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

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

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

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

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

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

the continuation of the offended party's intervention depends upon the continuation of the proceeding. shall discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer. which took effect on October 22.The victim testified in open court about the incidents of rape. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997. No. 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. as the offended party is not entitled to represent the People of the Philippine a2010 page 9 Prof. or the People of the Philippine Islands. 478. . . 58. or guardian. rape. 2. 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. No. depending upon whether or not there is. control. the Court of Appeals. grandparents. It is evident. Function and Organization. proceeding. sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. and as his right to intervene therein is subject to the promotor fiscal's right of control. 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.The SC noted that the rape incidents in this case occurred prior to the effectivity of RA 8353. . subject to the provisions of section 4 of the same Rule that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the Fiscal. the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons. and as such. the offended party may not intervene in the prosecution of the offense. affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require. contrary to the provisions of law and the settled rules on the matter. 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. 1997.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales under the direction. 1998. 1997 with raping his minor daughter. "an offended party may intervene in the proceedings. action or proceeding which. his intervention must always be subject to the direction and control of the prosecuting official. its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation. nor in any case. However. investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. This civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action.the position occupied by the offended party is subordinate to that of the promotor fiscal because. . Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. body or commission in any matter. * * * The office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government. October 9. . Consequently. (1) The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines. or acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents. whether an offended party intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action. (k) Act and represent the Republic and/or the people before any court. or to control the proceeding once it is commenced. the intervention of the person injured by the commission of the offense ceases by virtue of the principle that the accessory follows the principal. and to control the proceeding. prior to the rendering of judgment. 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.Ernesto dela Cuesta was charged on May 16. abduction. in his opinion. provides: SECTION 1. and responsibility of the prosecuting officer. 58. Thus.The trial court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to the supreme penalty of death. and said court grants the petition. 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. or where the law defining and punishing the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity. 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. as the promotor fiscal alone is authorized to represent the public prosecution." > Herrero v Diaz: "intervention of the offended party or his attorney is authorized by section 15 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court.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. "Defining the Powers and Functions of the Office of the Solicitor General". the crime of rape was classified as a crime against person. unless the offended party either expressly waives the civil action or reserves to institute it separately." . in the prosecution of offenders. the victim. 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. Consequently. Irene.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. 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. As provided for in the said article. offenses of seduction.from the nature of the offense. and as it is discretionary with him to institute and prosecute a criminal proceeding. which right belongs exclusively to the promotor fiscal by virtue of the provisions of section 44 of General Orders. in any event. therefore. for that would be tantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the criminal proceedings. PEOPLE v DELA CERNA 390 SCRA 538 CORONA . personally or by attorney. 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. seven times over a period of eight years beginning 1989 when the victim was seven years old. in which case he lost his right to intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to have lost his interest in its prosecution. Under this statute. . . in his opinion. being at liberty to commence it or not or to refrain from prosecuting it or not. except when the case is pending in the Court of First Instance. tribunal. on July 3. 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. represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court.

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

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

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

No. or except a particular case from its operation. SR. if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice. Petitioner Benito Astorga is ACQUITTED of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt. a2010 page 13 Prof. the presumption of innocence of the accused must be sustained and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right. . and not the other way around. (Caltex) in Makati City. as in this case.Petitioner was arraigned on August 18. Since the ACCRA and Balgos and Perez Law Offices had not withdrawn their appearance. . the Formal Offer of Evidence filed by SRMO should be stricken from the records. the private complainant is Caltex and not PCIB. the City Prosecutor of Makati City was not informed of this development. PEOPLE v TULIN RICARZE v CA (PEOPLE. one of which amounted to P1. his right as accused would be prejudiced. Makati Branch.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.790. notwithstanding two missing checks and two other check forgeries. He was assigned to the main office of Caltex Philippines. provided it is filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be better served thereby. .No sufficient evidence to show that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of the private offended parties. contending that the private complainant was represented by the ACCRA Law Offices and the Balgos and Perez Law Office during trial.00 to Caltex on March 29. hence.PCIB. February 9. Thus. 1998. courts have always been. after which the Siguion Reyna.25 payable to Dante R. the PCIB credited the amount of P581. . the PCIB is entitled to receive any civil indemnity which the trial court would adjudge against the accused. All of these were never issued by Caltex. Inc. the forged checks were deposited and endorsed by him under Gutierrez’s name.Petitioner Eduardo G. It appears that Darma merely extended his hospitality and entertained the DENR team in his house. PCIB pointed out that petitioner had marked in evidence the letter of the ACCRA Law Office to PCIBank dated October 10. Caltex filed a criminal complaint against petitioner before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City for estafa through falsification of commercial documents.On July 18. even if the evidence for defense is also weak. shorn of judicial discretion. a domestic corporation engaged in messengerial services. His primary task was to collect checks payable to Caltex and deliver them to the cashier.In the meantime. and pleaded not guilty to both charges.757. 160451 CALLEJO. In rendering justice. had been cleared through PCIB on October 15.790. It contended that the PCIB had re-credited the amount to Caltex to the extent of the indemnity. while his department was conducting a daily electronic report from Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB) Dela Rosa. 74001 dated October 13. on October 16. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied on November 14. 2007 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS . He pointed out. the City Prosecutor filed two (2) Informations for estafa through falsification of commercial documents on June 29. technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights.8 He insisted that the amendments of the Informations to substitute PCIB as the offended party for Caltex would place him in double jeopardy. Ricarze was employed as a collector-messenger by City Service Corporation.Further investigation revealed that said savings account had actually been opened by petitioner. Consequently. 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. SRMO had no personality to appear as private prosecutor. one of its depositary banks. 2001. The prosecution presented its witnesses. CALTEX) G. It however denied petitioner’s motion to have the formal offer of evidence of SRMO expunged from the record. that the Informations can no longer be amended because he had already been arraigned under the original Informations. 1997 in the amount of P5. .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. the re-credited amount was brought out on cross-examination by Ramon Romano who testified for the Prosecution. 1997. where the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak. Reasoning . He also delivered invoices to Caltex’s customers. Romano alleged that. Reasoning . 1998 against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Check No. It is better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man.On November 6. the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences.570. 1997 and the credit memo sent by PCIB to Caltex . as they ought to be. the PCIB had been subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex as private complainant.25. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. . it is always within our power to suspend the rules. 2001. Furthermore. Under the Informations. 1998. Moreover. as a general rule. conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance. one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt. Gutierrez. hence.7 Petitioner opposed the pleading. However. 1997. After the requisite preliminary investigation. the RTC issued an Order granting the motion of the private prosecutor for the substitution of PCIB as private complainant for Caltex. .R.229. Branch 63. Substantive NO Ratio When the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty. Pre-trial ensued and the cases were jointly tried. and it was only after the prosecution had rested its case that SRMO entered its appearance as private prosecutor representing the PCIB. a company check. it was discovered that unknown to the department. the accused must be duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys.Petitioner further averred that unless the Informations were amended to change the private complainant to PCIB. . a prohibited pleading. it is within the sound discretion of the Court to admit the same. through SRMO.The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Montecillio and Ongsiako Law Offices (SRMO) as private prosecutor filed a Formal Offer of Evidence. opposed the motion. however. 1997.

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

As the accused failed to do so. NO -No element of ransom exists as no ransom note was presented in court. was acquitted of the charge. 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. FACTS . 2. 4. . -Hence. 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. among others things. 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. this appeal. . 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. in charging the crime of robbery committed upon the person. the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED US v LAHOYLAHOY and MADANLOG 38 Phil. 2. the a2010 page 15 Prof.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. sentencing the defendants Pedro Lahoylahoy and Marcos Madanlog to death upon a complaint charging the crime of robbery with multiple homicide. if known. WON the TC erred in convicting Bustamante upon the prosecution witnesses’ contradictory and improbable testimonies and the appellant’s extrajudicial confession 4. The accused Poncing Abergas. It is also necessary in order to identify the offense. the allegation of the owner's name is essential. the offense was committed. Hence.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. due to Article 3 Sec. .Subsection 5 of section 6 of General Orders No. Neither was there a demand for money in exchange for Priscilla’s safe return. an order issued by the Municipal Court of Gapan finding a prima facie case against the accused. Also. 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. the death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. 330 STREET.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. and to indemnify the offended party. upon the other hand. 19 of the Constitution. To constitute robbery. But of course if his name cannot be ascertained. ISSUES 1. The rule is that an accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information. -In. Dispositive WHEREFORE. the property of one Roman Estriba. WON there was no reinvestigation conducted to justify the filing of the amended information 3. a Return of Service of one subpoena. However. and indictments for such offenses must name the owner. and upon principle.The said discrepancies in the testimonies were minor details which could not destroy the substance of said testimonies. ISSUE WON the conviction for robbery with quadruple homicide can be sustained HELD NO . he is deemed to have waived his objection to the information and is assumed to be satisfied with its legality.000. or against whose property. be alleged as unknown it should NOT be inferred that the naming of such person. the names of the persons against whom. 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. Mrs. and a variance in this respect between the indictment and the proof will be fatal. the Amended Information failed to allege that the kidnapping was for the purpose of extorting a ransom. the property obtained must be that of another. Besides. when the first was not present. ownership must be alleged as matter essential to the proper description of the offense. WON the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom HELD 1. Priscilla Cruz. As the highest degree of respect is accorded to the factual findings of the TC. However. NO . and in addition. 1918 NATURE Review of a decision of the CFI of Province of Iloilo. 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. It is elementary that in crimes against property. when known. The complaint in this case therefore properly contained an averment as to the ownership of the property. NO. any case.00. the complaint must invest such person with individuality by either naming him or alleging that his name is unknown. 3. July 15. it may be alleged that it is unknown. in case of necessity. Where the name of the injured party is necessary as matter of essential description of the crime charged. 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. NO .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. it is perfectly clear that they could be prosecuted tomorrow for robbery committed upon issue of the credibility of the witnesses cannot be raised. 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. the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support a finding of guilt even without the said extra-judicial confession. in the amount of P5. is of no importance.From the fact that the name of the injured person may. is subject to the criticism that the defendant is thereby placed in a position where he could not be protected from a future prosecution by a plea of former conviction or acquittal. and 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 sufficiency of an Information is determined solely by the facts alleged therein. lawless violence. Par. (3) that since it is malum prohibitum. 9 (3) on the other regarding the circumstances of the commission of the crime and the penalty imposed for the offense. Where the facts are incomplete and do not convey the elements of the crime. or an overall length of 11-3/4 inches in the Information filed with J. insurrection. The pertinent paragraphs of the said PD is its “Whereas” clause ("WHEREAS. and the plea of former jeopardy would be of no avail. criminality. then CFI Samar) but upon motion to quash filed by the several accused. It is the second element which removes the act of carrying a deadly weapon. 1780.' 'dagger. chaos and public disorder mentioned in the aforesaid Proclamation No. it is impossible to convict the two accused of the offense of robbery committed by them in this case. or to abet.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the property of Juana. pointed or blunt weapon such as 'fan knife.In the 2 cases filed before the different branches of CFI Manila. etc. .) .' 'barong. the quashing of the accusation is in order. 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. . ice pick with an overall length of about 8 1/2 inches in the Information filed with J. the three Judges ordered their immediate release unless held on other charges. HOWEVER. 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. 1081 are committed and abetted by the use of firearms. that the act proscribed is essentially malum prohibitum penalized for reasons of public policy. the accused were sentenced by the Supreme Court for four separate homicides. ORDINANCE NO. criminality. Without that motivation. rebellion. blunt.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 public disorder. -ON PD 9:THIS CASE INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE INTENT OF THIS P. PD 9. 1978 NATURE Petitions for review (26 petitions consolidated) of the decisions of the Courts of First of Manila and Samar.Purisima. (4) that PD was enacted to eradicate lawless violence which characterized pre-martial law days. or in connection with subversion. state the designation of the offense by the statute.D. 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. . socyatan in the Information filed with J. Maceren. Reasoning. insurrection. explosives and other deadly weapons”) and par3 (It is unlawful to carry outside of residence any bladed. But since it was specified in the Informations that the accused were charged with violation of Par3. .' 'bolo. In the criminal case before the CFI Samar the accused was arraigned but at the same time moved to quash the Information. 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. lawless violence. the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed.there exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure. The offense carries two elements: first.' 'kris. 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. chaos. Act 1780 with a fine of P500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or both. There are other statutes (SECTION 26 OF ACT NO. 9(3) must be alleged in the information in order that the latter may constitute a sufficiently valid charged. 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.' 'spear. connected with or related to subversion. PD 9 shows that the prohibited acts need not be related to the subversive activities. Ratio. Polo) in violation of PD 9. The two elements of the offense covered by P.(PD 9 punishes the offender with 5-10 yrs imprisonment.D. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood. organized lawlessness or public disorder. a simple act of carrying any of the weapons described in the presidential decree is not a criminal offense in itself. the act fans within the purview of the city ordinance or some statute when the circumstances so warrant. Informations were filed with respondent judges in their respective courts (2 Branches of CFI. the orders of dismissal were given before arraignment of the accused. except where such articles are being used as necessary tools or implements to earn a livelihood and while being used in connection therewith.' or club. subversion. November 20. outside of the scope of the statute or the city ordinance mentioned above. What makes the act criminal or punishable under the decree is the motivation behind it.) -Petitioner’s Contention: (1) Par 3. inter alia. Sec26. or rebellion. -ON SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION: for a complaint or information to be sufficient it must. by reason of the lack of conformity between the allegation and the proof respecting the ownership of the property. and therefore they cannot be convicted of the complex offense of robbery with homicide. if concealed. and second that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of. the intention of the accused who commits it is immaterial. or pointed weapon. pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the occasion of. a2010 page 16 Prof.In the light of what has been said it is evident that. 3820 OF THE CITY OF MANILA) which may be charged against the accused for their acts to constitute a crime. and (5) that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. In all the cases where the accused were under arrest. and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. insurrection. In other words. rebellion. 3. This is essential to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly. and that a construction of which the PEOPLE v PURISIMA 86 SCRA 542 MUNOZ-PALMA. Ordinance 3820 with a fine of not more than P200 or imprisonment for not more than 1 month or both).' 'balisong.

