar. no reason appearing in the record. but this was reset upon agreement of the parties. . . 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.Fittingly described as "res judicata in prison grey.

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

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. Bodoso: Henceforth. .000 which was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. the records show that Atty. a procedure akin to a “searching inquiry” as specified in People v.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 presumption of the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise. prudence. or in default theory. transmitted to Rivera for approval. 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. Sandiganbayan resolutions SET ASIDE.People v. . hence. . 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.Park appealed the civil aspect of the case to the RTC of Makati. . The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. neither did the Sandiganbayan make any inquiry thereon before issuing the order. as a prerequisite to the validity of such waiver. b. It has not been satisfactorily established whether petitioner has appropriated. Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. During the hearing. such as his age. If the lawyer for the accused has not done so. Thus. when “transcendental matters” like life. a counsel who files a demurrer with leave of court. Rivera’s were personally encashed by her while she was allegedly accompanied by Garcia.875.After the prosecution rested its case. the Municipal Treasurer of Guinobatan. On the contrary. If there is a desire to do so. which may serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed waiver. Thereafter.Clearly. Witnesses who owned the forged receipts testified that they handed the blank receipts to Garcia and not to petitioner. The . 26686-98 REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings. it shall be the task of the trial court to – a2010 page 142 Prof. if he so believes that the prosecution evidence is so weak that it need not even be rebutted.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales competent or sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. 3. together with the significance and outcome of the waiver of such right.The presentation of evidence by the defense would resolve any doubt as to petitioner’s complicity and avoid possible miscarriage of justice.The order dated September 29. file a demurrer to evidence with prior leave of court.” . suspension of the rules is likely to be welcomed more generously. When they are rigid and strict in application. . c. taken or misappropriated. 8749242H was issued. . Albay to which Official Receipt No. . the disbursement vouchers and other forms required to liquidate the amount were allegedly prepared by Lim and thereafter. Belarmino was not given the opportunity to discuss with petitioner the consequences of filing a demurrer to evidence without leave of court. 0077133 postdated August 28. however. The Rules on procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. elicit information about the personality profile of the accused.The evidence on record do not clearly show where and to whom the allegedly malversed money were given after it was encashed. 2007 FACTS . d. all questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and understood by the latter. resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice. otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law. liberty or State security are involved. the trial court shall give the latter enough time to fulfill this professional obligation. for issuing PNB Check No. socio-economic status. 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. particularly – 1. the Court is empowered to suspend the rules. it shall be the unequivocal duty of the trial court to observe. the record must state the language used for this purpose as well as reflect the corresponding translation thereof in English. and educational background. . Then. and finally to the provincial Government. a.Atty. requires the Court to ascertain the same to avoid any grave miscarriage of justice. Records of Criminal Case Nos. or has consented to the taking by another person. contending that the dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil aspect. Their presence must be duly entered in the minutes of the proceedings. He pleaded not guilty. respondent filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence to which he attached his Demurrer. the trial court shall give the defense enough time to this purpose. 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. asserting that the prosecution failed to prove that he received the notice of dishonor. if any. 2003.People v. This is contrary to the provisions of Section 23. inaccurately stated that Atty. was charged for violation of BP 22. Branch 65 granted the demurrer and dismissed the case. Atty. . What is clear is that the calamity fund was released to Almeda O. 2. Lim. 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. February 12. of such funds. 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.(2/27/03) The MeTC of Makati. . 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. after receipt of the cash. 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. 1999 in the amount of P1. checks bearing her signature and that of HUN HYUNG PARK v EUNG WON CHOI CARPIO-MORALES.Eung Won Choi. Aranzado when an accused pleads guilty. hence. directing the petitioner to file a demurrer to evidence even without leave of court. Belarmino did not cite any ground when he moved for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence. 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 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.

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

Buttressing the foregoing evidence is the positive identification of the accused at the situs and during the occurrence of the crime. ISSUE WON accused was denied of his constitutional right to be heard and to defend himself. 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. 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. and the indemnification for the death of Teresita Gumapay is hereby increased from P12. Dr. it was the defense that objected to the same and insisted that the case be deemed submitted for decision.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. REASONING: The failure of the accused to complete his testimony was of his own making. 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. . trial as to the civil aspect of the case must perforce continue. 1989 FACTS The information for rape with homicide (based on witness testimonies. courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against it. confirmation and reiteration of his own counsel.In the instant case. 1982 the discharge of the accused from the mental hospital and for his return to the provincial jail of Bulacan. to be exercised only on valid and justifiable reasons (which are absent in this case). proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally proceed. In other words. Article III of the Constitution. Choi did not assail the RTC order of remand.) 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. Where a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused. We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court that the accused is not entitled to the exempting circumstance of insanity. Verily. and was admitted to a mental hospital. In addition. One of the issues in a criminal case being the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime. consonant with present jurisprudence. Later. the accused refused to take the witness stand without any plausible justification.Petitioner’s citation of Section 1 of Rule 33 is incorrect. There is no doubt that it was the accused who killed Teresita Gumapay. the Court has painstakingly scrutinized the record. on the occasion thereof. October 25. Maaba recommended on March 22. on the initiation. SEPTEMBER 13. While the court may reopen a case for PEOPLE v CONCEPCION 84 PHIL 787 PARAS. . the governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure. 1949 NATURE . such action is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. For if the court grants the demurrer. (NO. This unrebutted fact notwithstanding. Accused pleaded not guilty in the arraignment and trial on the merits followed wherein several witnesses were presented. Defense then motioned for a reopening of the case which was denied for lack of merit. killed Teresita Gumapay. the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to resolve. it was the defense itself which moved to terminate the testimony of the accused. Any waiver of the a2010 page 144 Prof. 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.00 to P30. and the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction.00. if the evidence so far presented is insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt. hence. 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. then the same evidence is likewise not insufficient to establish civil liability by mere preponderance of evidence. police interrogation. In fact. PEOPLE v CRUZ 177 SCRA 451 REGALADO. for if the evidence so far presented is not insufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. postmortem report. Coming now to the conclusion of the trial court that the accused raped and. 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. Absent such determination. he having been found fit to stand trial. right to present evidence must be positively demonstrated. reception of further evidence after the parties have closed their evidence. citing Section 1 of Rule 33. DISPOSITION WHEREFORE. and admission by the accused) was filed against Danilo Gole Cruz with the then CFI. Dispositive Petition is DENIED. He however tried to escape.000. amply supported by convincing circumstances laudably pointed out by the trial court. Any ambiguity in the voluntariness of the waiver is frowned upon. .As for petitioner’s attribution of waiver to respondent. . The suspension of the direct examination of the accused was at his instance and as moved by his counsel. not the Rules of Civil Procedure which pertains to a civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to the suit. it does not follow that the same evidence is insufficient to establish a preponderance of evidence.000.On the other hand. with the modifications that the death sentence imposed by the trial court is reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 19(l). He thereby recognized that there is basis for a remand. 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. Upon medical examination. when the former presiding judge thereafter ordered the reopening of the case sua sponte. 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. and (2) when respondent orally opposed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration pleading that proceedings with respect to the civil aspect of the case continue.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. . The authenticity of and the fact that he and the witnesses thereto knowingly affixed their signatures on said extrajudicial confession were never questioned. the evidence thereon being capped by his own written confession of the same before the investigating officers. accused was found to be suffering from schizophrenia. which fact became the basis for such testimony being stricken from the records for lack of cross-examination.