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

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

being then laborers. did then and there wilfully. 9552. respondent court imposed upon petitioner. y Cruz. 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. The accused-appellants. 133.58. 133 is to place a strong deterrent on workers from sabotaging the productive efforts of the industry where they are employed. 133. paragraph 3. thru Special Counsel Aguila." 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. Philippines. Branch XXVI. in relation to Presidential Decree No. and for this she (Rita) obtained 3 checks totaling P1. The information contains that Rita misappropriated P127. Marciano K." nowhere was it alleged in the body of said information that the articles stolen were materials or products which petitioner was "working on. It held that since the BALITAAN v CFI (DE LOS REYES) 115 SCRA 729. Disposition The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan. being then laborers working at the Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises. The information charged that petitioner and his co-accused. MATILDE v JABSON 68 SCRA 456 ANTONIO. paragraph 3. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. who is still at large. steal and carry away the following. But with the mitigating plea of guilty. A cash voucher evidencing the receipt of said amount was entered into evidence.Luz. unlawfully and feloniously take. all of them mutually helping and aiding one another. for the crime of simple theft. Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder as described in the body of the Information.97.632. the above-named accused. 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. . Patricio Guiruela y Luna. he cannot be conviceted and penalized under the aforesaid decree. Province of Rizal. as provided for in Presidential Decree No. 133. or using or producing" as employee or laborer of the complainant. that the information should aver that the articles stolen were materials or products which the accused was "working on or using or producing. one of the witnesses. the penalty prescribed in Presidential Decree No. Ricardo Abener y San Pascual. They also took note of the fact that Pacano. 133 (which imposes a heavier penalty) instead of that imposed by Article 309. 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. 133. it is essential. In three criminal cases. through grave abuse of confidence. 1982 FACTS .) . 9553 and 9554. are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that their alleged guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. NATURE Certiorari to nullify the judgment of respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal. with intent of gain. and directed that another one be rendered. y Cruz. and the only source of light were two kerosene lamps inside the house.Luz Balitaan owns a baby dresses mending shop. GUERRERO. to qualify the offense and to justify the imposition of the heavier penalty prescribed by said Decree. conspired and confederated with. ISSUE WON the information that the accused is charged with the crime of simple theft “in relation to PD 133” suffices HELD NO . imposing upon the accused Crisanto Matilde. in stealing the articles mentioned therein belonging to their employer.The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and set aside the judgment. committed as follows: "That on or about the 14th day of November. its President and General Manager. FACTS . a2010 page 19 Prof.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales seriously against the crimes of Murder. 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. conspiring and confederating together with one Renato Matuto y Ann. in Criminal Cases Nos. for the crime of simple theft. Luz testified that Rita delivered the baby dresses to Uniware. objective of Presidential Decree No. From this decision. and mutually aided one another. the penalty prescribed in Presidential Decree No. Although the preamble of said informations stated that petitioner was charged with the crime of simple theft "in relation to Presidential Decree No. to wit: .An Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed three informations in Criminal Cases Nos. with intent of gain and without knowledge and consent of their employer. the aforesaid three (3) informations uniformly stated that said accused were charged with the crime of qualified theft. 1973 in the Municipality of Pasig. Batangas an Information charging Rita of the crime of estafa. . Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia. 133. December 29. instead of that imposed by Article 309. penalty is in its minimum period. 9553 and 9554 against Crisanto Matilde.When the informations were amended from Qualified Theft to Simple theft and deleting from the body of Information the phrase “Grave abuse of confidence”. 9552. despite of repeated demands of Luz. July 30.000 pesos. that there is no allegation in the . . Rita de los Reyes is the manager of her business. 1975. Edgardo Cape y Atienza. 133. Matilde pleaded GUILTY but the Court imposed the penalty under PD 133 and not those by Article 309 (3) of the RPC. and without the knowledge and consent of the said firm. and Ireneo Belver y Bale. Espiritu. filed with the MTC of Bauan. grave abuse of confidence. of the Revised Penal Code. Isabela is REVERSED and SET ASIDE." . The constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the appellants was not over-turned by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Jr. (See original for exact wording of Information. Servando Calpo y Caballero. only executed his sworn statement more than five months atfer the incident." 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. of the Revised Penal Code. 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.During trial at the MTC. Except for the dates of commission and the amounts involved. Jr.

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. Misamis Oriental on January 9. Province of Misamis Oriental.632. she resisted his onslaught by kicking and hitting him. 1994 at about 1:00 o'clock in the morning. PEOPLE v CALAYCA 301 SCRA 192 MARTINEZ.Inasmuch as the crime of estafa through misappropriation or with grave abuse of confidence is charged. 1995. herein appellant Artemio Calayca. The elements of these two are different. narrated that at about 1:00 o'clock in the morning of January 29.A daughter was again allegedly raped by her own father. .97. HELD NO . He forcibly undressed her.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. unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation.When arraigned under the above-quoted Information. [It turns out that Rita told Luz that P127. (c) that such conversion.) ROBERTO S. 1995.] . Luz then demanded from Rita the said amount.using false pretenses or fraudulent acts (Art 315 par 2a RPC)--and not thru abuse of confidence (Art 315 par 1b RPC). Consequently. on May 2. 1999 NATURE Automatic review FACTS . January 20. Provincial Prosecutor II" .It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. Cesar said he did not make the baby dresses Rita said he did. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.The evidence for the prosecution was anchored mainly on the testimony of 16-year old Neddy Calayca who. Rita gave Luz the encashed amount minus the P127. inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull motion. the abuse of confidence will characterize the estafa as the deceit will be merely incidental or. Neddy Calayca. You are a father without good morals. succeeded in having carnal knowledge (sexual intercourse) with her (sic) own daughter. (b) that there is conversion or diversion of such property by the person who has so received it. "CONTRARY TO and in VIOLATION OF Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. is absorbed by abuse of confidence. the above-named accused did then and there willfully. who is now facing a death sentence after having been found guilty of said crime in a Decision 1 dated June 13. Misamis Oriental when she was awakened by the weight of her father. the appellant entered a plea of "Not guilty" to the crime charged. Balingasag. Abuse of confidence and deceit may co-exist.The position of the defense is that the testimonies tend to prove another kind of estafa --. Municipality of Balingasag. 1994. 1995. diversion or denial is to the injury of another and (d) that there be demand for the return of the property." But she was helpless to resist his lustful desire as he threatened her with a knife saying. Hence. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. the estafa committed is by abuse of confidence although deceit co-exists in its commission. . demand is not necessary and deceit or false representation must be shown. telling him with bitter tears. "I wish you would die. as amended by Republic Act No.The presence of deceit would not change the whole theory of the prosecution that estafa with abuse of confidence was committed. and he didn’t receive the amount (he didn’t even know Rita). "Cagayan de Oro City. CASIÑO "Asst. Feeling the pain in her vagina.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales information whatsoever regarding these checks and this cash voucher. 7659. "I will kill you if or to return the same. The testimony thus continued. Neddy Calayca. 1995. Philippines. more or less. But this doesn’t mean that proof of deceit is not allowed for par 1b. 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. the corresponding Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court reading as follows: "INFORMATION "The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor II. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. accuses ARTEMIO CALAYCA of the crime of RAPE. MCTC Judge Alfredo Cain found sufficient ground to prosecute the appellant for the crime of rape. on March 21. at Barangay Solo. who was already on top of her. rendered by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 24) of Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case No.58 was due a Cesar Dalangin for some of the dresses he made. but Rita kept the money. she verified the receipts of the payments. . CFI granted the petition and ordered the testimonies stricken out of the record. Court of Balingasag. Luz then instructed Rita to encash the checks and pay Cesar. 95129.58 was misappropriated from the P1. herein appellant Artemio Calayca. this automatic review. even though the obligation is guaranteed by a bond. The court overruled such objections as the lawyer of the complainant told the judge that the evidence was presented to prove that the P127. . against her will and consent. Even if deceit may be present. 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. on commission.A rape charge was initiated by Neddy Calayca through a sworn complaint with supporting affidavits and documents 3 filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial .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. March 6. . . she was sound asleep inside their house at Barangay Solo. Under par 2a. the information must contain these elements: (a) that personal property is received in trust.58. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be stated must be determined by reference to the definitions and the essentials of the specific crimes. Three weeks later. 1995. upon sworn complaint of the offended party. when she noticed that many baby dresses were lost. ISSUE WON the testimonies are at variance with the allegations in the information. committed as follows: That on or about the 29th day of January. naked and armed with a bolo. for administration or under any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of a2010 page 20 Prof. (SGD. Dispositive CFI decision to strike out testimonies is reversed and set aside.

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

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

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

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

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 -

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

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

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

attorney's fees equal to P15. Penalties. the possible conviction of respondents would concurrently provide a judgment for damages in favor of petitioner. 957. No.00 per square meter upon completion of the house in six (6) months. 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. after which. The conditions for the sale of the lots were among others. The action may be prosecuted in name of said complainant.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. Such interest warrants protection from the courts. identified as Lots Nos. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. 15 and 16. he paid the sum of P12. respondent Lazatin wrote petitioner a letter reiterating standard conditions of the sale. 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. 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. actual damages equal to P320. (iii) the effective price was P70 per square meter with a rebate of P10. -On 26 July 1984. Dispositive: Petition is GRANTED. with Manuel P. 957 REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISIONS LOTS AND CONDOMINIUMS. Lots Nos. Rule 111 of 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the criminal action for violation of B. In his complaint. from December 1983 up to June 1984. which the petitioner allegedly accepted by affixing his conformity to said letter. . which was allegedly his full payment for the remaining three (3) Lots. and.00. -Private respondents contend that since petitioner did not comply with the agreement. SEC.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not more than ten years: Provided. . While the Contract to Sell between TSDC and the petitioner stipulated a two-year period within which to pay the total contract price. Branch LX. and which private respondents had refused to do so. 13. PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF. filed a complaint for specific performance with damages.00. with a price of P60. petitioner commenced the construction of a house on one lot but failed to finish it within the stipulated period of six (6) months. TSDC's Board of Directors approved the petitioner's contemplated purchase of the aforesaid lots.067. August 18. be punished by a fine of not more than twenty thousand (P20. that in the case of NAGUIAT v IAC (TIMOG SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT CORP) 164 SCRA 505 PADILLA. there is no doubt that petitioner maintains an interest in the litigation of the civil aspect of the case against respondents. 14 and 15. shall. TSDC caused to be issued in the name of the petitioner the title to said lot. 16. on installment basis. On the same date (7 February 1983) petitioner made a down payment of P7. representing 10% of the alleged total price of P72. (ii) said construction to be finished within a period of six (6) months. for violation of Presidential Decree No. plus the costs of the action. 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. petitioner paid TSDC the amount of P36. and as a consequence. petitioner prayed. with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City. complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. CEB26195 is REINSTATED a2010 page 31 Prof. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action.Antolin T. Section 1(b). petitioner.00 per square meter." located in Angeles City. -Before the civil action was filed. but the private respondents (TSDC and Lazatin) refused on the ground that the petitioner had not fully paid for said three (3) lots. Lazatin (Lazatin. 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. -Thereafter. A corresponding receipt for the downpayment was issued by TSDC to the petitioner. as alleged by the private respondents. docketed as Civil Case No. petitioner demanded from TSDC the issuance in his favor of the certificates of title for the three (3) lots. Hence. And as to the other lots. 1988 NATURE Petition to review on certiorari the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court FACTS -Timog Silangan Development Corporation (TSDC. four (4) lots from TSDC.30 as his alleged full payment for Lot. 1983.97. In so doing. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer. The four (4) lots have a total area of 1. which provides: "PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. namely. upon conviction. 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.00 for the four (4) lots. moral damages at the discretion of the court. 39. On 7 November 1983. last paid for.[2] In this case. he was not entitled to the 10% rebate in price. and. for short) as its President. To confirm the agreement. representing unrealized gross profits. Each lot consists of 300 square meters. "(i) 10% down payment with a commitment to commence construction therefrom (thereon) in one month's time. petitioner allegedly failed altogether to construct houses on them. the latter made substantial payments in the months of June to August 1983. On 10 August 1983.000. 13.529. No fee. 14.200.000. of Block 26 of Timog Park. for short) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of developing and selling subdivision lots in "Timog Park. this Court construed the term “aggrieved parties” to include the State and the private offended party or complainant. petitioner also filed on 5 June 1984 with the City Fiscal of Angeles City a criminal complaint against herein respondent Manuel Lazatin. Civil Case No. The assailed orders of RTC are SET ASIDE. Issuance of Title.00. 4224.P.000. SEC. In a long line of cases. 25.000. -Sometime in January." But. A corresponding receipt for said amount was also issued by TSDC to the petitioner. 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. specifically Section 25 thereof. .200 square meters. it was prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the private respondents to jointly and severally pay the petitioner. Naguiat purchased. among others. Also.

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

An exception to the above rule.In Canos v. SO ORDERED. . plus damages) with a criminal action (for violation of the Minimum Wage Law). to guard against oppression and abuse. while it is true that Reyes was represented by a private prosecutor for the purpose of proving damages. plaintiff is barred).00 but making no award of damages in favor of the aggrieved party. Reyes was represented by a private prosecutor named Atty.But. It was only after the trial of the case on the merits that a decision was rendered finding the accused guilty of slight slander and sentencing her to pay a fine of P50. . in Civil Case No.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Contract to Sell between the petitioner and the private respondent.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.Malicsi pleaded guilty to the information and was sentenced to pay P50. Reasoning . plaintiff is not barred. which provides: "Section 1. .In the present case. dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985 are REINSTATED. it was held that: "A Court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act. based upon the express authority of Section 1.00 prevented petitioner from proving her claim for damages and making a reservation to file a separate civil action. In said criminal case. 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. not only was the offended party represented by a private prosecutor in the criminal action.Instead. 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. as held in Canos v. 1986 page 33 Prof.” . . NATURE Direct appeal on a question of law from a resolution of the Regional Trial Court (Malabon). and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence. to simplify the work of the trial court.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. a2010 REYES v SEMPIO-DIY 141 SCRA 208 PATAJO. January 29. the consolidation of a criminal action with a civil action arising not ex delicto. In the Luat case. . and not one for the recovery of civil liability arising from an offense. reservation therefore…” (Judgment in such a proceeding becomes binding as res judicata. may still be done. . as he pleaded guilty upon arraignment. In the Roa case. 4224 and Criminal Case No. Controlling case should be Meneses v Luat. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court. it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions. Peralta. 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. defendant Luat did not proceed to trial. 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." Dispositive WHEREFORE. the law invoked by the petitioner is inapplicable. Consolidation. RTC ruled in favor of the defendant. 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 . is SET ASIDE. to clear congested dockets. according to Roa v Dela Cruz. FACTS .The issue in the RTC was WON the plaintiff.The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits." . event or transaction. where the Court sustained the order of a trial court to consolidate a civil action (an action for the recovery of wage differential. the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent appellate court. The Orders of the trial court. . 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. Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. and not Roa v Dela Cruz. . Peralta. a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. Reyes was not able to make a reservation of her right to file a separate civil action for damages. in short the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties litigants. and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. There was also admission that the private prosecutor was for proving damages against the accused. represented by a private prosecutor and the failing to make a reservation to file a separate action. 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 . was barred from filing a separate civil action for damages against the accused Cristina Malicsi. she filed a new action against Cristina Malicsi and her husband with the Regional Trial Court for damages arising from defamatory words which were the subject of the information in the Criminal action. the action went through trial on the merits. to prevent delays. Hence the civil action filed by the petitioner was for the enforcement of an obligation arising from a contract. Zenaida Cruz Reyes (petitioner) was the aggrieved party. . and such action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.MTC (Navotas): Cristina Malicsi was charged with the crime of intriguing against honor. 6727. or ex contractu. hence. Because of her plea of guilty. the unexpected plea of guilt by the accused and her being sentenced immediately to a fine of P50. 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. the aggrieved party was unable to present evidence to prove damages against the accused. overtime and termination pay. Barayang. involve the same or like issues. dated 9 October 1985. Thus. it may order all the actions consolidated.

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

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

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

or physical injuries were intentionally committed. .000.000.In the criminal case against Abamonga. ISSUE WON an independent civil action for damages. in consonance with the decisions of this Court declaring such requirement of a reservation as ineffective. whether on reasonable doubt or not. the orders of the respondent court are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Rule 111 of the former Rules of Criminal Procedure (i.September 24. par.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales (2) as an offense against the private person injured by the crime unless it involves the crime of treason. is deemed barred by petitioners' failure in the criminal action to make a reservation to file a separate civil action and by their active participation in the prosecution of such criminal action. The civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal of the accused. . Calling petitioner who was a barangay captain an ignoramus. 1988 ..Article 2219. BONITE v ZOSA 162 SCRA 180 PADILLA. .00 and a further sum of P5. . . 1968. Dispositive The petition was granted. rebellion. arising not from criminal negligence.00) as moral damages and the further sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10. the petitioners actively participated in the proceedings through their lawyer. 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. in referring to "fault or negligence" covers acts "not punishable by law" as well as acts that may be criminal in character. In the ultimate analysis.Aside from basing their action for damages in Article 29 of the Civil Code. . Br. but from a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. A complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed by the surviving heirs of Bonite but Abamonga was acquitted because of insufficient evidence. FACTS . in this case the Civil Code.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 offended party is likewise allowed to recover punitive or exemplary damages. . has been declared as not in accordance with law. 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.It has been held that Article 2176 of the Civil Code.00 as exemplary damages. Dispositive WHEREFORE. 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. June 20. under Article 29 of the Civil Code. where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt (based on Article 29 of the Civil Code).000. in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10. fraud. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act. is not a bar to a subsequent civil action for recovery of civil liability. 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. (7) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case of libel. 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. the Bonite heirs have the right to file an independent civil action for damages despite the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case. In fact. 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.The requirement in Section 2 of Rule 111 of the former Rules on Criminal Procedure. 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. Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. tyrant and Judas is clearly an imputation of defects in petitioner's character sufficient to cause him embarrassment and social humiliation. 2 PM – Bonite. 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. Article 33 assumes defamation.000) as exemplary damages. Reasoning . . Clearly.Petitioner is entitled to moral damages in the sum of P5. that there be a reservation in the criminal case of the right to institute an independent civil action. private prosecutor Atty. Petitioner testified to the feelings of shame and anguish he suffered as a result of the incident complained of. III. whose main contention precisely is that he suffered damages in view of the defamatory words and statements uttered by private respondent. the accused was acquitted because there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. . traitor. J. the petitioners may also rely on Article 2176 which provides that acquittal of the accused from a charge of criminal negligence. a2010 page 37 Prof. espionage. whether done intentional or negligently and whether or not punishable by law. provided that the offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both scores.December 28.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. whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.e. the reservation of the right to file an independent civil action has been deleted from Section 2. Zosa.In the case at bar. and only a preponderance of evidence is required to hold the accused liable. a caminero of the Bureau of Public Highways was killed when he was hit by a truck driven by Abamonga. It is regarded as an unauthorized amendment to the substantive law.As a general rule.The respondent’s argument that the applicable provision is Article 33 is devoid of merit because of the abovementioned argument. . 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. a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may still be instituted against him. .There is here an offended party. . Dulalas. 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.In the course of the trial. . whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted.

but the same shall be suspended.However if the accused is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. 58. the penal action thereunder should be extinguished. there would have been no question of double jeopardy. 1913 FACTS -Heery was charged with attempted murder. the bare fact that his civil liability was determined and fixed had nothing whatever to do with the punishment imposed. in its ruling. the decision was affirmed but case was remanded because it did not include the evidence of civil damages suffered by the offended party. It is in lieu of the payment of the indemnity and is considered as a discharge thereof. If the payment of the indemnity is not punishment for the crime. Abaroa (8 Phil. No.Springer vs. being argued that this would constitute double jeopardy. restated the conviction (of one yr to 3 months of prision correccional) and then included P50. with subsidiary imprisonment.Almeida vs. .(That) the defendant might serve the term of imprisonment fixed by the court as the punishment for his crime. (Art. The plea of double jeopardy can not be allowed.Rakes vs.The court then quotes from article 114 of the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure provides: "When a criminal proceeding is instituted for the judicial investigation of a crime or misdemeanor. as reserved by the person damaged or prejudiced. -On appeal. was note deemed as authoritative doctrine because. until final sentence in the criminal proceeding is pronounced. a2010 page 38 Prof. If the civil action alone was prosecuted. it will be understood. . . is only permitted.) . after the termination of the criminal case. against the defendant in the criminal case for the damage occasioned by the wrongful act. if there be any reason therefore. 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. the imprisonment in lieu thereof is not punishment for the crime. NO. Costs against private respondent. Gulf & Pacific Co. by increasing the penalty or otherwise. and after the sentence for civil damages and in case of his insolvency.Civil damages are no part of the punishment for the crime. the civil remedy should be sought therewith. arising out of a crime that could be enforced only on private complaint. Oct 22. WON remanding the case for determination of civil damages and their assessment against the . -Heery raised the question of double jeopardy. are preserved and remain in force. then the compliant in the civil action must be based on some fact and or cause distinct and separate from the criminal act itself. Odlin: "By General Orders. meted out to the defendant for the commission of the crime. .The rule in Corpus vs. It is well settled that execution against the person will issue in civil actions in case of personal injuries."The right to bring the civil action. the civil action for damages for the same act may be instituted under Article 29 of the Civil Code. but was convicted of the lesser crime of maliciously inflicting serious injury upon Alex Sternberg." . In the course of this decision it was said: . may enter judgment in favor of the injured person. -Then lower court.. the civil action arising from the crime is deemed to have been also brought in the criminal case.If there has been active participation in the prosecution of a criminal case by the offended party.. no civil action arising from the same act can be prosecuted. The latter was not thereby affected….."Instituting a criminal action only. he would have to return to prison to serve the subsidiary imprisonment by reason of his insolvency.500 for indemnity. 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. 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.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales proceed with the trial of the case. if there be one. WON award was excessive HELD 1. and the award being excessive. Paje which states that reckless imprudence is not included in Article 33 of the Civil Code. notwithstanding the fact that the offended party had actively participated in the criminal action.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. ISSUES 1.4 of them merely concurred in the result. unless it had been waived by the party injured or been expressly reserve by him for civil proceedings for the future. . . in the event that the judgment rendered in the criminal cause is a finding of guilt against the accused. in whatever stage or state it may be found. and was sentenced to one year and three months of prision correccional by the trial court. and the sole question determined upon the second trial was the amount of civil damages. 178). upon conviction of the accused. and it is therein expressly provided that the court. 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. only 9 took part in the decision and defendant are to be considered as a modification of the punishment. In the present case.As the civil liability is no part of the punishment for the crime. SEPARATE OPINION MELENCIO-HERRERA [concur] . Consequently." . Atlantic. if there be any reason therefor. of 11 justices. 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. as in this case. in case of insolvency. (WON there is double jeopardy) 2. 112 of the said Law of Criminal Procedure.: "According to article 112 (Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure) the penal action once started. for the injury sustained by reason of the same. and that this is not imprisonment for debt or punishment for crime. and so says the law. but if the accused be acquitted. -On civil liability of persons accused of crime: . section 107. 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. Rep. was a civil action for damages brought the plaintiff against a person who had been previously acquitted on a criminal charge." . the civil liability of the defendant was established. brings the civil action as well.

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

Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal case. . 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code are substantive rights and.1 of the 1985 Rules of Crim. the criminal action was dismissed on July 10. Accordingly.Private respondent admits that he did not reserve the right to institute the present civil action against Andaya’s employer. such a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly made. that the rights provided in Arts. Boado may nonetheless bring an action for damages against petitioner under the Art. a complaint for damages was filed in the RTC of Manila by Roy Camaso (represented by his father. 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.. Reasoning . a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed against petitioner’s driver. ** 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. otherwise they will be deemed to . it seems to be petitioner’s argument that since the civil action to recover damages was impliedly instituted with the criminal action. such that no damages was awarded in the disposition of the criminal action. did not reserve the right to bring a separate civil action. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action. with the consequence that the prosecution failed to prosecute its case. (The records show that while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals. 1989. the action could proceed independently of the criminal action. as offended party in the criminal case. Herminio Andaya. . as such. . based on the same accident. §1 quite clearly requires that a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery of civil liability. Oct. reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales a2010 page 40 Prof. 1996 FACTS . . .) . from Baguio City proper to its plant site at the Export Processing Authority in Loakan.2176.1983 against Salvado charging him with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries. otherwise it should be dismissed. cannot be filed independently of the criminal action and that under Rule 111 Sec. and damages under Articles 32.On Oct. their enforcement cannot be conditioned on a reservation to bring the action to enforce them separately. As a result of the accident. YAKULT PHILIPPINES v CA [CAMASO] 190 SCRA 357 GANCAYCO. The RTC decided in favor of the Camaso’s and held the defendants (herein petitioners) jointly and severally liable for damages. Inc. and the presiding judge handling the criminal action was duly informed thereof. 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. 5.An information was then filed on Jan. herein petitioner Ruben Maniago. with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City . which then moved said defendants Yakult and Salvado to appeal the judgment.The CA on Nov. ISSUE WON despite the absence of reservation. David) against Yakult and Salvado. 1990 NATURE Petition for review of decision of the CA FACTS . Pro. Dispositive petition DENIED. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. 33. . Baguio City.Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him. . 2180 and 2177 of the Civil Code and Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the criminal case. citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver.Under the aforecited provisions of the rule. MANIAGO vCA (BOADO) 253 SCRA 674 MENDOZA.A month later. however. 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 . 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. He contends.There is no dispute that private respondent. Herminio Andaya. or against the latter’s employer. 1992 for failure of the prosecution to file a formal offer of its evidence. either against the driver.One of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado along Loakan Road.Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments. the dismissal of the criminal case brought with it the dismissal of the civil action. dismissed the petition and the subsequent MFR. . February 20. there being no malice. § 1. They also filed a peitition for certiorari in the CA challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction in the civil case.5 year old Roy Camaso (standing on a sidewalk) was sideswiped by a motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines and driven by its employee.1982. 1984. But the trial court denied petitioner’s motion on the ground that pursuant to the Civil Code.Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code. Their argument was that the civil action for damages for injuries arising from alleged criminal negligence.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. Larry Salvado on Dec.CA dismissed his petition . it was nevertheless instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action. CA decision AFFIRMED. Baguio City.

The new rules require reservation of the right to recover the civil liability. .A criminal case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig on September 18. SAN ILDEFONSO LINES. with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries.00 as exemplary damages. herein petitioner Eduardo Javier. a Toyota Lite Ace Van being driven by its owner Annie U.00 (P454. however. except only (1) when such action a2010 page 41 Prof. It is to avoid the filing of more than one action for the same act or omission against the same party. his employer would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. . as a general rule. 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. 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. otherwise the action will be deemed to have been instituted with the criminal action. as long as the right to bring or institute a separate action (whether arising from crime or from quasi delict) is not reserved. 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.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales have been instituted with the criminal case.Contrary to private respondent’s contention.000. Metro Manila. 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. INC. 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action. Jao and her two (2) passengers in the process.” 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. diminish or defeat substantive rights. the criminal action was filed against the employee. or on January 13. 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. 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. P50. a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted.In Abellana v. . is waived. filed a case for damages against petitioner SILI with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. on the basis of Rule 111. 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.500. Inc. 1991. . This is because of Art. Any award made against the employer.00 as actual/compensatory damages. herein private respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (PISC). is ultimately recoverable from the accused. impliedly instituted with the criminal action.In the present case. 29 of the Civil Code. Even if an action has not been reserved or it was brought before the institution of the criminal case.not its institution through the filing of a complaint .It is the conduct of the trial of the civil action . 2180 of the Civil Code. 1992.000.the rulings in these cases are consistent with the proposition herein made that. There is a practical reason for requiring that the right to bring an independent civil action under the Civil Code separately must be reserved. §§1 and 3 are beyond the rulemaking power of the Supreme Court under the Constitution. . But if the right to bring a separate civil action (whether arising from the crime or from quasi-delict) is reserved. 1991 charging the driver of the bus. v CA (PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION) 300 SCRA 484 MARTINEZ. 2180 of the Civil Code. There are statements in some cases implying that Rule 111. (2) the right to bring it separately is reserved or (3) such action has been instituted prior to the criminal action. .In the afternoon of June 24. a civil action for the recovery of civil liability is. . one thing is clear: The change has been effected by this Court. totaling P564. 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. Had the driver been convicted and found insolvent. (hereafter.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. .Nor does it matter that the action is against the employer to enforce his vicarious liability under Art.About four (4) months later. Reasoning A. . SILI) collided with each other at the intersection of Julia Vargas Avenue and Rodriguez Lanuza Avenue in Pasig. Dispositive The decision appealed from is REVERSED and the complaint against petitioner is DISMISSED. B. P50. the employer is very much a party. totally wrecking the Toyota van and injuring Ms.which is allowed to proceed independently of the outcome of the criminal case. April 24. . §§1-3. as insurer of the van and subrogee.In Garcia v. .00 as attorney's fees. 1998 NATURE Petition for review after a motion for reconsideration of respondent court judgment was denied FACTS . The rule requiring reservation in the end serves to implement the prohibition against double recovery for the same act or omission. 103 of the Revised Penal Code or his primary liability under Art. A careful examination of the cases. bus driver. seeking to recover the sums it paid the assured under a motor vehicle insurance policy as well as other damages. arising from the same act or omission. Though not an accused in the criminal case. 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. Jao and a passenger bus of herein petitioner San Ildefonso Lines. but only regulates their exercise in the general interest of orderly procedure. 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. . 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.000. whether based on his subsidiary civil liability under Art. which is the subject of the criminal action. the requirement that before a separate civil action may be brought it must be reserved does not impair.In Jarantilla v.

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

the CA found that this case was of pure accident. no civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution.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.(criminal action – proof beyond reasonable doubt. Independent civil action. . Conrado filed an affidavit withdrawing his application for a marriage license. Afterwhich he said that he would not let her go unless they get married. Inc. as he intended to marry her . Rule 107 of the Rules of Court (now Section 3 (c). bars the filing of an independent civil action if it is based on the crime. unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist. Plaintiff’s Claim Conrado Bunag Jr.CA affirmed in toto . Petitioners appealed the case to the CA. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. from civil liability. 8. 1992 NATURE Petition for review from the decision of the CA FACTS .The Cirilo’s filed a complaint for damages against Conrado Bunag Jr.We do not agree. "Sec. BUNAG JR. 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. no civil liability arises." . Respondent’s Comment Conrado Bunag Jr.' this declaration fits well into the exception of the rule which exempts the accused. may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case. 32. ISSUE WON the Fiscal’s dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction with rape extinguished the civil liability of Conrado Bunag Jr HELD NO . herein private respondents. 1966.20K-exemplary damages. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. 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. Since. We have held in the case of Tan vs. therefore. 20ktemperate damages and 10k attorney’s fees) Bunag Sr. the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision dismissing plaintiffs' complaint against the defendants Victory Liner. moved for the dismissal of the complaint invoking the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting Felardo Paje and citing Section 1 (d).despite the prior dismissal of the complaint therefore filed by Zenaida with the Pasay City Fiscal’s Office. an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. They are not one of the three (3) crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code and. However. every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. As early as 1952. and Felardo Paje. it is as good as saying as if he did not commit the crime charged. 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Reasoning . civil action—preponderance of evidence) finding that the facts upon which civil liability did not exist. after a few days. 1973. There being no crime committed. 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. 1973 Conrado Bunag Jr. Reasoning -Generally. 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. which basically affirmed the RTC decision. (Zenaida’s uncle claims that Bunag Sr. On August 10. returned which humiliated Zenaida and compelled her to go back to her parents.It is the stand of herein petitioners that Section 2. 29. provided the right is reserved as required in the preceding section. so much so that she promised not to make any scandal and to marry him. assured them that the couple were to be married). They went to his gradmother’s house and lived together as husband and wife for 21 days until Bunag Jr. 91 Phil. Cavite. ISSUE WON the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting the accused in reckless imprudence on the ground that the incident was accidental. Also. not Section 3 (c) thereof. defendants in Civil Case of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.The dismissal did not in any way affect the right of Zenaida Cirilo to institute a civil action arising from the offense. the CA held that this was a case of PURE ACCIDENT. Standard Vacuum Oil Company." .In the cases provided for in Articles 31. 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. 33. 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. They filed their application for marriage license with the Local Civil Registral of Bacoor. to pay damages (80Kmoral damages. an acquittal based on the a2010 page 43 Prof.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Insofar as appellant was concerned. Hence. The Trial Court ordered Bunag Jr. . should apply in the case at bar. Rule 111 of the New Rules of Court). there are different rules as to the competency of witnesses and the quantum of evidence in criminal and civil proceedings. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.On Sept.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. left and never . 672." .and Zenaida Cirilo had earlier made plans to elope and get married (same as first set of facts) . was absolved from any and all liability. -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). v CA (CIRILO) 211 SCRA 440 REGALADO. However. this recourse. 2. July 10. . 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. and his father Conrado Bunag Sr. abducted her in the vicinity of San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City and brought her to a motel where she was raped.Also.As a consequence. 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.