According to Judge Maceda. 2001 because the judge was indisposed. FACTS (the case is really short. YES Ratio Section 24. being in conformity with the facts and the law. 2007 NATURE Petitioner seeks to annul the Order issued by respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda in Criminal Case No. Carlos Callosa. 11. The subpoena issued to Pedrosa for that hearing was duly served. all in Cebu City. 1999. Judge Maceda noted that another subpoena was issued to Pedrosa and Dr. unlawfully and feloniously attack. 2001. ISSUES 1. Salen requiring them to appear on May 11 and June 20. 2003.Cabarles pleaded not guilty. 11 and 18.the three individuals were apprehended by the appellant or at his instigation. for murder. WON petitioner’s right to due process and speedy disposition of his case was violated HELD 1. the subpoena issued to Pedrosa required her to appear on April 11. the May 11. the prosecution was unable to present its evidence on the first four of the five hearing dates: April 18. on July 3. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Concepcion. again decided to extend to the prosecution another chance. Police Senior Inspector of the Southern Police District (SPD) Crime Laboratory to testify on the contents of the death certificate of Antonio Callosa. Judge Maceda. A few days thereafter. Dispositive The appealed judgment. which directly caused his death. to wit: pre-trial on November 22. Salen failed since the doctor was no longer assigned to the SPD Crime Laboratory. the alleged eyewitness. . and August 1. 2003. of Clemente Chica . 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 . which was not a date assigned for the prosecution but May 11.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court finding the appellant. The trial court scheduled the case for hearing on the following dates. Salen. the Public Attorney’s Office conducted its crossexamination of Pedrosa.Apprehension on December 3.1avvphi1. guilty of treason. there aren’t many facts or anything) . 2001. Nonetheless. entitled People of the Philippines v. Since trial in the lower court continued. . 1944. . 2001 assigned to it. FACTS . filed with the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City.Judge Maceda denied Cabarles’s MFR and set the case for hearing on May 8. and (5) the presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty days from the issuance of the order. Salen. the prosecution was unable to present its evidence on the first four hearing dates. Judge Maceda further observed that the May 18. (2) the order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion. Also. Pedrosa took the witness stand and completed her direct examination. Cabarles was then given a chance to adduce further evidence on his behalf. and stab with a deadly weapon (fan knife) one Antonio Callosa. But. 2001. the mother of the deceased. presentation of prosecution’s evidence on April 18. due to their guerrilla connections. did then and there willfully. May 4. 99-0878. 2003. 2001 was likewise not a hearing date set by the court. WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order 2. without justifiable motive with intent to kill and by means of treachery and evident premeditation. 2003 hearing. alleging that it was issued with grave abuse of discretion. and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P10. he observed that the prosecution may not have been given its day in court resulting in a miscarriage of justice.000. July 4 and 18. brother of the deceased. giving the People June 19 and July 3. Judge Maceda motu proprio issued the questioned order reopening the case. 2004. . Branch 275. 2001 hearing was reset to May 25. committed as follows: That on or about the 25th day of April. assault. and Dr. Reasoning CABARLES v MACEDA QUISUMBING. 18. 2001.A day before the scheduled promulgation of judgment on April 2. (4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice. a2010 page 145 Prof. Notwithstanding the service upon Pedrosa. Imelda Pedrosa. 1944 of Basilio Severino.On June 18. Salen. . and insofar as the June 20. Cabarles filed the present petition questioning Judge Maceda’s order. upon motion. and presentation of defense evidence on June 20 and 27. but service upon Dr. Judge Maceda deferred the promulgation of judgment and ordered the case archived pending this Court’s resolution of the case. is affirmed.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. 2001.Apprehension on December 7. the prosecution should have been given a last chance to present the alleged eyewitness and the doctor.Apprehension on January 9 of Gavino Moras . Thereafter. 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. 2003 to hear the testimonies of Pedrosa and Dr. Finally.Through no fault of its own. (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is conducted.net On August 9. Rene "Nonoy" Cabarles y Adizas. -The prosecution had subpoenas issued to its witnesses: Flocerfina Callosa. 2001 setting was concerned. Romeo T. 2003 as additional hearing dates. and 23. May 4. it was not one of the days set by the court for the prosecution. 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. Judge Maceda found that there was no hearing conducted on April 18. 2001. on June 19. 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. Cabarles was charged with murder under the following information: The undersigned Prosecutor II accuses RENE "NONOY" CABARLES Y ADIZAS of the crime of Murder. 2000.Appellant was found guilt of treason on 3 counts: . 2001 hearing was never scheduled and May 25. the prosecution still failed to present a witness during the May 8. In it. in the City of Las Piñas. 1999. February 20. . the above-named accused.