.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . 1971 in lznart Street. 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. if any. 47027. that his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing a separate civil action for damages. They also ..Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then City Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 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. 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. . acting on a motion to dismiss of therein defendant. 1975 an order of denial. 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. said civil case may proceed as authorized by Article 29 of the Civil Code.Private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swiped by a vehicle in the evening of July 7. and that private respondent sustained physical injuries as a consequence. .The action is based on a quasi-delict. the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. Thus. 1975. which was docketed as G. March 29. MD Transit & Taxi Co. March 21. The Court has also heretofore ruled in Elcano vs. Inc. involved virtually the same factual situation. a Volkswagen (Beetle type) car. 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. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two.On October 30. as the complaining witness therein. No. a2010 page 44 Prof. Said petition was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's resolution of July 23.000 received from Manuel Jimenez for the purchase of a fishing boat named Basnig. . FACTS . provided that the offended party is not allowed. 1968 FACTS . 1977 in favor of the herein private respondent and ordering herein petitioner to pay damages. In his answer filed therein. if he is also actually charged criminally. Branch IV. 9976. (c) of Sec. ISSUE WON the private respondent. .R. . L-40992. prohibition and mandamus. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. additionally. 1989 NATURE Appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the decision of the trial court awarding damages to the private respondent. that the latter's cause of action. to recover damages on both scores. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. favorable or unfavorable. and that in the judgment in the criminal case the aspect of civil liability was not passed upon and resolved. where the trial court acquits the accused on reasonable doubt. private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the former Court of First Instance of Iloilo. is barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No. Private respondent. 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 . 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. 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. 1974. There is no declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil case might arise did not exist. The Court.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.Under the present jurisprudential milieu. petion denied. Petitioner thereafter filed in this Court a petition for certiorari.Thereafter. et al. the trial court issued on April 3. and which civil action involved the same subject matter and act complained of in Criminal Case No. .After trial. In other words. assailing the aforesaid order of the trial court.Ofelia V. Hill that: . that the two cases were anchored on two different causes of action. the court below rendered judgment on May 23. . 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 petitioner alleged as special and affirmative detenses that the private respondent had no cause of action and. 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. JARANTILLA v CA (SING) 171 SCRA 429 REGALADO. 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 . The rules nowhere provide that if the court fails to determine the civil liability it becomes no longer enforceable. exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. expressly declared that the failure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his right to file a separate civil case is not fatal. was then driven by petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street toward the direction of the provincial capitol.. .The aforecited case of Lontoc vs. And that the failure of the court to make any pronouncement. 47207 thereof. 3 Rule 111. Petitioner was acquitted in said criminal case "on reasonable doubt". Consequently. docketed therein as Civil Case No. Dispositive Decision of CA affirmed. in arriving at the conclusion hereinbefore quoted. 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. especially considering that the accused therein was acquitted because his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. and a motion for reconsideration thereof was denied for the same reason in a resolution of October 28. refers JIMENEZ v AVERIA 22 SCRA 380 DIZON.. Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday were charged with estafa in the CFI of Cavite with the information alleging that they misappropriated P20.

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

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

On the same day. the permission or consent of the court must be secured. 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. are not determinative juris et jure of guilt or innocence in the Criminal Case.In their answer. Democrata contended that Rufino could not execute the lease contracts without her conformity without her conformity as co-owner. Reasoning . the issues raised would not constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Case. Before a re-investigation of the case may be conducted by the public prosecutor. He alleged that this resulted in his being deprived of income for two years amounting to Pesos 78. 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. . The Intestate Case involves only the co-heirs and the facts involved are totally unrelated to the Criminal Case. therefore. the plaintiff and prevailing party in Civil Case No. The Guanteros filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the Criminal Case on the ground of pendency of the Damages Case. petitioners filed . 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). A decision therein in favor of Democrata would not affect the rights of Librodo.Despite the objections made by the petitioner.While the public prosecutor has the sole direction and control in the prosecution of offenses. 1977. It involves the issue of possession between co-owners. . and the ejectment case (the Ejectment Case) which was filed by Rufino against Democrata on January 13. 5307. Even if the Intestate Court should annul the division and uphold the co-ownership. the lower court issued the order finding that a prejudicial question existed and suspending the Criminal case proceeding.In the case at bar.Petitioners are public officers charged with having violated Section 3(c) of RA 3019. Dispositive In the absence of a prejudicial question.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. once the complaint or information is filed in court. the order of the judge is set aside and he is instructed to proceed without delay with the trial of the criminal case.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales demanding damages amounting to Pesos 15. . The said complaint was filed with the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya.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. HELD NO. as amended. This was denied.The Tanodbayan ordered to dismiss the case for lack of merit and to withdraw the Information filed in Criminal Case No. And if after such reinvestigation the prosecution finds a cogent basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause the dismissal of the case. 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 Ejectment Case also does not constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Case.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. BALGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN 176 SCRA 287 GANCAYCO. hence. the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act. . which spring from the lease contract. the Intestate Case. August 10.Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to withdraw the information against petitioners. . This was likewise denied by the Sandiganbayan. During the pendency of the Criminal Case. a motion for reinvestigation in the Tanodbayan. after a preliminary investigation. . . 1989 NATURE Petition to review the decision of Sandiganbayan FACTS . determinative of their guilt in the criminal action and hence constitutive of a prejudicial question.120.. that would not be determinative of the criminal responsibility of private respondents for theft of the sugar cane.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. . 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. Hence this appeal. 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.00. in an information that was filed with the Sandiganbayan by the Special Prosecutor which was approved by the Deputy Tanodbayan. The same was granted. That said.00. 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. such proposed course of action must be addressed to the sound discretion of the court. 11414 as soon as possible in the interest of justice. With regard the Damages case. for evident bad faith and manifest partiality in enforcing the writ of execution in Civil Case No. . no necessity arises for that civil Case to be determined ahead of the Criminal Case. and the entitlement to damages being predicated on the unlawful taking treated of in the Criminal Case. . which petitioner claims he planted in good faith by virtue of the valid lease agreement. and for it to suspend the criminal action.Lim.Balgos et al were charged with violation of Section 3(c) of RA 3019. it is actually the civil aspect of the Criminal Case as the two cases are of the same facts. 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. .

500. Until the nullity of the sale is declared by the courts. . the judgment debtor.The information was filed by the Provincial Fiscal against petitioners on May 21. that is. P270.000. With the entry of a new counsel. HELD NO. 036. 1981. 1981 but this was postponed upon motion of petitioners. 7869 annuls the subject deed of sale.On October 14. who admitted that the car belonged to his father by showing the receipt of its repair in the name of Juanito Ang.500 payable on 4 installments (P225. the Edano spouses filed a complaint for estafa against petitioners. ISSUE WON proceedings should be suspended until the civil case is disposed of. that the certificate of registration of the car was issued to complainant only on June 13.The denial of the motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of the pendency of a prejudicial question in Civil Case No.000) They issued for this purpose 4 checks drawn against the Chartered Bank. CV No.The estafa case was again set for arraignment. . When the check for the second installment fell due. when in truth and fact. and that it is not tenanted.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. petitioners filed a motion to quash the estafa case. respondent Judge issued his orders.The arraignment was again postponed thrice. Arraignment . This was opposed by the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon. .Upon reinvestigation of the criminal case by the Tanodbayan. since CV No.00 was honored upon its presentment. was still binding to the parties. June 21. hence. resulting in the dismissal of CR No. 1423-I.Although at the reinvestigation. Sometime on Sept.Petitioners (Umali. their obligation to pay private respondents under the said deed would be extinguished. All these. then. 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. thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the judgment creditor to the damage and prejudice of the complainant. the same is presumptively valid. 1984 which showed that the document of sale was actually executed only on or about the same date. the son of Juanito Ang. it does not necessarily follow that the seizure of the car was rightfully undertaken.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. with a Supplemental Motion To Suspend Proceedings. 1981. civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. 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. By arrangement the petitioners made with the Edano spouses. 1981 but petitioners failed to appear. 8769 involves a prejudicial question. Ledesma) are officers of the Orosea Dev’t Corporation. now under question. 8769 involves issues. because whatsoever the issue raised in the a2010 page 48 Prof. . on ground of improper venue.00 from the Philippine Veterans Bank using this property as security. The car was registered in the name of Leticia Ang six months before the seizure.CV No. 1989 is hereby lifted.However. 1979. Thereafter. Province of Queazon for P1. denying the motion. Dispositive The petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the restraining order dated June 6. . CFI of Zambales also denied the same motion. 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. 4. a deed of absolute sale in the name of Orosea Dev’t Corp. Calleja. .000. Petitioners then filed a 'Motion to Suspend Arraignment and Further Proceedings. 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. petitioners twice asked for deferment. Thus.000. . was executed even of the full purchase price has not yet been fully paid. this did not necessarily clear petitioners of the aforesaid Anti-Graft charge against them. if and when the court hearing CV No. he found evidence tending to show that the sale of said car to the complainant by Juanito Ang. . 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. 1423-I. . As a consequence of the dishonor of these checks. The first check for P225. Therefore. it cannot be denied that at the time the acts complained of in the estafa case were committed. This was postponed. 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.000. It was reset to October 5. . and that upon the execution of the judgment. 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. They further argue that. Manila Branch. 5307 is well taken. A petition for certiorari is filed with CA and CA affirmed. the Tanodbayan was persuaded that in fact the sale of the car to Leticia Ang was fraudulent. was set on September 4. 1990 NATURE Review on certiorari FACTS . No costs. This is the basis of the motion for withdrawal of the information of the Tanodbayan. but this motion was withdrawn by petitioners before it could be resolved. UMALI v IAC (EDANO) 219 SCRA 339 PADILLA. seven days after Juanito Ang received copy of the adverse decision in Civil Case No. The contracts are thus voidable with the existence of fraud vitiating their consent. P 270. P271. was a sham intended to defraud his creditors.000. subject of the criminal case. according to petitioners. 1423-I. the car was found in the possession of Alvin. the land is covered by the land reform program and that vast portions thereof are timber land. .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales and giving unwarranted benefits to the judgment creditor in said case. the deed of sale they seek to be annulled. The checks they have issued were dishonored. and it was docketed as Criminal Case No. Umali purchased from spoused Homorio and Solina Edano a lot in Mulanay. 4047. the resolution of which will determine whether or not petitioners are criminally liable in CR No. allegedly indisposable public land. Even if in the civil action it is ultimately resolved that the sale was null and void. OROSEA secured a loan of P1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as we have seen. . 1984 FACTS . though due to the accused. 1974 with the Municipal Court of Pulilan. and thence to Talavera. set aside. On change of venue .People v." Thus.In a verified Complaint filed on October 8. In case of doubt. and to pay the costs. however. 70 of the RPC. 1974. Judge Granados declared that they had waived their right thereto and elevated the case to the CFI of Bulacan. -Judge Nelly L. he issued an order for the arrest of Bulanadi. Gorospe and Alvaran and fixed their bail at P15. Nueva Ecija (in a hut where she was detained for 9 days and sexually abused during the night. without prejudice to the public officials concerned taking the necessary measures to assure the safety of the witnesses of the prosecution. Purisima who finished the trial. 1974. to whose sala the cases had been transferred is directed forthwith to hear the petitions for bail of private respondents. thru Pulilan.Again Judge Granados conducted a preliminary investigation and on November 18. all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground. 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. Such a plea could have been done administratively. with the prosecution being duly heard on the question of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the respondents is strong. . the complainant. to some individuals. Granados of the Municipal Court of Pulilan received the complaint and conducted a preliminary investigation. be less than terrifying.000. sentenced each of the accused to suffer 2 perpetual penalties of reclusion perpetua to be served in accordance with Art. Judge Valdellon was transferred to Metro Manila and she was replaced by Judge Fidel P. No costs. . Romero Valdellon started the trial of the case on October 15. 1975. but on that day. 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. 1974: the Complaint was amended.March 19.00 each. . As a matter of fact. the cancellation of the bail bonds was also sought. however crushing may be the pressure of incriminating proof. Anastacia de Jesus (14 yrs old) accused Gerardo Fajardo. 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. and declared to be without force and effect.The crime was said to have been committed on September 30. neither Bulanadi or Gorospe appeared for which reason. and to betray the very purpose for which courts have been established. ISSUES . may." a2010 page 58 Prof. PEOPLE v FELICIANO GOROSPE and RUFINO BULANADI 129 SCRA 233 ABAD SANTOS. (People v San Diego) Reasoning . but the question must always be the effect it has on the witnesses who will testify. first stage. . is sedulous in maintaining for a defendant charged with crime whatever forms of procedure are of the essence of an opportunity to defend.1973 Constitution: The Supreme Court could order "a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.It does not suffice that the questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was granted could be characterized as searching. within a reasonable time. -After hearing part of the testimony of Anastacia de Jesus. -The second stage of the preliminary investigation was set on February 5. 1975: Provincial Fiscal Pascual C.Municipal Judge Alfredo V.Rufino Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe were again named but Gerardo Fajardo was dropped and Oscar Alvaran was named instead. Kliatchko filed with the CFI of Bulacan an Information for forcible Abduction with Rape against Gorospe and Bulanadi. 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. there would be a violation of procedural due process. 1974. In this particular case. ISSUE WON the bail bonds should be cancelled HELD YES Ratio Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial. the issue of a change of venue has become moot and academic. 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. If. as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil action. -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. Bulacan.October 25. 1974 to September 25. Alvaran remained at large. to indemnify de Jesus in the amount of P40. is due to the accuser also." It may be added that there may be cases where the fear." . The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in mind. there is justification for the procedure followed in view of the fact that along with the change of venue. there need not be a petition of this character filed before this Court.000. Dispositive The assailed order of Judge Gasataya granting bail to private respondents is nullified. with all the accessory penalty of the law. 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. -The date when the crime was said to have been committed was changed from September 30. We are to keep the balance true.Bail was granted to the accused without hearing the prosecution -Justice Cardozo: "The law.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales approved leave of absence covering the period from January 12 to March 12. But justice. But said information was later on amended. . The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. Judge Alfonso Baguio of the CFI of Negros Occidental. That fact did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character. May 15.00 for actual exemplary and moral damages. Bulacan. starting in Plaridel. This decision is immediately executory. objectively viewed. -Bulanadi and Gorospe posted the requisite bail. Rufino Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. 1975. it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue. Exec. -But Judge Purisima inhibited himself from deciding the case because J.) . the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present. the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. And strangely enough. he had only the information.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 determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor.The teachings of the cases of Soliven3. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor the Election Supervisor to ascertain.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. . he made no specific finding of probable cause. Id. He did not have the records or evidence supporting the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. . . .6 .. CASTILLO v VILLALUZ 6 7 Ledesma v. . HELD YES. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taking of the evidence. expense. at pointblank range. nothing accompanied the information upon its filing with the trial court. and Joint Resolution as bases thereof.The petition is meritorious. . A warrant for his arrest was later issued. 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. the issuance of warrants of arrest. Hence this petition. Rosalinda Dy in the presence and at the office of his father private respondent Billy Cerbo. 1999 NATURE Petition for Review FACTS . and stress of defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial. or even convincing logic. 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. on the ground that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest warrant was insufficient. . Dispositive Reversed. 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. the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any).The determination of probable cause is a function of the Judge. and there is no showing of manifest error.Corrollarily. All of these should be before the Judge.Accordingly. when respondent Judge Asuncion issued the assailed order directing. for the filing of the information. Allado. 5.7 . . 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.The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free respondent from the inconvenience. But then compliance with a constitutional requirement for the protection of individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition. the trial court should respect such determination.Secondarily. 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. . Only the Judge and the Judge alone makes this determination.Therefore.The daughter of the victim executed an affidavitcomplaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of conspiracy in the killing. . .The Court of Appeals then issued a resolution denying the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. Clearly. as in the present case. without having before him any other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause. . . It is an executive function. he merely directed the issuance of warrants of arrest. or groundless charges.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.The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. the judge should not override the public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause to hold an accused for trial. . It is the report. Lim5.. be argued that the directive presupposes a finding of probable cause. Inting4. or both. CA. 1997. frivolous. among other things. . conjecture. .Section 2. viz.An information for murder was filed against Jonathan Cerbo.Billy Cerbo filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest arguing that the same was issued without probable cause. 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. It merely assists him to make the determination of probable cause. there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscal’s bare certification. amended information. “the affidavits.In the present case. January 21.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales aforementioned order. 278 SCRA 657. is null and void. It may. the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any). . 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. 4 The supporting documents may consist of. However. which is a judicial function. Sept. HELD YES . The Judge does not have to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. if the information is valid on its face.The public prosecutor has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court. By itself. the prosecution filed an amended information including Billy Cerbo in the murder case. ignominy. . .The respondent judge issued an order dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo and recalling the warrant for his arrest. would suffice in the judicial determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. the Prosecutor’s certification of probable cause is ineffectual. the affidavits. however.Private Respondent Jonathan Cerbo shot. grave abuse of discretion and prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor. and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s certification which are material in assisting the Judge to make his determination.

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

Another version has it that a group that . was on its way to another place. But these objections cannot avail against a positive constitutional command. decided on March 17. Masiu. 1985. Bustos v. 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. The order of respondent Judge denying bail is set aside. his is the great responsibility of safeguarding the accused from groundless or vindictive prosecution. Bernabe citing that “The regular trial is. 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. the preliminary examination proper. Lanao del Sur. Sec. . identified and promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be filed. . The respondent Judge denied the motion for "lack of basis. all considerations of expediency or convenience. 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. Above all. PANGANDAMAN v CASAR 159 SCRA 599 NARVASA. must give way. anticipated.The next day.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. 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. the Rules of Court. which "has first taken cognizance of said cases. In the latest case on the subject. San Diego. The present case is much stronger. this Court relying on People v. 1985. . He. Batuampar's letter and requesting that "all cases that may be filed relative . the writ of certiorari is granted. . a lawyer (Atty. and the court's attention is correspondingly diverted from other business. it is the accused himself. asking for a “full blast preliminary investigation”. Clearly. (to the incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 27. On the same day.There was misapprehension on the part of respondent Judge of the import of the ruling in Ocampo v. nullified an order of a municipal judge named respondent in that case as he granted bail to the accused without hearing the prosecution. the explicit beneficiary of the constitutional right. According to one version. the quantity and character of the proofs on this point are. a matter mandated by the Constitution or the Rules of Court. if the Constitution requires the court to determine for itself whether or not the proof is evident or presumption great in a given case. is not to be a mere sham or pretense. 1988 FACTS . whether a crime has been committed and. Thereafter. Batuampar) of one of the widows filed a letter-complaint with the fiscal..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. \Dequito v. What in fact transpired is still unclear. this being a matter that depends on the a2010 page 70 Prof. 1985. had been ambushed .On July 27. suffices for the denial of the plea for bail. transmitting Atty. . with both attackers and defenders suffering casualties.On Aug 14." hence the present petition. must set forthwith the hearing on the application for bail of petitioner. however. If the justice of the peace is to ascertain. where the first phase of the investigation was expressly denominated "preliminary examination" to distinguish it from the second phase.This was equally true under the former rules. 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. Arellano. as he must. the avoidance of groundless or vindictive prosecutions." be forwarded to his office. and this opinion. 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. whether there is probable cause that the accused committed it. a criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed.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. April 14. Immediately the Provincial Fiscal addressed a "1st indorsement" to the respondent Judge.Sec 3 of rule 112 consists of 2 phases: . to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. It must not be an exercise in futility. Occasionally much time is thus consumed. . which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded. Masiu. an ex-parte motion was filed by Atty. The accused is not to be denied his day in court. 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. they should likewise exercise their discretion in such a way that the purpose of a preliminary investigation. also in Masiu. 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.'" This is so because the procedure to be followed in the hearing on an application for bail. if so. or whoever is now the Municipal Judge of Santa Cruz. could be attained in as fair and objective manner as possible. 1985. or preliminary investigation proper . 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. Ramilo. 1981. . No costs. for the special purpose in hand. armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao. Marinduque. Lalabuan. Dispositive WHEREFORE. a shooting incident occurred in Pantao. necessarily considered. while summary in character. however potent they might be at the common law.On August 10. 6 of Rule 112 clearly authorizes the MTC to issue a warrant even before opening the second phase. While the guilt or innocence of the accused is not to be determined. People v.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. Counsel could recall the witnesses. respondent Judge examined personally the 3 witnesses. Sola. his authority cannot be confined as in a straight jacket to the stiffness of medieval and outmoded technicalities of practice.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales YES. to a limited extent at least.

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

Movants be given ample opportunity to file their motion for preliminary investigation as a matter of right. Respondent Acting Fiscal Antonio C. 1967 . TSg (Legaspi) filed an amended complaint with the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate accusing. 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.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.. 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. Dispositive Petition is granted.whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and. The preliminary investigation proper . Alfane was designated to review the case. . 1990 without having before him any other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause. he or she may have no more time for his or her more important judicial functions. the designated investigator.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . Following established doctrine and procedures.Lims then prayed for the following: 1. HELD NO Ratio A Judge is not precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible officers. The respondent court issued an order denying for lack of merit. he or she has not personally determined probable cause. 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. Fernandez. June 19. he issues a warrant of arrest. Court granted the petition. Mayor Nestor C.In another manifestation. The Judge commits a grave abuse of discretion.For the purpose of preliminary investigation.August 29. houses. 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. 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. 1989. issue a warrant of arrest. 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. Vicente Lim. (Constitution) The right of the people to be secure in their persons. a2010 page 72 Prof. 2. . 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 problem lies with warrants of arrest especially in metropolitan or highly urban areas. therefore. .What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. . Tantiado. . 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. with serious physical injuries). The extent of the reliance depends on the circumstances of each case and is subject to the Judge's sound discretion. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Fernandez. Florencio T. four (4) separate informations of murder against the twelve (12) accused with a recommendation of no bail. rigors and embarrassment of trial . . . Sr. Jr. 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. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. among others. whether or not he should be subjected to the expense. 2. 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 . 1989: records of the case were transmitted to Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate. In doing so. .is the function of the Prosecutor. . . Harry O. Reasoning . On September 22.Art. The determination is made by the Provincial Prosecutor.Sound policy dictates this procedure.July 31. Nonilon A. 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. Fiscal Alfane filed with the Regional Trial Court of Masbate. STONEHILL v DIOKNO 20 SCRA 383 CONCEPCION. the 1973 and the present [1987] Constitutions securing the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. 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. Sec. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The constitutional requirement has not been satisfied.Respondents Lims filed a verified petition for a change of venue. The case was raffled to Judge Nemesio Felix. However.The determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge. . or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause.Respondent Judge committed a grave error when he relied solely on the Prosecutor's certification and issued the questioned Order dated July 5.. thereby placing it beyond the competence of mere Court Rule or Statute to revoke. Mayor Susana Lim of Masbate. Jolly T. III. the Judge abuses that discretion when having no evidence before him. on the basis thereof.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. Bagalihog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

there is no showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Moreover. Since the extra-judicial confession. in fact. Zamboanga City.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales and liberty of a citizen as to his person. the firearm. Accused Burgos is ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt. 2. But We have also said that this rule is not absolute for otherwise there would be no reversals of convictions upon appeal. 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. To constitute a waiver. Reasoning Although it is true that the trial court found Masamlok’s testimony credible and convincing. Likewise. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. . nine rifle grenades. He was.The SolGen believes that the arrest may still be considered lawful under Sec. There was no compulsion for him to state truthfully his charges under pain of criminal prosecution. There is no such personal knowledge in this case. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful. actuations and deportment of the witnesses during the trial. 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 fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies. he would also be charged with subversion. or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact.6 (a) of Rule 113. secondly. In this case. one M14 rifle. 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 fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made. and several rounds of ammunition found in the premises. is committing. the officer arresting a person who has just committed. actual or constructive. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest. 1984. and the alleged subversive documents are inadmissible in evidence. Considering that Masamlok ALIH v CASTRO 151 SCRA 279 CRUZ. The arrest of the accused while he was plowing his field is illegal. it must appear first that the right exists. they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime. The location of the firearm was given by Burgos’ wife. . The arrest being unlawful. resulting in a number of casualties. June 23. 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. Otherwise. Burgos was not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document. . that the person involved had knowledge. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition.16 male occupants were arrested. and executing them outright (although the last part is not included in the modern refinement). it came in its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. Neither was he committing any act which could be described as subversive. . Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers.On November 25. ammunition and other explosives. At the time of arrest. NO. the need to go through the process of securing a search warrant and a warrant of arrest becomes even more clear. certainly his fate depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the authorities. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. or that consent was given by the accused to be searched simply because he failed to object. .The military operation was commonly known and dreaded as a "zona. Consequently. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. In this case. it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. the search and seizure which transpired afterwards could not likewise be deemed legal as being mere incidents to a valid arrest. later to be fingerprinted. the SC is not necessarily bound by the credibility which the trial court attaches to a particular witness. it is unlawful and therefore. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. 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. which is inadequate to convict Burgos beyond reasonable doubt. arresting the persons fingered by a hooded informer. generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. the prosecution never presented any other witness. of the existence of such a right. . surrendered to the military.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. papers and effects. paraffin-tested and photographed over their objection. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted. More important. Alvarez street." which was like the feared practice of the kempeitai during the Japanese Occupation of rounding up the people in a locality. 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. Neither can it be presumed that there was a waiver. Reasoning Under Sec. that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. in search of loose firearms.6(b). plowing his field at the time. In the instant case. Masamlok may be considered as an interested witness. In arrests without a warrant under Sec. The soldiers returned fire and a bloody shoot-out ensued. 1987 NATURE Petition for prohibition and mandamus preliminary injunction and restraining order with FACTS . Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime.The initial reaction of the people inside the compound was to resist the invasion with a burst of gunfire. We find no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report. and lastly. 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. Dispositive Judgment of conviction is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. however.6(b) using the test of reasonableness. the only remaining proof to sustain the charge is the testimony of Masamlok. 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. Masamlok’s testimony was totally uncorroborated. if indeed a2010 page 81 Prof. The military also inventoried and confiscated nine M16 rifles.

a majority of one. or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. sought to justify their act on the ground that they were acting under superior orders. hereby declared ILLEGAL and all the articles seized as a result thereof are inadmissible in evidence against the petitioners in any proceedings. .lacking the shield of innocence. They knew where the petitioners were.38 caliber gun a smoke (tear gas) grenade. 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. is still. the officer making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the ground therefor. -The respondents. 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. 1986 at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning.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. As mere suspects. then we might as well delete the Bill of Rights as a fussy redundancy. Dispositive WHEREFORE. countermand the Constitution. 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. were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes Street. Davao City on October 16. they would not have been any less entitled to the protection of the Constitution." they were merely suspected of the mayor's slaying and had not in fact even been investigated for it. Section 5(b). Article IV. 1990 NATURE Petition for review FACTS . what was that crime? There is no allegation in the record of such a justification. he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) . is POSADAS v CA (PEOPLE) 188 SCRA 288 GANCAYCO. searches and seizures. Section 4(2): Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (It appearing that the accused was below eighteen (18) years old at the time of the commission of the offense (Art. . Section 5. of the Rules of Court in connection with a crime about to be committed.If the arrest was made under Rule 113. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated. of the 1973 Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons. and to challenge their finger-printing. HELD YES. . . under the Bill of Rights. both members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task Force. they could have surrounded the premises in the meantime. August 2. but from arbitrary punishment. If they were worried that the weapons inside the compound would be spirited away.It follows that as the search of the petitioners' premises was violative of the Constitution. ranged against the rest of the people who would condemn him outright. 770196 two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a . assuming it could. the guilty need the armor of the Constitution. papers.Zamboanga City at the time in question certainly did not excuse the non-observance of the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable a2010 page 82 Prof. . to prevent these from being used as evidence against them. . .Pat. Their purpose was to recover the articles seized from them. the repressions committed therein against the petitioners. par. This is confirmed by the said report and in fact admitted by the respondents. which covers both the innocent and the guilty. They had every opportunity to get a search warrant before making the raid.The record does not disclose that the petitioners were wanted criminals or fugitives from justice. In the course of the same.22 caliber gun. The fact that the petitioners were suspected of the Climaco killing did not excuse the constitutional short-cuts the respondents took. . after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. and two (2) live ammunitions for a . Didoy the officer then on duty. . 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. the search of the petitioners' premises on November 25. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance.Conceding that the search was truly warrantless. 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. It is no exaggeration that the basest criminal. to protect them. Parenthetically. being committed. the petitioners came to this Court. photographing and paraffin-testing as violative of their right against self-incrimination. or just committed. might not the search and seizure be nonetheless considered valid because it was incidental to a legal arrest? Surely not. houses. "but with avoidance. At the time of the "zona. 2). 1984. ISSUE WON the search of petitioners’ premises was illegal. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge. .The respondents cannot even plead the urgency of the raid because it was in fact not urgent. they were presumed innocent and not guilty as summarily pronounced by the military. There was no state of hostilities in the area to justify. and the persons or things to be seized. not from a deserved sentence.He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. Section 3. Every person is entitled to due process.On December 21.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . 68. and particularly describing the place to be searched. as a preventive measure. 1984. it may be observed that under the Revised Rule 113. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. 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. Reasoning Article IV. Ratio Even if were assumed for the sake of argument that they were guilty. 1987 finding petitioner guilty of the offense. However. of course. Umbra Umpar.38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. They brought the petitioner to the police station for further investigation.Superior orders" cannot. These articles are "fruits of the poisonous tree. while admitting the absence of the required such warrant. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber . all the firearms and ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in any of the proceedings against the petitioners.

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

A contrary interpretation on whatever pretext should not be countenanced. once detected. 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. certain specified writs issued by a regional trial court are now enforceable only within its judicial region. Quashal of Search Warrant and Exclusion of evidence Illegally Obtained'. as it undeniably is. the respondent Quezon City Judge issued the challenged order. not only property and privacy. witnesses to and their examination in said places. unless there are really compelling reasons for the authorities to do so. HELD YES . the validity of which warrant was upheld. a further well-founded precaution. in the absence of statutory restrictions. it does seem odd that such constitutional protests have not been made against warrants of arrest which are enforceable indefinitely and anywhere although they involve. Furthermore. to detect or elicit information regarding the existence and location of illegally possessed or prohibited articles. Also. . and all these have to be observed regardless of whatever court in whichever region is importuned for or actually issues a search warrant. and so pervasive as to render foolhardy any attempt to obtain a search warrant in the very locale under their sphere of control. When the latter court issues the search warrant. within the contemplation of paragraphs 3(b) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines. 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. .PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS The Court cannot be blind to the fact that it is extremely difficult.A bit of legal history on his contestation will be helpful. 1990. not only because of the distance but also the contingencies of travel and the danger involved. more onerous if not impossible by imposing further niceties of procedure or substantive rules of jurisdiction through decisional dicta. 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. existent or known shall be raised in the original or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant. It need merely be recalled that a search warrant is only a process. together with the ten-day lifetime of the warrant would discourage resort to a court in another judicial region." .On the other hand. For that matter. TO PUT DOUBTS TO REST. obviously born of experience and verifiable data. All grounds and objections then available. 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. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act. by filing an application for the warrant with a "friendly" court. 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. 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). writs and processes of the then courts of first instance were enforceable throughout the Philippines.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. 2. Nor should we overlook the fact that to do so will necessitate the transportation of applicant's . formerly.No law or rule imposes such a limitation on search warrants. political or financial in nature. . 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. 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. . On the other hand. otherwise they shall be deemed waived. THE SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING POLICY GUIDELINES.The foregoing situations may also have obtained and were taken into account in the foreign judicial pronouncement that. 3. 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. 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. danger and expense. and a 'Supplemental Motion to the Motion for Consolidation. not an action. . where the place to be searched is located. without prejudice to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. 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. in effect affirming that of the trial court. 1. 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. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by the issuing court. with the attendant risk. but persons and liberty. under the Interim or a2010 page 84 Prof. we are unaware of any instance wherein a search warrant was struck down on objections based on territorial jurisdiction. 1990 in connection therewith. a motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall be resolved by said court. .NONETHELESS. .Respondent Court of Appeals rendered judgment. In the present state of our law on the matter. is articulated by the court a quo. Besides. opining that the same falls under the category of Writs and Processes. by denying due course to the petition for certiorari and lifting the temporary restraining order it had issued on November 29. The Court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case.On September 21. This judgment of respondent court is now impugned in and sought to be reversed through the present recourse before us. within the region. consolidating subject cases but denying the prayer for the quashal of the search warrant under attack.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales before the Quezon City court. the enforcement of such writs and processes no longer needs the approval of the regional trial court. Nor are we swayed by the professed apprehension that the law enforcement authorities may resort to what could be a permutation of forum shopping. Said requirements. while.