find no cause or ground to hold the defendant for trial. Any further delay in the resolution of the instant petition will be prejudicial to Cabarles. no judgment has yet been rendered. . 1984. without benefit of trial. the court. but the adverse party may utilize the same for any admissible purpose. he was neither accorded the benefit of trial COMBATE v SAN JOSE 135 SCRA 693 MELENCIO-HERRERA. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient. the accused deserves no less than an acquittal. ergo." . petitioner was sentenced to suffer six . However. capricious. may allow new evidence upon their original case.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.Upon a plea of not guilty being entered. Since Section 24 is a new a2010 page 146 Prof. a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. 2003 Order without notice and hearing and without giving the prosecution and accused an opportunity to manifest their position on the matter. after the parties have produced their respective direct proofs.Following the procedure laid down in the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases. but before judgment is rendered. When case set for arraignment and trial. and its ruling will not be disturbed in the appellate court where no abuse of discretion appears. Section 24 requires that a hearing must first be conducted. in the furtherance of justice. 2003 Order is hereby stricken off the record. Procedure of Trial. Should the affiant fail to testify. . is contrary to the express language of Section 24. Also. Dispositive instant petition is GRANTED. without the benefit of a hearing. color. 2. This remedy of reopening a case was meant to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 1984. Accordingly. any evidence received and offered in this case as a result of the April 1. for good reasons. but justice must be dispensed with an even hand. it is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this petition. . 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. the same does not dispense with trial "Section 11.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. This failure. WON the application of the Rules on Summary procedure was valid 2.On June 5. Rule 119. to our mind. "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. he is not called upon to disprove what the prosecution has not proved.In a Decision promulgated on July 16. Witnesses who testified may be subjected to cross-examination.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.Subsequently. Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. Regardless of how much we want to punish the perpetrators of this ghastly crime and give justice to the victim and her family. 2003 Order.In fine.. 2003 was issued with grave abuse of discretion. without exception.to be invoked without fear or favor. Judge Maceda issued the April 1. respondent Judge deemed the case submitted for resolution purportedly pursuant to the Rule on Summary Procedure. (6) months' imprisonment and to pay complainant the amount of P200. constitutes grave abuse of discretion and goes against the due process clause of the Constitution which requires notice and opportunity to be heard. is deemed violated when the proceeding is attended by vexatious. the protection provided by the Bill of Rights is bestowed upon all individuals. Reasoning . trial should have proceeded immediately. regardless of race. upon a consideration of the complaint or information and the affidavits submitted by both parties. otherwise.The crime of Theft as charged herein is penalized with arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. belonging to Romeo Posada worth P200.00. and considering the irregularities in the issuance of the April 1. The affidavits submitted by the parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the same. We hold that the assailed Order dated April 1. creed.Should the court.00. or when without cause or justifiable motive. 6 Clearly. gender or political persuasion whether privileged or less privileged . .But even assuming that the case falls under the coverage of said Rule. and oppressive delays. 1984. the Rule on Summary Procedure is inapplicable . Let the records of this case be REMANDED immediately to the trial court concerned for its appropriate action without further delay. YES Ratio The concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible.Generally. like the right to speedy trial. his affidavit shall not be considered as competent evidence for the party presenting the affidavit. plus costs the provision.The right to a speedy disposition of a case. But not only was petitioner unrepresented by counsel upon arraignment. 1985 NATURE Petition for Certiorari FACTS . . ISSUES 1. the trial shall immediately proceed. while Judge Maceda is allowed to reopen the case before judgment is rendered.00) or both . The issuance of the said order. or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured. WON he was afforded due process HELD NO . .. Said Order is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.000. from two (2) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months.However. petitioner was subpoenaed to appear before respondent Judge and was arraigned without the assistance of counsel. 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. we are not unmindful of the gravity of the crime charged.since petitioner-accused had pleaded not guilty.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only. He pleaded not guilty. it shall order the dismissal of the case. A motion to reopen may thus properly be presented only after either or both parties had formally offered and closed their evidence. in an Order dated July 5. Hence. and almost eight years thereafter. "Section 14. or. respondent Judge required petitioner and his witnesses to submit counter-affidavits to the supporting affidavits of the complainant . April 15.

upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case. Oliver was then brought to a room and his blindfold removed. be regarded as proof with a moral certainty that the latter committed or participated in the commission of the crime.Four of the accused were apprehended. the kidnappers called Eleazar again and asked them to go to the Petron Gas Station located between Meycauayan and Marilao along the Expressway. The testimony of dela Cruz was substantially corroborated by no less than the victim himself. was invited for questioning. He was later transferred to a van. the RTC rendered its decision finding all appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. discharged Dela Cruz to serve as state witness. by itself and without corroboration. . During his stay. . If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness. and . who was a suspected member of the group. the court is satisfied that: (a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested. (c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points. . Fajardo and dela Cruz. an uncle of Oliver. On that occasion. (b) There is no other direct eviden