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

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

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

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

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

a2010

page 89

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

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

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

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

a2010

page 90

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

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

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

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

a2010

page 91

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

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

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

and (3) In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above Incident. trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. It noted "that petitioner has posted the cash bonds." . February 1.000. LAVIDES v CA (PISON and PEOPLE) 324 SCRA 321 MENDOZA. 7610." . and to suspend arraignment. III. The Lower court cannot exercise judicial discretion as to what pieces of evidence should be included in the summary. .In the case of an application for bail. to quash the informations. Mary Ann Tardesilla. d) Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment to enable this Court to immediately acquire jurisdiction over the accused. which were submitted at the inquest. .Petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause.With respect to the denial of petitioner’s motion to quash the informations against him. Jennifer Catarman. . an information for violation of Art. The court should issue a warrant of arrest of Odiamar if his bail bond has been approved. CA held that petitioner could not question the same in a petition SEPARATE OPINION VITUG [dissenting] . he asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment scheduled.000. He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases.A. . had been contacted by petitioner for an assignation that night at petitioner’s room at the Metropolitan Hotel.Nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner by the same complainant. c) The hold-departure Order of this Court dated April 10. assailing the trial court’s orders. given money [by petitioner] as payment for the said [acts of] sexual intercourse. it was alleged that. 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. his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited. . which were all consolidated." . An entrapment operation was therefore set in motion.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.Trial court granted the right to post bail in the amount of P80. . .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. represented by lawyers. b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so. This was not the first time the police received reports of petitioner’s activities. The police saw him with Lorelie. the same will be considered defective in form and substance which cannot be sustained or be given a semblance of validity. Pending resolution of his motion. two more informations were filed against petitioner. 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. a2010 page 92 Prof. The pretrial conference was set.CA invalidated the first two conditions imposed in the May 16. Otherwise.00 for each case or a total of P800. 7610 was filed.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.Parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police that their daughter. petitioner had sexual intercourse with complainants who had been "exploited in prostitution and . and that he has already been released from detention. (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest. he pleaded not guilty to each offense. He then filed a motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to P40. Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged. the court’s order granting or denying bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. Lorelie San Miguel. .Petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations against him. . warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia. 2. subject to the conditions and the "hold-departure" order. §5(b) of R.000.00. §14(2) of the Constitution which provides that "[a]fter arraignment. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation.CA: a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these cases. whereupon they arrested him. If the guilt of the accused is not strong. and .Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in CA. 1997 stands. 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. Based on the sworn statement of complainant and the affidavits of the arresting officers.000.While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals. . discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond. who was wearing only a shirt and an underwear. THE SUMMARY SHOULD NECESSARILY BE A COMPLETE COMPILATION OR RESTATEMENT OF ALL THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING PROPER. Otherwise the petition should be denied.Trial court denied petitioner’s motions to reduce bail bonds. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution 4. that when arraigned. . the duties of the judge are as follows: 1.Based on the duties. . his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited. HENCE. and Annalyn Talingting. A summary is defined as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or digest of a test or statement. He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases.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." CA thought that the aforesaid conditions in the May 16.00 for each case and that the same be done prior to his arraignment. . Dispositive Grant of bail is declared void. on various dates mentioned in the informations. 1997 order were contrary to Art. III. Nonetheless. In all the cases. His arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the police. b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so. then 16 years old. petitioner filed separate applications for bail in the nine cases.Lavides was arrested for child abuse under R. and by three other minor children. bringing the total number of cases against him to 12.] .A. 2000 FACTS . warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia.No bail was recommended.

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

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

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

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

Fesalbon. accusedappellant pleaded guilty to the crime charged in all the informations. for each homicide committed by him. YES .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. 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. 2. methods. . 2000 NATURE Automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro FACTS -On April 28. but merely agents of a person in authority. they went to the police authorities of Naujan and filed a complaint against accused-appellant -After preliminary examination. .Pat. . Gelera was already dead when the other witness saw him. where the penalty may be death. 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 . Plea of guilty to capital offense. -On August 27. mere presumptions or deductions from hypothetical facts not being sufficient to consider them justified." a2010 page 97 Prof. as maximum. was not present. Pat. but that the said deceased disregarded the warning. including the aggravating circumstances listed therein. after the prosecution had presented Dr. 1997. 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. 1997. February 2. accused-appellant. they should be disallowed in the judgment. Oleby and Maricris. (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. assisted by Atty. Gelera. 1996. a considerable distance from the village or town. the crimes may only be punished as Homicide. NO. four informations charging accused-appellant with rape on various dates were filed in the Regional TrialCourt. Thereupon. Reasoning The norm that should be followed where a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant. 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. 1996. -On August 12. on August 5. Lita Macalalad.Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: Sec. or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. Manolo A. the prosecution formally offered its documentary evidence and rested its case thereafter. herein accusedappellant. 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. Garcia of the Bulalacao police force merely declared that he was in his house. (c) In order that commission of a crime in an uninhabited place may be considered. . Reasoning The circumstances qualifying or aggravating the act of killing a human being must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner. In the instant case. WON the conviction must be set aside HELD 1. the Court requires that in every case under a plea of guilty. to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal. 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. Gelera and PC Constable Canela to Murder. For this reason. ISSUES 1.00 in each case. "there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person. NO. it is necessary that the place of occurrence be where there are no houses at all. Reasoning (a) Evident premeditation must be ruled out in view of the absence of sufficient proof that a plan to kill the victims existed. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victims is hereby increased to P30. and to indemnify the heirs of the victims. 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. told their mother that they had been raped by their father. Calapan. employing means. 3. as stated by the trial judge. which would qualify the killing of Pat. pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against him. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office. -Nadera appealed ISSUES 1. MENDOZA. assisted by a neighbor. as minimum. -The record shows that at his arraignment on July 23.According to the RPC. yet where there has been a hearing and such circumstances are disproven by the evidence. Oriental Mindoro. WON there were aggravating circumstances present HELD 1. (d) Abuse of superior strength must also be ruled out since there is no direct evidence that the accused employed it. WON the killing was qualified by treachery 3. 1997. the execution of which was preceded by deliberate thought and reflection. NO. and he did not see the accused shoot Pat. or where the houses are a great distance apart. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Cynthia S. PEOPLE v NADERA 324 SCRA 490 . -Accused-appellant did not present any evidence in his defense. especially in cases where the capital penalty may be imposed.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales to suffer the death penalty in each case. 1996. 3. -However. on June 6. Ratio It may be true that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the information.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.Since treachery. the trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of four counts of rape against his daughters. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. about 15 meters away from the municipal building when the accused Rudy Tiongson and his companions escaped from prison.000. reception of evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 . respondent Lacson challenged the constitutionality of the amendment and contended that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the criminal cases. Atty. . In their stead. This Court. Lacson and twenty-five (25) other accused. or in discharge of.On June 6. while dismissing the constitutional challenge. their constitutional right against double jeopardy. A. . 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. the criminal cases were remanded to the Ombudsman for reinvestigation. . . The criminal cases were assigned to Judge Ma. 1995. Yadao. 2001. . 2001. A.Ombudsman Desierto referred the resolution for review. including respondent Lacson and his twenty-five (25) other co-accused in the original informations.On March 29. Godwin Valdez testified that he assisted them in preparing their affidavits of desistance and that he signed said affidavits as witness. 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. 7975. citing Section 2 of R. No. among others. . to dismiss the cases outright. Branch 81 .Due to these developments. filed a Manifestation and Motion dated June 13. 8249. A. 2001. prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes. to attend the investigation of said Criminal Cases .With the downgrading of charges against him.On the other hand. respondent Lacson also filed with the RTC-QC Branch 81 (presided by Judge Ma. Rule 117 bars the filing of the eleven (11) informations against the respondent Lacson committed in relation to. Corazon de la Cruz. Aurora Bautista of the Philippine Lawyer’s League presented the affidavits of recantation of prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes. Applying Section 8. . primarily to enjoin the State prosecutors from conducting the 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. .Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales investigation of the murder charges. Respondent Lacson. is a government official of Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher. Secretary of Justice Hernando B. 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Jamolin. Atty. and the People of the Philippines. On October 20.. as required by R. the amendatory law deleted the word “principal” in Section 2 of R. against respondent Panfilo M.The Criminal Cases were raffled off to Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.On March 27. No. the private offended parties who desisted do not appear to have been presented on the witness stand. It characterized the termination of Criminal Cases Nos. respondent Lacson.The new Informations charged as principals thirtyfour (34) people. R. On the strength of this indorsement. A. the twenty-six (26) accused. PNP Director Leandro R. the Court of Appeals rendered the now assailed Decision. on June 8.In the meantime. All twenty-six (26) of them were charged as principals. 7975.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. State Prosecutors Ong and Zacarias. it dismissed the criminal cases against the respondent ISSUE WON Section 8. Theresa L. the Sandiganbayan ordered the cases transferred to the Regional Trial Court . private complainants also executed their respective affidavits of desistance declaring that they were no longer interested to prosecute these cases.The records of the case before us are not clear whether the private offended parties were notified of the hearing on March 22. et al.On the same day. 01-101102 to 01-101112. .The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration of the transfer. the respondent was subpoenaed . however. Yu and P/S Insp. In particular.Upon motion of the respondent.On April 17. Ysmael S.Before the accused could be arraigned. Theresa Yadao). . . No. On the other hand.” and considered Criminal Cases Nos. now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. the official functions of the respondent. including respondent Lacson. Only prosecution witness Corazon de la Cruz testified to affirm her affidavit. On November 20. Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. On March 1.The plea for temporary restraining order was denied . 1999 held by Judge Agnir to resolve the motions filed by respondent Lacson and the other accused. Wenceslao Agnir. Quezon City. . the Secretary of Justice. amending R. 1996.During the said hearing. Mendoza indorsed to the Department of Justice the new affidavits of P/Insp. Abelardo Ramos regarding the Kuratong Baleleng incident for preliminary investigation. 2001 seeking the suspension of the proceedings before the trial court. 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. 1997. accomplice or accessory. respondent Lacson filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari against Judge Pasamba. . . 7975 then prevailing. 23047 to 23057. the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan eleven (11) Informations for MURDER. Jr. a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and in the absence thereof.In Lacson v. the panel issued a resolution recommending the dismissal of the charges for lack of probable cause. 1999. Armando Capili and Jane Gomez recanted their affidavits which implicated respondent Lacson in the murder of the KBG members. Q-99-81679 to Q99-81689 as “provisional dismissal. whether principal. 1995. 2001.On November 2. invoking. 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.On August 24. . then presided by Judge. filed a petition for prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. 8249 took effect on February 23. filed five separate but identical motions to: (1) make a judicial determination of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest (2) hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants (3) dismiss the cases should the trial court find lack of probable cause. Accordingly.On May 28. the PNP Chief. thereby expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to include all cases where at least one of the accused. No. Armando Capili and Jane Gomez. A. Perez formed a panel to investigate the matter. Judge Agnir issued a Resolution dismissing the Criminal Cases . Pending resolution of the motion. Executive Secretary. docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 2001. 2001. 01-101102 to 01-101112 as mere revivals of the same. The said petition was amended to implead as additional party-respondents State Prosecutor Claro Arellano and the RTC. . 1995. Arraignment then followed and respondent entered a plea of not guilty. No. .

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

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

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

unless there be evidence to the contrary. accused cannot be deemed established beyond reasonable doubt. for further reception of evidence. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. YES. which became effective on January 1." (Rule 118) The Rule is mandatory. duly opposed by the prosecution. applicable to this case since the pre-trial was held on August 8. under the circumstances obtaining in this case. RAMON pleaded not guilty in each case. 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. And more importantly. Salvador). therefore. 2000 FACTS . by an appeal from the judgment. as required by Rule 118. 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. The MTQ the information for libel on the ground of qualified privilege. by consecrated rule. -Consequently. judgment is rendered adversely to the movant in the MTQ. Under the rule of statutory construction. instead of relying solely on the supposed admission of the accused in the Stipulation of Facts. operating to impose a duty which may be enforced (Bersabal vs. . 1985. after the denial of his MTQ. after trial on the merits. When a judgment has been entered by consent of an attorney without special authority. like an order denying a motion to acquit. Yatco. the ends of justice require that evidence be presented to determine the culpability of the accused. Republic). What the prosecution should have done. -Only the prosecution presented its evidence. the presumption of FULE v CA 162 SCRA 446 MELENCIO-HERRERA . WON there was a legitimate buy bust 2. the parties agreed on a joint trial and to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. moreover in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant. as mandatorily required by the Rules. . The fact that the lawyer of the accused. 4. -On appeal. nor by his counsel HELD YES. and upon such appeal." and possession of 401 grams of the same drug. The CA committed a mistake. 3 informations was filed against him for the illegal sale of 5. Bravo. in the ordinary course of law. the accused. that the omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel. not appealable. should have proceeded with the trial of the case in the court below. a2010 page 113 Prof. 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. 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. They also agreed on the marking of the exhibits for the prosecution. he could then appeal.[d] Whether or not the alleged libelous statements in the reply-affidavit are covered within the mantle of absolutely privileged communications. The use of the term "shall" further emphasizes its mandatory character and means that it is imperative. is properly denied. and thus. 1 ISSUE WON CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC convicting the petitioner of the offense charged. The Trial Court convicted petitioner-appellant. . which means that trial must proceed.8564 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu. Dispositive WHEREFORE. Terrado). and if final judgment is rendered against him. -The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. if that defense should fail. Without said evidence independent of the admission. SO ORDERED. Neither can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. is interlocutory and not a final order. March 7.Ramon Uy was caught by the PNP in a buy bust operation. in his memorandum. 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. they could still raise the same on appeal.The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s story of a legitimate buy bust and convicted him of 2 of the 3 charges against him. 1985.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales immediately plead. 1985.During the trial. upon discovering that the accused did not sign the Stipulation of Facts.When arraigned.As has been repeatedly held. and. Uy claimed that he was merely framed. -The conclusion is inevitable. to be strictly applied against the government and liberally in favor of the accused (People vs. Natividad). respondent Appellate Court upheld the Stipulation of Facts and affirmed the judgment of conviction. 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. 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. [b] An order denying a MTQ. negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory (McGee vs. Wolfe and reiterated in Mill vs. June 22. it will sometimes be set aside or reopened (Natividad vs. the guilt of the PEOPLE v UY 327 SCRA 335 DAVIDE. penal statutes whether substantive and remedial or procedural are. CA decision is AFFIRMED. [c] In Collins vs. 1988 NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the CA FACTS -Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the RTC of Lucena City that convicted Fule of Violation of BP 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law) on the basis of the Stipulation of Facts entered into between the prosecution and the defense during the pre-trial conference in the Trial Court. after trial. present the questions which he sought to be decided by the appellate court in a petition for certiorari. . provides: "SEC. ISSUE 1. the Stipulation of Facts. Petitioner-appellant waived the right to present evidence and submitted a Memorandum confirming . is a defense which petitioners could raise upon the trial on the merits. Such order of denial may only be reviewed. WON Uy agreed to waive the testimony of the Forensic Chemist during the pre-trial HELD 1. was to submit evidence to establish the elements of the crime. renders the Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in evidence. which was not signed by the petitioner. If. During the pre-trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the question was so framed that it could have been construed by the accused as a suggestion from the court that he plead guilt if he had no attorney.the court has four important duties to comply with: 1 — It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before being arraigned. without absolute any evidence to determine and clarify the true facts of the case. 2 — After giving him such information the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an attorney. and imposing upon him such a heavy penalty as ten years and one day of prision mayor to twenty years. and. .It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney. The 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 . that – If the defendant appears without attorney. and that a certain Numeriano Ocampo told Holgado to plead guilty." In the formation filed by the provincial fiscal it is said that he "accuses Frisco Holgado of the crime of slight illegal detention. Not one of these duties had been complied with by the trial court. February 11. the trial judge must have deduced the capital offense from the facts pleaded in the information. and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. The trial court failed to inquire whether or not the accused was to employ an attorney." 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. the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court must grant him a reasonable time therefor. . And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. the informant asked to buy marijuana from Nicandro. .Pursuant to information regarding the illegal sale of prohibited drugs by Nicandro.During the trial. Nicandro orally admitted having sold the marijuana.It must be noticed that in the caption of the case as it appears in the judgment above quoted. for the trial court to render such a serious judgment finding the accused guilty of a capital offense. particularly in the rules of procedure.” With marked money. So ordered. he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned. And this is a denial of fair hearing in violation of the due process clause contained in our Constitution. the record does not show whether the supposed instructions was real PEOPLE v NICANDRO 141 SCRA 295 PLANA. he plead guilty as he was without a lawyer.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".IN THE CASE. It is invalid. particularly the qualified plea given by the accused who was unaided by counsel. to say the least. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney. that the accused who was unaided by counsel pleaded guilty but with the following qualification: "but I was instructed by one Mr. . . 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. Rule 112. he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of Patrolman Joves. and 4 — If a2010 page 126 Prof. section 3. Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law. but refused to reduce her confession to writing. But above all. what is worse. without counsel. The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel. upon being investigated and after having been duly apprised of her constitutional rights. 1986 NATURE Appeal from judgment of CFI Manila FACTS . and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty.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. the WPD conducted surveillance and organized an “entrapment with the confidential informant acting as the buyer of marijuana. 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. Ocampo. as well as marijuana flowering top.in the instant case. but. the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. The marked bills were recovered from her pockets.rules of Court. one of the officers who conducted the entrapment. Since the accused-appellant pleaded guilty and no evidence appears to have been presented by either party. 3 — If he desires and is unable to employ attorney.Under the circumstances. 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.Allegedly. 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. to grant him reasonable time to procure or assign an attorney de oficio.. 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. ISSUE WON the conviction of the lower court is valid HELD NO. Apparently the court became satisfied with the fiscal's information that he had investigated Mr. . the police nabbed Nicandro. 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 upon delivery of 4 sticks of marijuana cigarettes. . it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales . we immediately nabbed said suspect and . 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. and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. ." The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of this qualification. . it was not prudent. Ocampo and found that the same had nothing to do with this case. the court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. The lower court ignored the right of the accused to meet the witness face to face. to which the appellant agreed. the same has been obtained in violation of his right as a person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense and is therefore inadmissible.Apellant’s signature appearing on the sack and individual bundles containing marijuana do not signify. . . 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. a special agent of the US Air Force was introduced to Doming Bagano by an informer. FACTS . Clayton Emateo. with costs against the petitioner. February 5. such a case is from the interpretation thereof which is given by another person. by itself indicate ownership nor even illegal possession absent any other evidence.Prosecution claims that according to Emateo. Rule 131) arises. Bagano pleaded not guilty.The prosecution should have presented Emateo himself to testify on what actually transpired. spoken in a language not understood by him. the NBI team came out and made the arrests. more or less.From Bolstick’s testimonies as principal witness for the prosecution. It stated that the accused “willfully. but also deprived the appellant of his right to cross-examine him. returning 15mins later carrying a nylon sack. . On the way back to the hotel in Baguio. After agreeing for the price of P800/kg. . After being introduced to Bostick. In the instant case. a2010 page 132 Prof. the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced (Sec 5(e). the trial court could not and did not consider Ulat's testimony in determining the petitioner's part in the offenses. . 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. Bostick.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. it appearing that appellant was not informed of his right to counsel at the time he affixed his signature. Furthermore. or is essential to the proper disposition of the case. Dispositive judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED. Emateo asked Bagano to get the bag because Emateo did not want to get wet. At Irisan.Although the identity of the informer was disclosed. which the latter borrowed him. Emateo told him to wait for Emateo’s visitor. such witness is not qualified. In not holding as hearsay the alleged conversation between Bolstick and the appellant when Emateo. 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. guilt for they are mere procedural steps undertaken after arrest. Emateo being the interpreter. . otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act and imposing the penalty of P20K.Upon arraignment. . . the prosecution failed to so establish the guilt of herein appellant. An accused must always be deemed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Bostick . such were mere translations and/or interpretations of what Bagano supposedly said in the dialect and interpreted by Emateo. Although there is a policy of non-disclosure of an informant’s identity. In not appreciating the defense that it was Emateo who owns the Marijuana in question ISSUE WON the Bolstick testimonies were hearsay HELD YES . the NBI was signaled that the transaction took place. The NBI team blocked Bostick’s car and arrested the appellant and Emateo. As far as the Sandiganbayan was concerned. In fact. the group proceeded to Bagano’s house in Irisan Benguet where he kept the marijuana.Bostic and Emateo went to the residence of the latter in Baguio City to meet the appellant. The only exception is the testimony on what Bolstick saw. a dangerous drug. the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of evidence presented by the defense.It is a cardinal rule that in order to merit conviction. . told appellant that he will pay for the marijuana after weighing it in the hotel. All that he can know as to the testimony which is in fact given in PEOPLE v BAGANO 181 SCRA 747 BIDIN.00 per kilo”.Where a witness is offered to testify to statements of another person. Bagano left Bostick and Emateo in the car. of dried marijuana leaves. the privilege must give way. On the way back to Baguio. Emateo introduced Bagano and an unnamed friend to Bostick. Where in the disclosure of an informer’s identity is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused. appellant would only sell to a foreigner. from whom he would get the money to pay for his debt. . 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. Solicitor General’s Claims . unlawfully and feloniously attempt to sell to another ten (10) kilos.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. No subpoena has been issued by the prosecution to Emateo. much less evidence. but translated to his by an interpreter.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales was the Solicitor General's analysis. His motion to admit bail was deferred and later denied. . preferably an American. 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. 1990 NATURE Appeal on the decision of RTC convicting the accused of the violation of RA6426 as amended.After trial on the merits.Prosecution revealed not to know anything about the informant’s background.Non-presentation of an informer is a privilege that has its own inherent limitation. . it cannot be invoked in this case. they proceeded to Irisan to get the bag Emateo would five the American as gift.An information for the violation of RA6425. " As it was not done. . prosecution failed to present him as witness on the assertion that his whereabouts are unknown. Suspect’s Claim . was filed against the accused. for P800.He went to the house of Emateo to collect P4000. TC judge rendered decision sentencing Bagano with reclusion perpetua. Bare assertion of Bagano’s delivery of the bag does not.

3 of the 1987 Constitution) and the rights of a person in custodial interrogation (Sec 12 Art. unlike an ordinary witness. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. or rather. may refuse to answer only questions which could incriminate him of a crime for which he isn’t charged. Thus. the accused still possesses the right against self-incrimination. . Art. 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.The accused must be informed of these rights prior to any questioning. . The uncorroborated testimony of the prosecuting witness held insufficient to prove that the accused was guilty of taking money from a trunk. and that although he planned on paying back the money. as ignorance of PEOPLE v AYSON G. a2010 page 133 Prof. At the investigation. Defendant’s attorneys objected.The provision of the 1973 Constitution does not impose on the judge or any other presiding officer. 85215 NARVASA. criminal or administrative. 20.The first right. The Solgen. IV of the 1973 Constitution which provides: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. He also stated his willingness to settle the obligation on a staggered basis. 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. It is clear from the undisputed facts that Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation. and directed the issuance of a TRO enjoining respondents from further proceeding with the trial/hearing. however. among others: (1) not be a witness against himself (2) to testify as a witness on his own behalf.Said orders are now assailed in this petition for certiorari and prohibition. incriminatory in character. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty. The private prosecutors filed an MFR. threat. ISSUE WON it was grave abuse of discretion for respondent judge to exclude exhibits A and K HELD YES . Ramos admitted his non-disclosure of the tickets mentioned. The accused. as alleged. The right against selfincrimination is not automatically operational but must be claimed. or answer any question altogether.R. is actually put to the witness and cannot be claimed at any other time. . or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. PAL management notified him of an investigation due to his alleged involvement in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. On the day before the investigation. and thus his constitutional rights in relation thereto don’t apply.It is important now to inquire whether the rights mentioned apply to persons under preliminary investigation or already charged in court for a crime. Failure to claim it is an implied waiver of said right. particularly as regards the handwritten confession as it was taken without Ramos having counsel. after which the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. praying that respondent judge’s orders be set aside and further ordering the admittance of exhibits A and K of the prosecution. 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. July 7.2 months later. that the proceeds had been “misused” by him. spontaneously offering to US v GARCIA 11 PHIL 384 July 24.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Dispositive challenged judgment is REVERSED and appellant is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. if he chooses to testify. No force. However.At the core of the controversy is Sec. The witness thus may not disregard a subpoena or refuse to testify altogether. violence. but if he offers himself as a witness. 1908 THEFT. who was also required to comment.Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket flight clerk of PAL’s Baguio station. SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. private prosecutors presented Ramos’ (above mentioned) statement. the law excuses no one. group of rights. an information was filed against Ramos charging him with estafa against PAL. 17 Art. are a person’s rights in custodial interrogation. . and to be informed of such right.There are 2 rights dealt with in the section: the right against self-incrimination (now embodied in Sec. . and there is thus no occasion to speak of such rights under custodial interrogation. Statements not made under custodial interrogation are not protected. At the close of the case. while searching the house of the witness for another person. 1989 FACTS . I did not omit a single word. which the witness should know.-From the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines. violence. 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. It is evident that a defendant under preliminary investigation is not under custodial interrogation.” . . his neglect of refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him. threat. intimidation. is NOT to “be compelled to be a witness against himself” and applies to any person testifying in any proceeding.The second right. 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. sided with petitioner. it can only be claimed when the specific question. No. 3). that he be represented by Nieves Blanco. Note: The case is really this short only. civil. he may be cross-examined as any other witness. The Court required respondent Judge Ayson and Ramos to comment. Judgment reversed and defendant acquitted.Under the Rules of Court. the accused may refuse to take the witness stand. Respondent Judge declared exhibits A and K inadmissible as evidence as it appears he was not reminded of his constitutional . . Also. . the amount of which would be known at the next investigation which he desired to be held at Baguio CTO.It appears that respondent Judge mistakenly applied the rights set forth in Sec 20 Art. Ramos gave his superiors a handwritten note (exhibit K) expressing his willingness to settle the irregularities (in the amount of P76k). against self-incrimination. . It prescribes an option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry. he had been prevented from doing so out of shame. rights to remains silent and have counsel. including his handwritten admission as evidence. IV of the 1973 Constitution. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. and that he was willing to sign his statement (exhibit A). any affirmative obligation to advise a witness of this right. the accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness and is entitled. be sworn.

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

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

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

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

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

.All attempts to arrest him proved futile. 1996 FACTS . 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. as he pleases.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. and such declaration cannot after the lapse of nearly thirteen years be controverted by proof aliunde. has no right to be wrong. to be right.Accused Esparas was charged with violation of RA No. 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. except to dismiss it. He may waive it either expressly or by implication. and provide means for guilty parties to escape punishment. he was allowed to file a bond for his temporary release. 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.Ang Gioc has waived his right of appeal.CA remanded for new trial ISSUE WON the CA acquired jurisdiction of the appeal filed by him HELD NO . the accused escaped from jail and was tried in absentia. Br. This action of the court amounted to a judicial declaration that Ang Gioc was a fugitive from justice. SAMSON v CA [SUPRA. November 6. one of which is the right of appeal. and later issued the corresponding order of a2010 page 139 Prof. August 20. 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. After arraignment. Whether or not he escaped to China is immaterial for our present purpose. right and this is not one of those fundamental rights which cannot be waived. He may avail of it or not. This principle is implicit in our Constitution which recognizes that an accused. 6425 as amended by RA No. but failed to do so. . This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. while the majority. 1995. a matter of societal value that transcends the personal interest of a convict. read on!) . 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.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales the sentence.The accused has rights.The cases were consolidated on Dec 10. 1989 FACTS . He was duly notified to appear before the trial court for the reading of the sentence. . and when an order was issued for his arrest. When the accused flees after the case has been submitted to the court for decision. he will be deemed to have waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him. PAGE 84] PEOPLE v CITY COURT OF MANILA [SUPRA. 759 for importing into the country 20 kilograms of "shabu" in Criminal Case No. effective hedge against an erroneous judgment of a one-judge trial court. . A contrary view would encourage accused persons to trifle with the administration of justice. ***But if ma’am wants details. The importance of this societal value should not be blurred by the escape of a convict which is a problem of law enforcement. the trial court found her guilty as charged and imposed on her the death penalty.We have always reviewed the imposition of the death penalty regardless of the will of the convict. He was subsequently brought before the court and the sentence was read to him. 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. This concern cannot be diluted. On March 13. Court of Appeals acquired no jurisdiction of the appeal filed by him. the warrant could not be served on him because he could not be found. PAGE 72] GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN [SUPRA. PEOPLE v ESPARAS 260 SCRA 539 PUNO. however. This enlightened policy ought to continue as our beacon light for the taking of life ends all rights. The accused remains at large up to the present time. ISSUE WON the Court will proceed to automatically review her death sentence HELD YES . execution. 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. The fact remains that he succeeded in evading arrest for nearly thirteen years. Such was the situation with reference to the the respondent Ang Gioc. 94-5897 before the RTC of Pasay City. but this is a purely statutory.The power of this Court to review a decision imposing the death penalty cannot be waived either by the accused or by the courts. The record shows that upon his failure to appear for the reading of the sentence. the trial court declared the confiscation of the bond filed by Ang Gioc. 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. even if overwhelming. Let us not for a moment forget that an accused does not cease to have rights just because of his conviction. . . and the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila declared final and executory. No litigant can repudiate this power which is bestowed by the Constitution. The law will not allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong. against the objection of the Solicitor General. Ang Gioc petitioned the Court of Appeals to remand the cause to the court below for a new trial. (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. from which he appealed to the Court of Appeals where. in crimes that shock the conscience. not a constitutional. finally arrested after nearly thirteen years from the date fixed for the reading of the sentence. He was. Ours is not only the power but the duty to review all death penalty cases. In this situation. 114.

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

CA nullified the orders of TC and held that Godoy’s Motion to Acquit was a demurrer to evidence.The rationale is that when accused moves for dismissal on ground of insufficiency of evidence. HELD YES . 2004: the Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty in all 13 cases. . municipal mayor and disbursement officer.. .HOWEVER. The documentary exhibits are still in issue. Rule 119 of The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution filed MFR but this was denied. during the hearing. Implied consent. 1988 NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CA FACTS . . further manifesting that upon receipt of the resolution. they will ask for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence. There is no material difference between the Motion to Acquit by Godoy and a demurrer to evidence.TC denied Motion to Acquit and admitted Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits for prosecution. Albay. manifested that he would be filing a demurrer to evidence without leave of court within 10 days. 2005 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court FACTS . Before defense submitted objections to offer. in the order issued by the Sandiganbayan. Atty. Second. Rivera and Eric O. PAGE 74] GODOY v CA MELENCIO-HERRERA. a2010 page 141 Prof. .64 given to the Municipality of Guinobatan as calamity fund for the victims of the Mayon volcanic eruption. the TC lost no time in denying Motion to Acquit and Godoy was ready to present evidence but prosecution moved to disqualify him. it was stated that petitioner. As it was based on the "lack of interest" of the prosecutor and the consequent delay in the trial of the cases.The court directed Atty. through counsel. Dispositive PETITION IS GRANTED. Benjamin C. A different label doesn’t change the true nature of pleading.Rivera pleaded not guilty to all 13 cases.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. .Juan G. . as we have repeatedly held. June 9. DISMISSAL OF THE CRIMINAL CASES declared as FINAL. is not enough. . to make out a case or sustain the issue”. in this case. . whether true or not. an accused waives the right to present evidence. neither may it be lightly inferred from the presumption of regularity. ISSUE WON the Motion to Acquit is the same as a motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence HELD NO . However. Belarmino.September 29. . The practice sought to be avoided by the rule is inexistent. . respectively. this rule is inapplicable.May 17. the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is . In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer. as in this instance for more than a year. 2003: Prosecution filed its Opposition. 2001 and was accordingly dropped from the amended information.Godoy is one of 6 accused of homicide. there is no proof that Caes expressly concurred in the provisional dismissal.Section 15 Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Crim Pro is relevant. Prosecution presented its witnesses and offered documentary exhibits. The rule is explicit that in filing a Motion to Dismiss on ground of insufficiency of evidence.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time..Pursuant to Section 23.” . however. Trial proceeded until prosecution concluded presentation of evidence after which prosecution formally offered documentary exhibits. 2003: The defense was scheduled to present evidence. Accused cannot be allowed to wager on outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints.October 27. 2003: Demurrer to Evidence was filed without leave of court . A pre-trial was conducted. he does so in belief that evidence is insufficient to convict and any need for him to present evidence is negated. 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. Garcia. August 30. for “we are dealing here with the alleged waiver of a constitutional right.A demurrer to evidence is defined as “an objection by one of the parties in an action.May 3. because the prosecution has not yet rested its case. All pleaded not guilty. . petitioner’s former counsel. TC denied the disqualification and allowed Godoy to present evidence. Jr. RIVERA v PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO.No less importantly. . the accused is entitled to relief . The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. informed the court that they have not yet received the resolution on the prosecution’s Formal Offer of Exhibits.October 20.798. Any doubt on this matter must be resolved in favor of the accused.Father of victim filed Petition for Certiorari before CA. petitioner filed Motion to Acquit on ground of lack of evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON [SUPRA. First.. 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.936. Garcia died on August 25. 2004: MFR denied ISSUE WON the decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan should be set aside to allow petitioner to present evidence despite the demurrer to evidence filed .The 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.June 10. 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. 2004: Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision and further moved that he be allowed to present evidence.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. . it was final and operated as an acquittal of the accused on the merits. . of Guinobatan. to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law.

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

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

One of the issues in a criminal case being the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime. The suspension of the direct examination of the accused was at his instance and as moved by his counsel. 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. 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. In fact. REASONING: The failure of the accused to complete his testimony was of his own making. postmortem report. 1982 the discharge of the accused from the mental hospital and for his return to the provincial jail of Bulacan. Choi did not assail the RTC order of remand. Article III of the Constitution. 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. and admission by the accused) was filed against Danilo Gole Cruz with the then CFI. Coming now to the conclusion of the trial court that the accused raped and. it does not follow that the same evidence is insufficient to establish a preponderance of evidence. and the indemnification for the death of Teresita Gumapay is hereby increased from P12. Buttressing the foregoing evidence is the positive identification of the accused at the situs and during the occurrence of the crime. and (2) when respondent orally opposed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration pleading that proceedings with respect to the civil aspect of the case continue. trial as to the civil aspect of the case must perforce continue. when the former presiding judge thereafter ordered the reopening of the case sua sponte. 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. Dispositive Petition is DENIED. confirmation and reiteration of his own counsel. it was the defense itself which moved to terminate the testimony of the accused. Defense then motioned for a reopening of the case which was denied for lack of merit. ISSUE WON accused was denied of his constitutional right to be heard and to defend himself. consonant with present jurisprudence. on the occasion thereof. In addition. Where a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused. 1989 FACTS The information for rape with homicide (based on witness testimonies. October 25. We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court that the accused is not entitled to the exempting circumstance of insanity. PEOPLE v CRUZ 177 SCRA 451 REGALADO. to be exercised only on valid and justifiable reasons (which are absent in this case).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. Maaba recommended on March 22.00. This unrebutted fact notwithstanding. He thereby recognized that there is basis for a remand. SEPTEMBER 13. In other words. Absent such determination. proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally proceed. reception of further evidence after the parties have closed their evidence. Dr. such action is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. While the court may reopen a case for PEOPLE v CONCEPCION 84 PHIL 787 PARAS. it was the defense that objected to the same and insisted that the case be deemed submitted for decision. then the same evidence is likewise not insufficient to establish civil liability by mere preponderance of evidence. There is no doubt that it was the accused who killed Teresita Gumapay. DISPOSITION WHEREFORE. the evidence thereon being capped by his own written confession of the same before the investigating officers. with the modifications that the death sentence imposed by the trial court is reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 19(l). Any waiver of the a2010 page 144 Prof.000. . accused was found to be suffering from schizophrenia. 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. Verily.On the other hand. . the accused refused to take the witness stand without any plausible justification. Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide and found his defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance unavailing. The authenticity of and the fact that he and the witnesses thereto knowingly affixed their signatures on said extrajudicial confession were never questioned. 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. which fact became the basis for such testimony being stricken from the records for lack of cross-examination. Upon medical examination. Any ambiguity in the voluntariness of the waiver is frowned upon.In the instant case.As for petitioner’s attribution of waiver to respondent. hence. not the Rules of Civil Procedure which pertains to a civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to the suit. 1949 NATURE . Accused pleaded not guilty in the arraignment and trial on the merits followed wherein several witnesses were presented. he having been found fit to stand trial. Later. . courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against it. citing Section 1 of Rule 33. . police interrogation.00 to P30.000. . and was admitted to a mental hospital. the Court has painstakingly scrutinized the record. (NO. and the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction. on the initiation.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.) 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. the governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure. if the evidence so far presented is insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt. killed Teresita Gumapay. He however tried to escape. for if the evidence so far presented is not insufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to resolve. right to present evidence must be positively demonstrated. 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. amply supported by convincing circumstances laudably pointed out by the trial court. For if the court grants the demurrer.Petitioner’s citation of Section 1 of Rule 33 is incorrect.

. which directly caused his death. and presentation of defense evidence on June 20 and 27. 2004. May 4. Cabarles was then given a chance to adduce further evidence on his behalf. 11. . Finally.A day before the scheduled promulgation of judgment on April 2. and August 1. Carlos Callosa. the mother of the deceased. assault. being in conformity with the facts and the law. it was not one of the days set by the court for the prosecution. a2010 page 145 Prof. and stab with a deadly weapon (fan knife) one Antonio Callosa. entitled People of the Philippines v. 2001. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Cabarles filed the present petition questioning Judge Maceda’s order. 2003. which was not a date assigned for the prosecution but May 11. Reasoning CABARLES v MACEDA QUISUMBING. Salen. 1944. 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 .net On August 9. May 4. Rene "Nonoy" Cabarles y Adizas.On June 18.000. 2001. 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. 2001 hearing was never scheduled and May 25. . the prosecution was unable to present its evidence on the first four of the five hearing dates: April 18. for murder.Apprehension on January 9 of Gavino Moras . and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P10. 2001. 2003 hearing. Romeo T. is affirmed. July 4 and 18. ISSUES 1. February 20. did then and there willfully.Apprehension on December 7.Judge Maceda denied Cabarles’s MFR and set the case for hearing on May 8. to wit: pre-trial on November 22. filed with the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City. Notwithstanding the service upon Pedrosa. 1999. Salen requiring them to appear on May 11 and June 20. 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. FACTS . and 23. there aren’t many facts or anything) . Since trial in the lower court continued. Thereafter. The trial court scheduled the case for hearing on the following dates. 2001 because the judge was indisposed. committed as follows: That on or about the 25th day of April. Branch 275.1avvphi1. 2001 hearing was reset to May 25. According to Judge Maceda.Apprehension on December 3. without justifiable motive with intent to kill and by means of treachery and evident premeditation. (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is conducted. due to their guerrilla connections. on June 19. 2001. 11 and 18. A few days thereafter. 1944 of Basilio Severino. 18.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court finding the appellant. but service upon Dr. 2003 as additional hearing dates. the subpoena issued to Pedrosa required her to appear on April 11. Salen.Appellant was found guilt of treason on 3 counts: . . 99-0878. all in Cebu City. unlawfully and feloniously attack. in the City of Las Piñas. WON petitioner’s right to due process and speedy disposition of his case was violated HELD 1. Also. 2001 assigned to it. 2007 NATURE Petitioner seeks to annul the Order issued by respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda in Criminal Case No. Judge Maceda motu proprio issued the questioned order reopening the case. and (5) the presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty days from the issuance of the order. YES Ratio Section 24. Salen failed since the doctor was no longer assigned to the SPD Crime Laboratory. 1999. the prosecution was unable to present its evidence on the first four hearing dates. Pedrosa took the witness stand and completed her direct examination. Judge Maceda found that there was no hearing conducted on April 18. the alleged eyewitness. and Dr. FACTS (the case is really short. and insofar as the June 20. 2003 to hear the testimonies of Pedrosa and Dr. In it. Judge Maceda further observed that the May 18. Concepcion. alleging that it was issued with grave abuse of discretion. presentation of prosecution’s evidence on April 18. WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order 2. But. the May 11.Cabarles pleaded not guilty. guilty of treason. 2001. upon motion. 2000. 2001. 2003. Dispositive The appealed judgment. giving the People June 19 and July 3. on July 3. Imelda Pedrosa. . Nonetheless. The subpoena issued to Pedrosa for that hearing was duly served.Through no fault of its own. (4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice. -The prosecution had subpoenas issued to its witnesses: Flocerfina Callosa. the above-named accused. the prosecution should have been given a last chance to present the alleged eyewitness and the doctor. he observed that the prosecution may not have been given its day in court resulting in a miscarriage of justice. brother of the deceased. Judge Maceda noted that another subpoena was issued to Pedrosa and Dr. 2003. of Clemente Chica .the three individuals were apprehended by the appellant or at his instigation. . Judge Maceda deferred the promulgation of judgment and ordered the case archived pending this Court’s resolution of the case. the prosecution still failed to present a witness during the May 8. Police Senior Inspector of the Southern Police District (SPD) Crime Laboratory to testify on the contents of the death certificate of Antonio Callosa.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. again decided to extend to the prosecution another chance. the Public Attorney’s Office conducted its crossexamination of Pedrosa. 2001 was likewise not a hearing date set by the court. 2001 setting was concerned. Salen. Cabarles was charged with murder under the following information: The undersigned Prosecutor II accuses RENE "NONOY" CABARLES Y ADIZAS of the crime of Murder. He explained that because there was a mix-up in the dates specified in the subpoena and the hearing dates of when the case was actually heard. (2) the order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion.

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

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. The prosecution has gathered the evidence against the accused and is in a better position to decide the testimonial evidence needed by the State to press its prosecution to a successful conclusion. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed. (b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed. Camarines Sur. is hereby ANNULLED for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The trial court. upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case. who was a suspected member of the group. 2007 NATURE Automatic review FACTS .After three days of negotiation. he was given P500. During his stay. Moreover. and . Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies. Eleazar Caparas.Did the lower courts properly consider the testimony of dela Cruz? It is a jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating his co-accused cannot. 1994. . appellants pleaded not guilty.Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales Dispositive Judge's Decision promulgated on July 16. While there. Jun Parubrob. . While inside the car. The van. was waiting for a ride to school in a corner near his house in Matimbo. the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when. . Pedro Navarro saw Oliver eating inside the canteen and brought him home where he was reunited with his father. Upon arriving at the Petron Station at 3:00 a. January 23.m. . Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides: When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense. an investigation was conducted by the Intelligence Section of the Philippine National Police. The trial court held that dela Cruz was not privy to the kidnap plan and was merely taken in later by the group because they suspected that she already knew too much. The testimony must be substantially corroborated in its material points by unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances and must be to such an extent that its trustworthiness becomes manifest. Pedro Navarro. Rodrigo.The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision except that it acquitted Rodrigo. Oliver was then brought to a room and his blindfold removed. Bulacan. later identified as Lanie dela Cruz.00 and was told that he would be fetched by his uncle inside a canteen in the gas station. however. Upon the killing of Bert Liwanag. . Armando Rodrigo. Oliver Caparas. it is the courts that will finally determine whether the requirements have been satisfied to justify the discharge of an accused to become a witness for the government. she admitted her participation in the kidnapping of Oliver Caparas and implicated appellants. It appears that one of the suspects was a member of an NPA rebel returnee group headed by Armando Rodrigo. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness.On 31 May 2000.An Information was filed on 11 March 1997 against appellants Plata. he was blindfolded.The testimony of dela Cruz was an absolute necessity. of 18 September 1997. ISSUE WON Dela Cruz was eligible to be a state witness HELD . . as well as Pedro. were minor details and simply could be attributed to the frailty of human memory. He was later transferred to a van. Fajardo and dela Cruz. upon motion of the prosecution. Under our Rules. his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.Appellants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. traveled to Baguio. there may have been inconsistencies in the narration of dela Cruz.The kidnappers proceeded to Bonita’s Resort in Pangasinan. He stayed inside the room for one week. . It cannot be expected that her testimony would be entirely flawless. . his girlfriend. the kidnappers agreed to lower the ransom to P1. by itself and without corroboration. the father of Oliver. discharged Dela Cruz to serve as state witness.Appellants Plata and Fajardo submitted their individual appeal briefs. Oliver was made to board the same van and brought to the Petron Gas Station in Meycauayan Highway.7 million. however. when four (4) men forcibly seized and boarded him into a car. (e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. (c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points. (d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty.Four of the accused were apprehended. Boyong Catindig.As noted by the trial court. an uncle of Oliver. be regarded as proof with a moral certainty that the latter committed or participated in the commission of the crime. was invited for questioning. Helen Joven. then 13 years of age.After the kidnapping incident. a2010 page 147 Prof. namely: Plata. . . The testimony of dela Cruz was substantially corroborated by no less than the victim himself.Neither does dela Cruz appear to be the most guilty of the accused. Jr. took care of him by feeding him three times a day. they slept overnight inside the van in a parking lot. At around 1:00 a. and a John Doe. he proceeded to follow the instructions on the drop-off. . tailed by a car. . Upon alighting from the van. On 17 September 1996. The case is remanded to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Magarao-Canaman.On arraignment. . Fajardo and Rodrigo. . the court is satisfied that: (a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested.m.The power to prosecute includes the initial discretion to determine who should be utilized by the government as a state witness. . together with dela Cruz. after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge. was instructed by Eleazar Caparas to deliver the ransom money.Sectio